(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2014) Citing concerns over health risks, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and his administration announced Wednesday that it would ban hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” in New York state, thus becoming the first state with significant natural-gas resources to ban the practice. Fracking is a method of extracting natural gas from deep in the ground by injecting a mixture of water, sand, and toxic chemicals ””including biocides to control biological activity”” under high pressure into dense rock formations, such as shale, in order to crack the rock and release the gas.

The announcement to ban fracking came alongside a long-awaited health study. The study, made public during a year-end cabinet meeting convened by the governor in Albany, found “significant public health risks” associated with fracking.

The study also considers the effects of biocide use in the fracking process, such as reduced microbial diversity and enhanced tolerance from chemicals like glutaraldehyde, a strong irritant.

Hydraulic fracking operations use biocides because microbes, which are present beneath the surface of the earth, can interfere with the flow of gas in the pipelines. Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., an ecologist and author, explained the possible role of these microbes and the use of biocides to the participants of the 30th National Pesticide Forum,  and in the  Huffington Post: “Living organisms also interfere with the flow of gas through pipelines. To prevent this biofouling, gas companies send powerful biocides into the shale, killing everything that inhabits it. The use of biocides, among other factors, makes fracking a highly toxic form of energy extraction.” Theo Colburn, Ph.D., founder of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), has also called attention to the health effects of chemicals used in the drilling, fracturing, recovery and delivery of natural gas.

Biocides, as well as hundreds of others products, used in the production of natural gas are often hidden from public scrutiny, making it difficult to thoroughly examine the full extent of potential public health and environmental impacts.

Major findings from the health study include air pollution from uncontrolled methane leakage, emissions of other volatile organic chemicals, and particulate matter; water-quality impacts from underground migration of methane, which has the potential to impact private drinking water wells, as well as from surface spills and radioactive waste disposal; seismic activity; and community impacts from interference with quality-of-life and overburdened transportation and health infrastructure. Health effects include association between birth outcomes (low birth weight and some congenital defects) and residential proximity of the mother to well pads during pregnancy, as well as congenital heart and neural tube defects, skin rash, irritation, nausea or vomiting, abdominal pain, breathing difficulties or cough, nosebleeds, and more in people and farm animals near fracking sites.

Howard A. Zucker, M.D., the acting New York State health commissioner, said there was insufficient scientific evidence to affirm the safety of fracking. He said his review boiled down to a simple question: Would he want his family living in a community where fracking was taking place?

He didn’t mince words; his answer was no.

“We cannot afford to make a mistake,” he said. “The potential risks are too great. In fact, they are not even fully known.”

Preceding the state ban, dozens of communities throughout the state have passed moratoriums and bans on fracking. In June, the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that towns could use zoning ordinances to ban fracking. Local bans, on top of state-planned restrictions, put 63 percent of the Marcellus Shale off limits to drilling, according to Joseph Martens, the state environmental conservation commissioner.

“The economic benefits are clearly far lower than originally forecast,” he said.

New York is not the first state to ban fracking. Vermont banned the practice in 2012, but the move was more symbolic in nature since the state does not actually possess a commercially viable source of natural gas. On a more local level, communities have taken the initiative across the country, banning fracking in cities throughout California, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Source: New York Times

Photo Source: nyagainstfracking.org

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 18, 2014) Beyond Pesticides joined Center for Food Safety (CFS) in filing a lawsuit late Tuesday against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the agency’s failure to regulate novel nanomaterial pesticides. In 2008 more than 13 organizations  filed a legal petition demanding the agency take action on this nanomaterial issues. Tuesday’s lawsuit challenges the agency for its failure to answer their petition while the proliferation of nanomaterials in consumer products continues unabated.

“It is unfortunate that it takes a lawsuit to get EPA to carry out its responsibility to regulate nano-silver for its toxic pesticidal properties and broad exposure patterns through consumer and personal care products,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Like any toxic pesticide, nano-silver must be subject to the full force of the law and label restrictions intended to protect people’s health and the environment,” Mr. Feldman said.

Nanotechnology is a platform technology for manipulating materials at the atomic and molecular level; manufactured nanomaterials are so small that they cannot be seen with an ordinary microscope. For comparison, a strand of human hair is 50,000 to 80,000 nanometers wide. Yet “nano” means more than just tiny; it means materials that have the capacity to act in fundamentally novel ways, ways that cannot be predicted from the same materials at larger scale. Their exponentially small size gives them extraordinary mobility for a manufactured material, as well as unique chemical and biological properties. Nanomaterials’ properties increase potential for biological interaction and increase potential for toxicity, which can result in DNA mutation, structural damage within the cell, and even cell death. Once in the blood stream, they can move freely through organs and tissues, including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow, and nervous system.

“Six years ago we provided EPA a legal and scientific blue print to address to regulate these novel materials under its pesticide authority. The agency’s unlawful and irresponsible delay ends now,” said CFS senior attorney George Kimbrell.

Products Containing Nanomaterials Should Be Registered As Pesticides

Nano-silver products are overwhelmingly the most common nanomaterial in consumer products, commonly used as a powerful antimicrobial agent. Because of nano-silver’s properties, it is considered a pesticide and active ingredient under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the primary federal law governing pesticide use in the United States. Under FIFRA, any product containing an active ingredient that acts as a pesticide must be registered with EPA. For public health claims associated with pesticide use, EPA requires manufacturers to show that the product performs as intended and does not pose “unreasonable” adverse effects to the environment. “Unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,” is defined as one of two ways: (1) any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The manufacturer must also submit a proposed label for the product that meets all of FIFRA’s labeling requirements.

In the 2008 petition, petitioners identified 260 nano-silver consumer products not registered under FIFRA, and currently that number has increased to over 400 nano-silver products on the market today. Because there are no labeling requirements for nano-scale products, many more likely exist. These products carry with them significant risks to people and the environment, including DNA damage to plants, increasing bacterial resistance to antimicrobials, and toxic and potentially lethal impacts on fish.

Not the First Time EPA Sued Over Nano-Silver Products

Disturbingly, EPA knows nano-silver is a pesticide and has even taken companies to court for failing to register its product containing nano-silver. Most of the EPA actions on the subject of nano-silver, however, have been spurred by litigation and court orders.

The time has come for EPA to set defined standards for registration of this dangerous material and regulate it as FIFRA intends. The plaintiffs in the present suit represented by CFS legal counsel in the lawsuit are CFS, its sister nonprofit, the International Center for Technology Assessment, as well as Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Environmental Health, Clean Production Action, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

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

Source: The Center for Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, December 17, 2014)   Supporters of an Oregon ballot initiative requiring labels on genetically-engineered (GE) food acknowledged defeat last Thursday after an automatic recount failed to change the results of November’s vote and a judge denied their plea for a count of rejected ballots. Advocates expressed deep disappointment that a Monsanto led multi-million dollar opposition campaign narrowly defeated the Oregon ballot initiative even after an emergency lawsuit was filed to prevent the rejection of over 4,000 votes due to non-fraudulent discrepancies.

Measure 92 lost by a narrow margin in November elections, triggering a recount and making it the closest statewide election in Oregon history. Measure 92 would have required manufacturers, retailers, and suppliers to clearly label all genetically-engineered foods or ingredients in raw or packaged items. It was defeated by only 812 votes out of 1.5 million. The automatic recount is pursuant to Oregon voting law, but the new tally showed that the measure lost by just 0.056 percent. On December 8, 2014, an emergency lawsuit was filed by the Yes on 92 Campaign in order to prevent over 4,000 votes from being thrown out by state officials due to non-fraudulent discrepancies in voter signatures.   The judge agreed that leaving the ballots uncounted would cause irreparable harm to those voters and to the campaign, but ultimately ruled that Oregon law did not allow him to issue the order to stop count.

“We draw strength from the fact that we came so achingly close to winning this vote,” the Yes on 92 Campaign said in a news release. “We will continue working until Oregonians and all Americans … have the information they need to make informed choices about the food that they feed their families.”

This was the most expensive campaign in Oregon’s history, and the pro-labeling group Yes on 92 Campaign was outspent $21 million to $9 million by ”˜No on 92,’ which was a counter-campaign led by major agribusiness and biotechnology companies Monsanto and DuPont, as well as the trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association. According to the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Monsanto donated nearly $5 million, DuPont Pioneer $4.5 million, Dow AgroSciences over a $1.1 million, with Pepsi and Coca-Cola, who use GE sugar and corn in their products, combining for over $3.5 million.

In recent years, similar labeling measures have failed in other states as well. Voters in California and Washington State narrowly rejected ballot initiatives in 2012 and 2013, respectively, though not without the likes of Monsanto, Bayer, and Dow AgroSciences funneling resources to defeat the measures. Colorado’s attempt to pass a GE-labeling law, known as Proposition 105, was also met with defeat. With 66 percent voting against the proposed law and 34 percent in favor, the numbers showed a stronger rejection of the right-to-know initiative than any previous state attempt to adopt such laws. Efforts in Maui succeeded last month, but Monsanto and Dow quickly sued the county, despite voters’ wishes. In all, according to CFS, companies funding anti-labeling campaigns have spent over $100 million in just four states —California, Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

For successful states, Oregon would have been the fourth U.S. state to require GE labeling. But there is some progress in the state. In May, Jackson and Josephine County, Oregon voted overwhelmingly to ban the cultivation, production, and distribution of GE crops within their borders. Connecticut and Maine each passed GE labeling laws, but both bills include a trigger clause requiring several other states to also pass labeling bills before the new laws can be implemented. Vermont was the first state to pass a no-strings-attached labeling law, set to go into effect in 2016. So far, several states are planning to introduce GE food labeling bills in 2015 or are considering ballot initiatives of their own. In 2014, 36 bills were introduced in 20 states and experts are projecting the number to be as high or higher in 2015.

Recently over 700 chefs, including Tom Colicchio, Jose Andres, Art Smith, and Sam Talbot, urged Congress to support labeling of GE foods and oppose efforts blocking state GE labeling laws. In a petition authored by Chef Tom Colicchio, the chefs called on Congress to move forward with legislation sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR),the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act,  S. 809  and H.R. 1699, respectively,  which will  require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to “clearly label” genetically engineered (GE) foods. However, a group of legislators, led by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), are trying to thwart labeling efforts by preempting any future state initiatives. Dubbed the “Deny Americans the Right-to-Know Act” (DARK Act) by activists, H.R. 4432 is a bill that would give full authority of GE labeling to FDA, which now favors a voluntary approach to the issue. The DARK Act will  dramatically undermine state  food labeling authority by giving FDA sole authority over the labeling of GE ingredients, preempting state action to label in the face of federal inaction. The act will prevent states from adopting their own GE labeling laws, allow food companies to put a “natural” label on products that contain GE ingredients, and prevent FDA from requiring companies to label GE ingredients and continue its current “voluntary” labeling policy. In the 13 years that FDA has allowed companies to voluntarily label genetically engineered foods, not one company has done so.

Consumers have a right to know whether the foods they buy contain GE ingredients, not only because of concerns over the safety of eating GE food, but also because of the direct and indirect effects of GE agriculture on the environment, wildlife, and human health. GE agriculture is associated with the increased use of herbicides that GE crops are developed to tolerate, and the subsequent environmental damage they incur including the loss of habitat for many beneficial wildlife.

Undaunted, supporters of pesticide restrictions and GE-labeling, including Beyond Pesticides, will continue to fight for consumers’ right-to-know and protect their homes, environment, families, and communities  on all fronts at the local, state, or federal level. Win or lose, the grassroots efforts in  states, counties, and towns are standing up to the chemical industry and agribusiness  in an ongoing  campaign to educate the public on the pervasiveness of pesticide and  GE contamination, importance of right-to-know, and the viability of organic alternatives.  Buying organically labeled food is one of the best  ways to stop  GE ingredients from being purposely added during food production and handling. Under organic certification standards, GE organisms are prohibited.  For this and many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers. Visit Beyond Pesticides website to learn more about what you can do to avoid defeat and support the next victory!

Source: The Center for Food Safety Press release, RT

(Beyond Pesticides, December 16, 2014) Beyond Pesticides is sad to say goodbye to a dear friend and colleague, Theo Colborn, who at the age of 87, passed away on Sunday, December 14 at home surrounded by her family. Dr. Colborn is author of the groundbreaking book Our Stolen Future, president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) and Professor Emeritus at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She is the author of numerous scientific publications about compounds that interfere with hormones and other chemical messengers that control development in wildlife and humans. Her incisive research has demonstrated that endocrine disrupting chemicals alter development of the fetus in the womb by interfering with the natural hormonal signals directing fetal growth. Her work has prompted the enactment of new laws around the world.

Dr. Colborn was presented with Beyond Pesticides’ highest honor, its Dragonfly Award, at the organization’s 25^th Anniversary Gala in 2006, “For tireless dedication advancing knowledge and action to protect health and the environment.” Upon accepting the award, she said to those who chose her as the recipient that she would do her best not to let them down, and she hasn’t. One year later, she was honored by Time magazine as a global Environmental Hero, and she worked tirelessly to educate the public about the dangers of endocrine disruption until the day she died.

In October, 2012, Theo Colborn gave a presentation at a TEDxMidAtlantic event in Washington DC in which she read a letter she sent to President Obama. In the letter, she reminds them of the current epidemics of endocrine-related disorders and describes how the laws that were supposed to protect us have let us down. She closes with two practical suggestions for the President to take action.

Dr. Colborn has served on numerous advisory panels, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board, the Ecosystem Health Committee of the International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada, the Science Management Committee of the Toxic Substances Research Initiative of Canada, the U.S. EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee, and the EPA Endocrine Disruption Methods and Validation Subcommittee. She has published and lectured extensively on the transgenerational effects of toxic chemicals on the developing endocrine, immune, metabolic, and nervous systems in the womb and early childhood. She also spoke at Beyond Pesticides’ 29^th National Pesticide Forum in Denver, CO in 2011. Her talk, Beyond Lists: Where did all those pesticides come from? discusses pesticide health impacts and the petrochemical industry.

Read a brief biography by Elizabeth Grossman

Read Theo’s CV

Theo’s family has requested that in lieu of flowers, donations be sent to TEDX.

The Endocrine Disruption Exchange has a forum to share your Theo Colborn story

Photo: Theo Colborn receives the Dragonfly Award from author and scientist Sandra Steingraber at Beyond Pesticides’ 25th Gala in Washington, DC in 2006.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2014) Earlier this year, the President called on federal agencies to create a plan to “promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators.” To show appreciation for all that bees and wild pollinators provide, it is essential that this plan address toxic, persistent, and systemic neonicotinoid pesticides (neonics) ”” which science has shown to be a critical driver of pollinator declines. The President’s Task Force is set to submit its recommendations to the White House by as early as the end of this week. We must remind the White House that we expect strong, meaningful action on bee-toxic pesticides when they release their Federal strategy in the coming months. EPA has indicated that its considering updating pesticide labels and is looking to states to adopt pollinator protection plans. It won’t be enough for EPA to stick to the same old routine. Bees and other pollinators have been increasingly exposed to these harmful pesticides for long enough. We need action now to suspend bee-killing neonics.

As the pollinator crisis continues this holiday season, groups and concerned citizens across the country are calling on the President to #BeeKindObama, and give the gift of pollinator protection by making certain the Pollinator Health Task Force takes decisive action on bee-harming pesticides.

Other countries are following the science and directly addressing the threat that neonics pose to pollinators. Over a year ago, the European Union’s suspension of neonics went into effect. And just recently the government of Ontario announced plans to reduce the use of neonic-treated seeds by 80%. Pollinators in the United States can’t wait any longer, so we’re taking our request directly to the President and urging him to ensure the U.S. takes similar steps to protect pollinators!

Take Action
Can you help pollinators this holiday season by asking the President to #BeeKindObama and suspend bee-toxic neonics?

Joining the online action is easy:
1) Write out the hashtag #BeeKindObama on a sheet of paper, whiteboard, or print out the shareable bee image to the right.
2) Take a photo of yourself with the hashtag, asking the President to #BeekindObama and suspend harmful neonic pesticides.
3) Upload the photo to social media (Facebook or Twitter)
4) Tweet or post to @BarackObama or @WhiteHouse, and be sure to include the hashtag #BeeKindObama!

Get creative with your picture!
If you’re a beekeeper or have a friend who is, take the picture in front of your winterized hive with your beekeeping suit on. Or, dust off your Halloween honey bee costume! You could also show off the local honey you’ve purchased in your photo ”” anything that shows your appreciation for the critical services pollinators provide.

Sample Tweets
Here are a few sample tweets you can use with your photo (click to tweet!):
Ӣ President @BarackObama: Why are bees still waiting for protections from harmful #neonics? #BeeKindObama
Ӣ President @BarackObama: Take action to suspend bee-toxic neonic pesticides! #BeeKindObama
”¢ 1in3 bites of food need pollinators but they’re threatened by toxic neonics.@BarackObama will you help? #BeeKindObama

Sample Facebook post
Copy and paste below and send to www.facebook.com/barackobama or www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse:
President Obama, please ensure the Pollinator Health Task Force takes swift and meaningful action on bee-harming neonic pesticides. We rely on bees for 1 in 3 bites of food we eat, but they’re in trouble. Other countries are following the science and directly addressing the threat neonics pose to pollinators. Over a year ago, the European Union’s suspension of neonics went into effect. And just recently the government of Ontario announced plans to reduce the use of neonic-treated seeds by 80%. Pollinators in the United States can’t wait any longer. Please #BeeKindObama and suspend neonic pesticides!

We hope our staff photo above will inspire you to take action and ask the President to #BeeKindObama!

Thank you for participating in this important campaign! For more information on Beyond Pesticides efforts and how you can take action to protect honey bees and other wild pollinators, see the BEE Protective webpage.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 12, 2014) Bursting at the seams, the $35 billion organic food industry has tripled in size over the past decade, severely outpacing the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) ability to monitor the more than 25,000 farms and other organizations that sell organic crops and livestock. As a result, certifying agents, or USDA-accredited entities that inspect and certify organic farms and suppliers, have increasingly fallen out of compliance, according to a piece in the Wall Street Journal. Advocates point out that while improvements should be made  in the organic certification system, there is no equivalent inspection system in chemical-intensive agriculture, where inspections are mostly complaint-driven, infrequent, and conducted in most states by state departments of agriculture, which typically promote pesticides and have suffered declines in resources and inspectors.

There are currently 81 accredited certifying agents, which include small nonprofit groups, state-run agencies, and large multinationals. However, according to an internal USDA report, of the 37 that had a complete review this year, 23 were cited for failing to correctly enforce certification requirements on farms in audits. These 23 firms did not manage to properly conduct onsite inspections or correctly review applications for organic certifications, among other things, the report added.

Consumers must rely on certifiers to uphold the integrity of the USDA organic label and to ensure that the food they buy is produced in accordance with  guidelines set forth by the federal government.

A separate Wall Street Journal investigation of USDA inspection records since 2005 found that 38 of the 81 certifying agents failed at least once to uphold basic USDA standards. In that time, 40% of the 81 certifiers have been flagged by USDA for conducting incomplete inspections; 16% of certifiers failed to cite organic farms’ potential use of banned pesticides and antibiotics; and 5% failed to prevent potential mixing of organic and non-organic products.

USDA responded to the Journal’s findings by saying that it requires certifiers to comply with numerous requirements, and the problems found by the Journal and the agency’s internal report reflected “a very rigorous accreditation process that requires full compliance and correction of identified issues.” Certifiers that fall out of compliance get the opportunity to rectify the problem, but if the problem is not fixed, they are at risk of being removed from the certification program.

USDA added that its certifiers were in compliance with 97% of its regulations. According to a USDA spokesman, three agents have been removed from the certifying business by USDA out of the 100 that have been accredited to operate since the start of the program in 2002.

One instance, in 2010, found the California Organic  Farmers Association’s (COFA) accreditation as an organic certifying agent revoked because it failed to comply with the national organic regulations. As a result, COFA  was no longer authorized by USDA’s National Organic Program  (NOP) to certify organic crop, livestock, wild crop, and handling operations. Although the rigorous standards and certification procedures of the NOP are unparalleled in chemical-intensive agriculture, the program has been criticized for straying from its legal requirements during the Bush Administration. Organic advocates applaud NOP’s renewed commitment to organic integrity.

NOP accredited COFA as an organic certifying agent on April 29, 2002. Following COFA’s submission of a 5-year renewal application in 2007, NOP conducted an audit of the facility and its records, which resulted in the finding of 12 noncompliant items. After COFA submitted corrective actions, NOP determined that COFA had not adequately corrected 10 of the noncompliance infractions. On July 31, 2008, the NOP proposed to revoke COFA’s accreditation for three years due to failure to comply with the NOP regulations or to proffer satisfactory corrective actions. COFA appealed the NOP’s decision, which the Agricultural Marketing Service Administrator denied Oct. 8, 2009. Pursuant to federal regulations, COFA requested a formal administrative proceeding before an administrative law judge. In August 2010, COFA withdrew its request for a hearing, thereby upholding the Administrator’s denial of COFA’s appeal and revoking COFA’s accreditation for 3 years.

COFA’s noncompliance with the governing act and the national organic standards included review of a facility in which an employee held a partial interest, inadequate retention of records and procedures, and insufficient inspections of and communication with certified operations.

“We use the full set of enforcement tools that we have available to us, while also working with the legal parameters of the administrative law system,” a USDA spokesman said. “Any issues of noncompliance, however minor, are corrected.”

Some critics disagree with this. “The whole setup of the system needs to be revamped,” said Chenglin Liu, a professor of law at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, who has studied the organic certification system and has raised concerns about the thoroughness of certifying agents and the lack of frequent checks by the USDA of these certifiers. “That leaves a lot of room for mistakes.”

With more and more American eating organic it is important to take action to ensure a  strong organic program and increase public trust in the organic food label. Visit  Beyond Pesticides’  Save Our Organics  page for information on what you can do to secure an organic future. To learn more about the environmental and worker benefits of organic production, see  Beyond Pesticides’  Eating with a Conscience.

Source: Wall Street Journal

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2014) A new study out of the University of California, Berkeley, compares organic and conventional crop yields and finds that overall yield gaps are much smaller than earlier studies concluded and even smaller when compared crop-by-crop. The study,  published in the Royal Society Proceedings B journal, Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap, also found that certain practices could further shrink the productivity gap where it exists.

The debate surrounding organic crop yield capabilities has been a heated one, with agribusiness and conventional farming advocates claiming that pesticides and genetically-engineered (GE) crops are necessary to feed the ever-expanding world population. These interests usually dismiss organic agriculture’s ability to provide the necessary amount of crops to achieve the end goal of feeding the world.

Numerous studies have previously undercut this premise, finding similar yields and greater economic returns in organic agriculture and determining GE crop yield abilities to be mostly unfounded. Recently, even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) called into question the efficacy and crop-yield outputs of soybean seeds pre-coated with the dangerous and pollinator-toxic pesticides of neonicotinoids.

The current study’s researchers  wanted to examine this hotly debated issue and take a look at a newly compiled and expanded set of data nearly three times larger than those previously used (115 studies containing more than 1000 observations). Additionally, the study used a new hierarchical analytical framework that would better be able to account for the heterogeneity and structure in the data.

The findings were encouraging for organic advocates, showing an overall crop yield difference of 19.2 percent between conventional and organic outputs. When looking at specific crops, such as legumes (lentils, beans, etc.), no significant differences were identified. Researchers also noted that the percentages were likely inflated, as available studies comparing farming methods were often biased in favor of conventional agriculture.

But the study also took one more step and analyzed whether or not organic farming could do better through agricultural diversification practices, otherwise known as multi-cropping and crop rotations. The answer was a resounding, “Yes,” showing that the crop yield difference could be reduced by 9 percent in the case of multi-cropping and 8 percent in the case of crop rotations.

“In terms of comparing productivity among the two techniques, this paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture,” said the study’s senior author, Claire Kremen, Ph.D., professor of environmental science, policy and management and co-director of the Berkeley Food Institute. “With global food needs predicted to greatly increase in the next 50 years, it’s critical to look more closely at organic farming, because aside from the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture, the ability of synthetic fertilizers to increase crop yields has been declining.”

To put the chemical-intensive food  global food production in perspective, the study’s introduction states: “Resultant problems include biodiversity loss, massive soil erosion and degradation, eutrophication and oceanic dead zones, pesticide effects on humans and wildlife, greenhouse gas emissions, and regime shifts in hydrological cycling. Furthermore, although agriculture produces a food surplus at the global scale, over 1 billion people are chronically hungry. These problems of hunger, food insecurity and environmental harms will only be exacerbated if current trends in population growth, food and energy consumption, and food waste continue. To maintain the Earth’s capacity to produce food, it is imperative that we adopt sustainable and resilient agricultural practices as soon as possible.”

Organic agriculture has been proven time again to be equally viable for both farmers and consumers while also providing significant health and environmental effects over conventional industrial agriculture. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keep Organic Strong webpage to learn more about organic and what you can do to support its growth.

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

Sources: UC Berkeley; The Independent

(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2014) Emmanuel Giboulot, an organic winemaker in Burgundy, France, cheered ‘victory for people power’ after his conviction for refusing to spray his vines with pesticides was overturned. Mr. Giboulot refused to comply with a government order mandating vineyards be sprayed to control flavescence dorée disease, citing that it was not an immediate threat in his region, and that pesticides posed more harm than good. His resolve against systemic, prophylactic pesticide spraying won broad support across the globe.

In the spring of 2013, all wine producers in Burgundy were ordered to spray pesticides on their vines to fight flavescence dorée, a bacterial disease spread by the leaf hopper, Scaphoideus titanus. But Mr. Giboulot produces high-quality organic or “bio-dynamic” red and white wines from 35 acres of vines under the appellations “Côte de Beaune” and “Haute Côte de Nuits.” He refused to obey the pesticide order on the grounds that the disease was not an immediate threat in his region, the pesticide recommended to be sprayed was ineffective and damaging to pollinating insects such as bees, and the disease can be fought via more natural means. After defying an official order to treat his vineyard, Mr. Giboulot was fined €1,000 and risked six months in jail.

On appeal, the court in Dijon found in Mr. Giboulot’s favour. The court ruled that it was the local government administrator who had acted illegally by ordering all Burgundian vineyards to be sprayed when there was no clear threat. The court also ruled that the local agricultural board and administrator failed to seek the approval of the ministry of agriculture in Paris.

“This is a victory for people power and for whistleblowing,” Mr. Giboulot said of his stand, which divided the Burgundy wine industry but won admiration all over the globe.

He was supported by some of his fellow wine-producers, but others accused him of placing the whole of the Burgundy vineyards —among the most prestigious in the world— at risk. Mr. Giboulot said he would be ready to use a  pesticide against an immediate threat, but the “knee-jerk” and “systematic” use of chemicals was bad for human health, and bad for the quality of wine. The leaf-hopping insect Scaphoideus titanus, which spreads flavesence dorée (or “golden rot”), has been compared to phylloxera, the pest which devastated French vineyards in the 19th century. An estimated 30 acres of vines were destroyed by the disease in 2012. The French agriculture ministry prosecuted Mr. Giboulot in 2013 for “failing to apply an insecticide treatment to his vineyard.” Vine growers in several regions, including Burgandy, are required by French law to use pesticides to control this disease. After initial discovery of the disease in Burgundy’s Beaune region, the local administration ordered all vineyard owners in the Côte d’Or area to treat their vineyards with pesticides. But Mr. Giboulot argued that the pyrethrin-based pesticide product that organic farmers could use against the pest without losing their certification has undesirable side effects on non-target organisms.

Golden rot had appeared in only 16 villages in the whole of Côte d’Or —and not in Mr. Giboulot’s own part of the county, the Côte de Beaune. “This is proof that we are not faced by a pandemic and there was no need to spray the whole département,” he said.

Mr. Giboulot is part of a gathering movement that says the French wine industry’s excessive use of pesticides and fungicides has undermined its own argument that good or great wine can only flow from “terroir” —or natural conditions of soil or climate. An examination of 300 French wines last year found that 90 per cent contained traces of the chemicals most commonly used to treat vines. Thirty-three chemicals found in fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides showed up in wines, and every wine showed some detectable trace of chemicals. (The study can be found here in French.) France is the third-highest user of pesticides in the world after the United States and Japan, and the highest user in Europe. The country has pledged to reduce its pesticide consumption by 50 percent by 2018.

The organic wine market has grown —the share of organically produced French wines rose from 2.6 percent in 2007 to 8.2 percent by the end of 2012. According to the New York Times, contamination of organic vineyards from neighboring areas continues to threaten the industry. In the U.S., only wine made with organic grapes and naturally occurring sulfites can be labeled organic.

Source: The Independent

Photo Sources: Jeff Pachoud/AFP/Getty Images

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2014) Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  proposed updates to rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) are unnecessarily burdensome for local, organic farmers and undermine the ultimate goal of improving food safety, according to food safety advocates. Although FDA adopted some recommendations addressing smaller scale and organic farm concerns made during the last public comment period for these rules, further action is needed.

Tell FDA to protect small, organic farmers and take steps to avoid chemicals risks. Protecting organic farmers means protecting food safety because organic farmers are in the business of providing food produced with fewer hazards and more care for the environment.

Despite a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report criticizing FDA for its lack of pesticide residue testing on food, the agency continues to ignore one of the most serious threats to the food supply’s safety and did not address any of the concerns raised in Beyond Pesticides’ previous comments concerning the need to adopt better chemical safety standards for produce and processing.

Regarding chemical safety, FDA should:

• Revise the produce rule and preventative controls for human food rule;
• Include chemical hazards, pesticide residues, and biological impacts in its risk assessments;
• Acknowledge the full range of serious adverse health outcomes from chemical hazards that make their way into food;
• Incorporate procedures, processes, and practices that minimize contamination from chemical hazards; and
• Create explicit and defined practices to help retailers implement least-toxic alternatives.

Organic production methods and standards already provide a functional model. However, proposed revisions to the FSMA rules still place substantial burdens on small, organic farmers.

To protect local, organic farmers, FDA should:

• Decrease the costs to small farms and food processors by ensuring that environmental monitoring and testing are conducted in an efficient manner.
• Clarify that sale and distribution through a CSA, roadside stand, or farmers market is included in the definition of a “retail food establishment,” and not a “facility” that must be registered with FDA.
• Retain the threshold of at least $1,000,000 for a “very small business,” and apply sales to food regulated under the Preventative Controls Rule.
• Allow for farms with multiple landholdings to be treated as one farm, so as to not discriminate against cooperatives or food hubs.
• Incorporate stronger support for on-farm conservation practices by codifying in the preamble that farmers are encouraged to use sustainable conservation practices that enhance food safety.

Submit Your Comment by midnight, December 15th!

Local organic farmers are stewards of the environment and provide some of the only food sources free of the chemical hazards and adverse health effects associated with chemical-intensive agriculture. It is critical that FDA’s FSMA regulations encourage the food safety benefits for   small organic farmers and reduce the burden on those who already make consumer health a priority.

To view FDA’s updated rules, view the federal register notice here.
For additional information, view Beyond Pesticides previous comments to FDA here.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 8, 2014) In response to Home Depot’s decision to start requiring all nursery plants that have been treated with neonicotinoids to carry a label to inform customers, at least one nursery supplier has decided to change its management practices. J.Berry Nurseries, a company based out of Grand Saline, Texas, which supplies plants to over 1,000 Home Depot stores throughout Texas, surrounding states and the Midwest, says that since the issue has become publicly recognized for its impacts on bees and other pollinators, it will stop using neonics and start to look at alternative practices. This news provides testament to the power of consumer demand, and along with Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator-Friendly Seeds and Nursery Directory, should encourage other growers to ditch the neonics in favor of better management practices.

“We view it as the labeling of a plant with that tag is potentially creating customers’ perception that that plant should not be purchased,” Jim Berry, the president of J. Berry Nurseries, told Nursery Management Magazine. “Whether it’s a valid assumption or not, perception is reality. So you have to go with that. We certainly want consumers to be attracted to our plants instead of repelled by them.”

The news comes after a groundbreaking report published last June which revealed that many bee-friendly garden plants sold at Home Depot and Lowe’s contain neonicotinoid pesticides with no warning to consumers. Neonicotinoid residues were detected in seven out of thirteen samples (54 percent) of commercial nursery plants. In response to this report, Friends of the Earth, along  with Beyond Pesticides  and other allies, launched a campaign to tell major retailers to stop selling poisoned plants. Backing the cause are more than half a million Americans who signed petitions demanding that the companies stop selling neonics. In the face of mounting evidence and growing consumer demand, nearly a dozen nurseries, landscaping companies and retailers, are taking steps to eliminate bee-harming pesticides from their garden plants and their stores.

Growers that sell to the Home Depot need to provide a secondary tag for all plant material of all sizes. The tag is a 1” by 4.5” tag, and some growers are concerned about the stigma attached to it. “It’s the cost of the tag and it’s the impact on consumers, maybe causing them to avoid purchasing plants with that tag,” Mr. Berry says. “It’s a double risk.”

Advocates, including Beyond Pesticides, have long called on consumers  to choose not only “bee-friendly” plants, meaning those plants and flowers shown to attract and sustain pollinators, but also  make  sure that those plants are sourced from growers and suppliers that do not apply neonics  in the growing of the seed, as a seed coating, or to the plant.

Neonicotinoid insecticides have been responsible for several high profile bee kills from high doses of the pesticides, but a strong and growing body of science shows that neonics contribute to impairment in reproduction, learning and memory, hive communications, and immune response at doses far below those that cause bee kills. In this study, all of the nursery plant samples where neonics ae detected have the potential to harm or even kill bees. An extensive overview of major studies showing the effects of neonics on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows webpage.

The easiest way to ensure that seeds are not treated with neonics is to buy seeds that are certified organic or plants grown with organic practices. While untreated seeds are a step in the right direction, they do not ensure that the seed production practices are protective of bees or that residual chemicals do not contaminate the plant. Seeds and plants that are certified organic, on the other hand, do not permit the use of toxic synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. To assist consumers in making the best choice for pollinator protections, Beyond Pesticides launched its Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory, a comprehensive list of companies that sell organic seeds to the general public.  Toxic pesticides harmful to bees, including neonics,  are not permitted in  seeds certified organic, which display the USDA Organic label on their packaging. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs.

Beyond Pesticides urges you and other pollinator supporters to continue to pressure retailers, legislators, and other government officials to take meaningful action to protect pollinators. Visit www.BEE Protective.org to learn about more about pollinator protection and see what you can do to help.

Source: Nursery Management Magazine

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2014) Over 700 chefs, including high-profile individuals like Tom Colicchio, Jose Andres, Art Smith, and Sam Talbot, are pushing Congress to support labeling of genetically modified foods and oppose efforts blocking state GMO labeling laws. In a petition authored by Chef Tom Colicchio, the chefs are calling on Congress to move forward with legislation sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR),the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act,  S. 809  and H.R. 1699, respectively,  which will  require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to “clearly label” genetically engineered (GE) foods.

“As chefs, we know that choosing the right ingredients is an absolutely critical part of cooking,” the petition states. “But when it comes to whether our ingredients contain genetically modified organisms, we’re in the dark. It’s time for Congress to move us forward, not backward, when it comes to our right to know what’s in our food.”

The chefs were joined on Tuesday by advocates from Food Policy Action, Environmental Working Group, and Center for Food Safety. Just Label It!, with which Beyond Pesticides is a partner, and other national organizations fighting for labeling of GMO foods for meetings with lawmakers.

“As a chef and father, I want to  know what I’m serving my customers and kids, and the majority of  Americans want honest information about the food on their tables,” said Chef Colicchio, owner of Craft Restaurants, co-founder of Food Policy Action, and former head judge on Bravo show Top Chef. “Having honest, clear labeling of the foods we eat is a fundamental right, one that’s worth fighting for.”

Across the U.S., grassroots groups are pushing for  the introduction of GE labeling legislation in over 25 states, including Oregon, Colorado, and Vermont. However, a group of legislators, led by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), are trying to stymie efforts by asking Congress to preempt these laws. H.R. 4432, dubbed the “Deny Americans the Right-to-Know Act” (DARK Act) by activists, is a bill that would give full authority of GE labeling to FDA, which now favors a voluntary approach to the issue.

The DARK Act will  dramatically undermine state  food labeling authority by giving FDA sole authority over the labeling of GE ingredients, preempting state action to label in the face of federal inaction. The act will prevent states from adopting their own GE labeling laws, allow food companies to put a “natural” label on products that contain GE ingredients, and prevent FDA from requiring companies to label GE ingredients and continue its current “voluntary” labeling policy. This codification of a voluntary labeling standard clearly does not meet  consumers growing demand for more information. In the 13 years that FDA has allowed companies to voluntarily label genetically engineered foods, not one company has done so.

Beyond Pesticides believes that consumers have a right to know whether the foods they buy contain GE ingredients, not only because of concerns over the safety of eating GE food, but also because of the direct and indirect effects of GE agriculture on the environment, wildlife, and human health. GE agriculture is associated with the increased use of herbicides that GE crops are developed to tolerate. Repeated spraying of these herbicides, particularly  glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup,  destroys refuge areas  for beneficial insects such as the monarch butterfly and  leads to resistance  in the very weed species that GE technology is intended to control. Despite rampant glyphosate resistance, and the presence of organic management practices that are  more protective of human health and the environment, the agrichemical industry continues to resort to increasingly toxic combinations of chemicals.  Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has registered Enlist Duo ®, officially approving  the sale and use of a new wave of GE 2,4-D-tolerant crops and their accompanying herbicide formulations.

Buying organically labeled food is one of the best  ways to stop  GE ingredients from being purposely added during food production and handling. Under organic certification standards, GE organisms are prohibited, although because of USDA policies that allow the proliferation of GE crops, organic production is subject to genetic drift contamination.  For this and many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers. For more information on GE foods and labeling issues, see Beyond Pesticides’  Genetic Engineering  webpage. You can also help support the Vermont labeling law by donating to the  Food Fight Fund.

Take Action

Join the Organic Consumers Association for its  rally in Washington, D.C. on Capitol Hill next Wednesday, December 10, to put a stop to the DARK Act. Learn more here.

Can’t make it? You can also:

• Sign a petition  asking Congress to reject Pompeo’s DARK Act  here.
• Help flood the phone lines on Capitol Hill on December 10.  Anyone who can’t be there in person can call their Congress members on December 10, beginning at 9 a.m. When you are connected with a staff person, you can say:  “Hello, my name is [FIRST NAME, LAST NAME] and I live in [CITY, STATE]. I couldn’t attend today’s protest against H.R. 4432, a bill that would preempt states’ rights to label GMOs, but I am calling to ask [NAME OF CONGRESS PERSON] to reject H.R. 4432 and to support states’ rights to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws. Thank you.”
• Make a donation  to help offset costs.

Source: Center for Food Safety

Photo Source: CFS

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2014) Earlier this fall, in a state known for its environmental and public health-focused policy and forward thinking, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) released its draft Statewide Plant Pest Prevention and Management Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), which  has been widely criticized by environmentalists. While PEIR  has been characterized by state officials as  providing an “overarching framework for efficient and proactive implementation of Statewide Program activities,” the proposed plant pest prevention strategy takes several steps backwards, giving CDFA authority to spray toxic pesticides anywhere in California, at any time into the indefinite future, with little to no recourse for those affected.  Critics say that the new framework could have been a tremendous opportunity to chart a course toward sustainable, ecologically, and scientifically, sound pest management policy.

Under California law, CDFA is required to prevent the introduction and spread of injurious insect or animal pests, plant diseases, and noxious weeds. According to CDFA, to carry out this function, the agency must “provide an up-to-date, transparent, and comprehensive evaluation of CDFA’s activities,” and comply with the environmental impact analysis requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The statewide program developed the draft PEIR.

While the overarching goals and objectives of the program include the important concept of minimizing the impacts of pest management approaches on human health and urban and natural environments, most of the draft PEIR took an archaic, vague, and misguided approach to pest control, which identified spraying pesticides with little to no oversight as the primary means of combating pest problems.

Joining with 27 organizations, Beyond Pesticides signed on to Earthjustice’s near 100 page comments, identifying a litany of scientific, public health, environmental, regulatory, and legal issues within the draft PEIR, including a failure to recognize and implement viable alternatives of organic and ecologically-based integrated pest management (IPM) practices, adhere to important environmental laws and controls, like the Clean Water Act, provide detailed and meaningful programmatic evaluation criteria, and address health and environmental impacts.

“This plan’s analysis of health and environmental impacts is so general and cursory as to be useless for determining the actual impact of the Department of Food and Agriculture’s spraying in any specific location in California,” notes Earthjustice Attorney Elizabeth Forsyth, “Its provisions for future environmental review attempt to prevent public scrutiny of future program activities, including the agency’s approval of new pesticides, new treatment areas, and new target pests.”

Organic farmers and certifiers took issue with the PEIR, especially several provisions that could force organic farmers to spray non-organic pesticides as part of the state treatment programs, potentially leading to loss of organic certification and organic crop marketplace accessibility.

Public review and comment on the draft PEIR closed on October 31, 2014 and will be addressed and integrated into the final PEIR, which will be released at a later date. In the meantime, visit Beyond Pesticides website to learn more about the dangers of pesticides and how you and your community can spread the word on organic and least-toxic pest management methods.

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

Source: Earthjustice; California Department of Food and Agriculture

(Beyond Pesticides, December 3, 2014) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced last week that nearly 2,500 applicants will receive disaster assistance through the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) for losses suffered from Oct. 1, 2011, through Sept. 30, 2013. The program, re-authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, provides disaster relief for farmers and producers not covered by other agricultural disaster assistance programs. Beekeepers who reported losses due to colony collapse disorder will be eligible, a move that many in the beekeeping industry welcome.

ELAP provides disaster relief to livestock, honey bee, and farm-raised fish producers not covered by other agricultural disaster assistance programs. Eligible losses may include excessive heat or winds, flooding, blizzards, hail, wildfires, lightning strikes, volcanic eruptions, and diseases, or in the case of honey bees, losses due to colony collapse disorder. According to USDA, beekeepers, most of whom suffered honey bee colony losses, represent more than half of ELAP recipients. Enrollment for the program began last spring and ended in August 2014, and eligible farmers, beekeepers and producers must have submitted documentation of losses for enrollment in the program.

Beekeepers have been experiencing historical losses in their bee hives and operations. On average, losses have been over 30% annually, with some beekeepers report 100% losses to their operations. This presents significant ramifications for beekeepers’ livelihoods, crops that rely on pollination and the agricultural economy. Pollination services, provided by bees and other pollinators, are worth billions of dollars to the agricultural economy, given that one in three bites of food is dependent on pollination. Mounting scientific evidence points to the role of pesticides in bee declines across the globe, especially to the neonicotinoid class of insecticides, currently applied to fields across the U.S. as seed treatment. These pesticides have been shown to, even at low levels, impair foraging, navigational and learning behavior in bees, as well as suppress their immune system to point of making them susceptible to pathogens and parasites. Read: No Longer a Big Mystery. Beekeepers have taken legal action against neonicotinoids and other pesticides that have been shown to be highly toxic to bees.

The Farm Bill caps ELAP disaster funding at $20 million per federal fiscal year. To accommodate the number of requests, which exceeded funds available for each of the affected years, payments will be reduced to ensure that all eligible applicants receive a prorated share of assistance. This year over 2,500 applicants are eligible for assistance. USDA stated the agency has begun issuing payments – less than three months after the enrollment deadline.

ELAP is made possible through the 2014 Farm Bill, which according to USDA, builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for the taxpayer. ELAP assistance is provided for losses not covered by other disaster programs like the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) and the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP). Also from USDA, pollinators may find some help in efforts to expand pollinator habitat and forage. The agency announced this fall that more than $4 million in technical and financial assistance will be provided to help farmers and ranchers in the Midwest improve the health of honey bees. The announcement renews and expands on a $3 million pilot investment last spring to create pollinator-friendly habitat in five Midwestern states. According to the agency, it will provide help implementing the planting cover crops or rangeland, pasture management to reduce erosion, increase soil health, and inhibit invasive species, as well as providing quality forage and habitat for honey bees and other pollinators.

Since enactment of the Farm Bill, USDA is tasked with providing disaster relief to farmers and ranchers; strengthening risk management tools; expanding access to rural credit; funding critical research; establishing innovative public-private conservation partnerships; developing new markets for rural-made products; and investing in infrastructure, housing and community facilities to help improve quality of life in rural America.

“As promised, we’re making sure that thousands of producers who suffered through two and a half difficult years without Farm Bill assistance, are getting some relief,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said.

2014 Farm Bill and Pollinator Health
After nearly two years of debate, missed deadlines, and Congressional dysfunction, President Obama signed into law on February 7, 2014, the Agricultural Act of 2014, known as the Farm Bill. Passage of the bill was met with mixed reviews on all fronts. While national headlines focused on the issues of supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP, or food stamps) cuts, subsidies, and crop insurance, the near 1,000-page law also addressed critical issues relating to health and the environment.

Falling far short of what advocacy groups had hoped would bring much needed scientific attention, funding, and federal regulatory focus on pollinator declines, the final Farm Bill left most pollinator-friendly provisions in the cut pile on the conference committee floor. One amendment in particular, Protection of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,  sponsored by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl), seeks to create a federal task force, requires research, and provides for an allowance for beekeepers to use federal forest lands. The amendment passed in an earlier House version of the Farm Bill by a vote of 270-146 with 79 Republicans and 191 Democrats voting in favor.   However, this amendment failed to make it into the final version of the bill. The 2014 Farm Bill now only requires interagency collaboration to produce guidance on enhancing pollinator health and long-term viability. Conservation programs that commit to pollinator habitat also receive new preferences. These minor nods to the severe problem facing pollinators lack any true incentives for long-term change or meaningful protections. See here for a comprehensive breakdown of the 2014 Farm Bill.

Even though the U.S. has been slow to act in protecting pollinators from hazardous pesticide use, in spite of the recent Presidential Memorandum directing federal agencies to act, beekeepers can at least now find some financial relief for their losses and hopefully continue to provide the important pollination services that our nation needs.

Source: USDA Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 2, 2014) Last week, the government of Ontario, Canada proposed a plan to reduce the use of neonicotinoid (neonic)-treated corn and soybean seeds by 80% as part of a broad initiative to improve pollinator health. It sets a goal of reducing over-winter honey bee deaths to 15% by 2020, and calls for the development of a comprehensive Pollinator Health Action Plan. To address the regulation of treated seeds, Ontario’s pollinator health proposal recommends the creation a new class of pesticides to include seeds treated with pesticides. The government would then restrict the sale and use of neonic-treated corn and soybean seed. In the U.S., EPA establishes the “treated article exemption” (40 CFR 152.25(a))  as  limiting its ability to regulate  seeds, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),  that act  as  toxic pesticides when applied to agricultural fields and landscapes.

According to  EPA, the treated article exemption,  “allows an exemption for: An article or a substance treated with or containing a pesticide to protect the article or substance itself (for example, paint treated with a pesticide to protect the paint coating, or wood products treated to protect the wood against insects or fungus infestation), if the pesticide is registered for such use.”

“Improving pollinator health is not a luxury but a necessity,” said Glen Murray, Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. “Pollinators play a key role in our ecosystem and without them, much of the food we eat would not be here. Taking strong action now to reduce the use of neurotoxic pesticides and protecting pollinator health is a positive step for our environment and our economy.”

The pollinator crisis has been particularly pronounced in Ontario, as a winter loss survey from 2013-2014 found bee die-offs at 58%, the highest recorded level to date. Of commercial beekeepers surveyed, 56 out of 97 reported mortality rates greater than 50%. In September, Ontario beekeepers filed a class action lawsuit against neonicotinoid producers Bayer and Syngenta, alleging the companies are negligent in the design, sale, manufacture, and distribution of neonic pesticides and this negligence resulted in $450 million in damages to the plaintiffs, Sun Parlor Honey and Munro Honey.

The Ontario government’s announcement also follows a report released last year by Health Canada, a federal Canadian agency, which declared the use of neonics in agriculture as “not sustainable.” Despite strong language from Canadian regulators, the steps taken at the time only required slight changes to the use of neonics, such as stricter label language and the use of safer dust-reducing seed flow lubricants (most corn and soy seed is coated with neonic pesticides before planting and then mixed with a lubricant like talc that creates a toxic dust in seed planters). These measures were widely criticized by beekeepers as not going far enough to address pollinator poisoning from neonic pesticides. “When the plant grows up, it sucks up the water and the pesticide [on the seed],” said Ontario beekeeper Dave Schuit to the CBC. “So, the whole plant is toxic. When the bees take the pollen, they die. The bees are dying because of the pollen.”

Many Canadian officials have expressed similar concern with systemic neonic pesticides, which are persistent in soil, and can be continuously taken up by crops and expressed in pollen, nectar, and guttation (dew) droplets that plants produce. In October, Commissioner Gord Miller, in the Annual Report of the Environment Commissioner of Ontario, called bees the “canary in the coal mine” on neonic pesticides. “All the science is not done, but everything that I have before me. . .  suggests to me that this is the biggest threat to the structure and ecological integrity of the ecosystem that I have ever encountered in my life, bigger than DDT, ” he further asserted.

An extensive overview of major studies showing the effects of neonics on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows webpage.

Beyond the harm these chemicals cause to honey bees and other pollinators is the fact that they are simply unnecessary to grow crops. A report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), released this fall, found that coating soybean seeds with neonics provided little to no overall benefits in controlling insects or improving yield or quality of soybean production. Responding to EPA’s report, Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides explained, “This report demonstrates, yet again, the need for EPA to ask the very important question of whether a chemical is truly necessary and efficacious before allowing its introduction into the environment. And because EPA defines  treated seeds as mostly exempt from federal pesticide laws under the treated article provision, this oversight has allowed a dangerous chemical to be used largely unregulated, wreaking havoc on the nation’s pollinators.”

Pesticide manufacturers have responded predictably to Ontario’s plan, with Syngenta spokesman Chris Davison noting the company is “extremely disappointed” by the proposed decision. Neonicotinoid producers Syngenta and Bayer continue to point to parasitic varroa mites as the main driver of pollinator declines, despite overwhelming scientific data implicating neonics as the leading cause. As the 2013-2014 Ontario winter loss survey noted, “”¦Varroa mite infestation was not considered to be a significant contributing factor to winter mortality rates in 2014 among the producers surveyed, with very few producers citing mite infestations as a potential cause of loss.”

Moreover, last month over 100 scientists called for action on bee-toxic pesticides. In June, a worldwide assessment of systemic pesticides undertaken by an international group of 29 scientists analyzing over 800 peer-reviewed publications recommended increased restrictions on the use of neonics. Although Ontario’s restrictions on neonics represent a positive and significant step forward towards protecting pollinators, the proposal falls short of the 2-year suspension instituted in the European Union, which was based on a report citing “high acute risks” to honey bees.

In the United States, beekeepers, scientists, consumer and environmental groups, and concerned residents across the country are waiting on a plan from the Pollinator Health Task Force, which was created as a result of a Memorandum issued by President Obama earlier in 2014. To date, USDA has released funds for pollinator habitat, the Council on Environmental Quality has released new guidelines for creating pollinator habitat around federal buildings and the Fish and Wildlife Service has banned the use of neonic pesticides on National Wildlife Refuges. A sensible response to the continuing decline of pollinators must address the use of neonic pesticides, and encourage the development of least-toxic and organic alternatives. In agriculture, for home pest control, landscape care, and in nurseries, there are effective and economic organic techniques can that be successfully employed.

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

Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change News Release, Bloomberg News

Photo Source: Anneliese Markle

(Beyond Pesticides, November 26, 2014) Last week, over 100 scientists from diverse disciplines released a letter citing the growing body of scientific evidence that neonicotinoids and other systemic pesticides harm bees, and called on leaders of President Barack Obama’s Pollinator Health Task Force to quickly take action on pesticides to protect and promote healthy populations of bees and other pollinators.

The letter was submitted in response to the recent “listening sessions” hosted by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These sessions were held by the agencies to  collect public  feedback  on federal efforts on pollinator protection, and the Task Force convened to develop a National Pollinator Health Strategy. In June, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum directing federal agencies to  join the  Pollinator Health Task Force, led by USDA, to develop pollinator health solutions.

The 108 scientists ””whose areas of expertise include entomology, agronomy, ecology, ecotoxicology”” called on Task Force co-chairs, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, to place a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the U.S., and increase investment, research and funding for growers to adopt alternatives. In the letter, the scientists note that, “While gaps do exist in knowledge around neonicotinoids, regulation with an eye to prevention of harm, precaution with regards to neonicotinoids, and commitment to safe and sustainable alternatives may well help to stem the tide of pollinator losses.”

“Bees have been quietly pollinating our crops for millennia, but now they need our help. It is vitally important that we take steps to reduce exposure of bees and other wildlife to these systemic, persistent neurotoxins,” said Dave Goulson, PhD, a bee expert and biology professor at the University of Sussex and a leader of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) global Task Force on Systemic Pesticides.

Almost a year after Europe successfully implemented a moratorium on neonicotinoids, federal policymakers in the U.S. have yet to take any substantive action. Bee declines across the country have continued at unprecedented rates ”” over 30% annually ”” with significant ramifications for beekeepers’ livelihoods, crops that rely on pollination and the agricultural economy. Unfortunately, EPA will not make a safety finding for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, as well as other neonicotinoids, before 2018.

“The President’s Task Force should listen to the body of science that links pesticides to bee harm and bee declines,” said Jim Frazier, PhD, an emeritus entomology professor at Pennsylvania State University and commercial beekeeper advisor who specializes in chemical ecology. “These systemic pesticides are not only lethal to pollinators, but at low doses can disrupt critical brain functions and reduce their immunity ”” leaving them susceptible to common pathogens. The weight of the scientific evidence certainly incriminates neonicotinoids, in line with the 2013 European Food Safety Agency’s review of 800-plus publications that led to the current moratorium on certain neonicotinoids.”

Recently in Canada, a group of doctors and nurses also urged their government to ban neonicotinoid pesticides. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario say that these pesticides are a “major threat to both nature and people,” and have begun an advertising campaign to highlight the plight of pollinators and the potential risks to people.

The IUCN’s June 2014 “Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA)” ”” a review of over 800 studies by 29 independent researchers ”” documents significant harms to bees and ecosystems from neonicotinoids. Similarly, the scientists submitting the letter echo others around the globe in calling for new, dramatic restrictions on bee-harming pesticides in the U.S. and beyond. They suggest that the current regulatory system has failed to capture the range of impacts of these pesticide products: “Thriving populations of beneficial insects result in a healthier and more resilient crop as well as benefiting the larger ecosystem. Practices that encourage wild pollinator diversity are therefore likely to increase crop yields and support the agricultural economy.”

As more studies link pesticides to bee harm and declines, more studies show that neonicotinoid seed treatments are not efficacious in farming or promoting pollination. In a study released in October, EPA notes, “Published data indicate that in most cases there is no difference in soybean yield when soybean seed was treated with neonicotinoids versus not receiving any insect control treatment.”

Along with a lack of efficacy in farming, beekeepers are adamant that pesticides do play a major role in bee losses. At the recent listening sessions, many beekeepers voiced their dissatisfaction at the slow pace of  U.S. action on pollinator protection and industry misrepresentation of the crisis facing bees. While industry stakeholders, like Syngenta and Bayer, attempt to deflect blame away from their products and focus on the prevalence of varroa mites, improved farming technologies, and best management practices, beekeepers insist that pesticide exposures, especially to neonicotinoids, are to blame for massive hive losses.

Neonicotinoids are a widely used class of systemic insecticides that are absorbed by plants and transported throughout the plant’s vascular tissue, including nectar and pollen, making the plant toxic to insects. They are commonly used in commodity agriculture as seed treatments, and also as foliar and granular treatments in nurseries. Neonicotinoids, including imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran, first came into heavy use in the mid-2000s. These chemicals have been shown, even at low levels, to impair foraging, navigational, and learning behavior in bees, as well as suppress their immune system to the point of increasing their susceptibility to pathogens and disease. Despite a two-year neonicotinoid  moratorium in the European Union and calls for similar action from beekeepers and environmentalists, the U.S. has refused to stop neonicotinoid use.

For more information, visit the BEE protective page.

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

Source: PAN press release

Photo Source: Gary T

(Beyond Pesticides, November 26, 2014) On Thanksgiving, thank you for being a part of Beyond Pesticides and sharing and contributing to the vision necessary to protect the web and fragility of life. We believe that there is no time like Thanksgiving to think about how we can more effectively join together as families and communities across divisions and different points of view to find a common purpose in protecting the health of the environment and all that inhabit it.

In this context, we at Beyond Pesticides are thankful for the energy, spirt, and vision of the people and organizations we work with. It confirms our belief that we will achieve the changes necessary to protect children, workers, pets, the environment, and the public at-large. Together, we affirm the right to (i) clean air, water, and land in our communities, (ii) toxic-free landscapes that are achieved cost-effectively without hazardous synthetic materials, (iii) safe places with reduced chemical threats where children grow up, and (iv) a healthy ecology where pollinators —bees, butterflies, and birds and the natural world— can flourish.

Thanksgiving offers an opportunity for family and friends to eat, drink and be thankful for the bounty of the organic harvest. Unfortunately, there are a host of pesticides, genetically engineered materials, and others in conventional Thanksgiving foods that not only impact human health, but threaten the environment. Read below for some easy tips and suggestions for a healthful Thanksgiving day feast.

Organic, free-range, and local turkeys
The turkey is the symbol of a traditional Thanksgiving meal. However, turkeys are often fed grains treated with pesticides, medicated with antibiotics, and engorged with steroids and hormones. Additionally, turkeys are often fed an inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, which is used to promote growth and for pigmentation. In order to avoid all these, your best bet is to invest in an organic free-range turkey (pictured right), which is free of hormones, steroids or antibiotics. Want to forgo the turkey altogether? Be sure to choose an organic meatless option.

Avoid Genetically Engineered Food: Go Organic
There are additionally, a number of Thanksgiving products that probably contain genetically-engineered (GE) ingredients (although the formulations are often considered proprietary trade secrets). According to GMO Inside, some common GE foods used during Thanksgiving include: Campbell’s Tomato Soup, Wesson Canola Oil, Bruce’s Yams, Hershey Milk Chocolate, Pepperidge Farm Crackers, Kraft Classic Ranch Dressing, Rice-a-Roni chicken flavored rice, Ocean Spray Cranberry Sauce, and Kraft’s Stove Top Stuffing.

Thankfully, the majority of these products can easily be substituted with organic counterparts. Canned yams for instance often contain GE ingredients, but can be replaced by fresh organic yams. Another staple like Pepperidge Farm Crackers can be substituted for organic crackers like Mary’s Gone Crackers or Nature’s Pathway Crackers. Consider substituting GE cranberry sauce with home-made jellies made with organic cranberries and fair trade sugar. Organic jellied cranberries, such as Tree of Life or Grown Right, are fast alternatives. Finally, pre-made stuffing, like Kraft’s Stove Top stuffing, should be replaced with your own home-made stuffing or organic stuffing mix from Arrowhead. Simply Organic has tons of organic recipes posted to their website if you need more ideas.

Cleaning with Non-Toxics
An easy way to improve the health of your Thanksgiving guests and the environment is to use non-toxic or least-toxic cleaning materials. Mixing baking soda and water can quickly take out carpet stains, while vinegar can be applied to newspaper and used to clean your windows. If you don’t have time to make these at home, simply shop in the non-toxic aisle of the grocery store can significantly decrease exposure to toxics like triclosan, which is known to disrupt reproduction and development.

Cutting Wastes
Outside of pesticide exposure, a responsible Thanksgiving should include a range of waste-cutting measures. Planning your meals for the number of guests will reduce food waste. Instead of covering your table with plastic or disposable centerpieces, decorate lightly with potted plants. When waste cannot be eliminated, make sure to recycle your plastic bottles and cans and compost if possible.

Thanksgiving is a time to give thanks in a way that eliminates exposure to toxic chemicals in food, supports environmental and public health through least-toxic materials, and reduces consumer wastes.

Beyond Pesticides advocates through its Eating with a Conscience for consumers to choose organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a chemical-intensive food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

We are so thankful for all of our members and supporters. Please help us continue our work to support healthy, organic living by contributing to Beyond Pesticides.

Best wishes for a Healthy and Happy Thanksgiving

Source: Living Green Mag

Photo Source: Really Natural

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 25, 2014) Please put charitable giving first this holiday season, and as you consider your donations, please take a close look at Beyond Pesticides’ program to protect health and the environment. Your support enables us to assist local action informed by the science we provide on pesticide hazards and safe and sustainable alternatives.

When you contribute to Beyond Pesticides, you support our core values —that we have a right to:

• (i) clean air, water, and land in our communities,
• (ii) toxic-free landscapes that are achieved cost-effectively without hazardous synthetic materials,
• (iii) safe places with reduced chemical threats where children grow up, and;
• (iv) a healthy ecology where pollinators —bees, butterflies, and birds and the natural world— can flourish.

With your support, Beyond Pesticides is making tremendous progress advancing toxic-free pesticide policies in local communities and promoting effective organic alternatives in the face of strong chemical industry opposition.

>>Please help us pass toxic-free pesticide policies in communities throughout the country by donating today.

We had an important victory in the small coastal town of Ogunquit, Maine this past election day, where 60% of voters passed an initiative to ban turf and landscape pesticides on all town lands, public and private. Your support of Beyond Pesticides helped to make this happen! Because, when given an opportunity, local communities choose to protect themselves from the unnecessary use of toxic pesticides by adopting nontoxic practices.

>>Help us assist other communities in their efforts to adopt nontoxic practices!

We are bringing to communities an understanding of inadequate protections at the federal level. The allowance of toxic pesticides by EPA begins with decisions that are heavily lobbied by the chemical industry. The recent allowance of 2,4-D, contaminated with dioxin, for weeds on newly deregulated genetically engineered corn and soybeans speaks volumes to the power of the industry, weak federal laws, and a complicit Congress.

>>With your contribution, we will continue to fight bad EPA regulatory decisions.

Critical to long-term sustainability, Beyond Pesticides is transforming land and building management. We began this work 33 years ago, calling for research into sustainable practices, and the adoption of organic standards with certification and enforcement mechanisms, so that we could point people and communities to credible, verifiable solutions to pesticide pollution. In this regard, we have helped build an organic standards and certification system that addresses the limitations of EPA’s pesticide registration program.

>>Your support enables Beyond Pesticides to work to keep the USDA and NOSB process accountable to consumers and family farmers who believe deeply in a safe, sustainable and organic alternative to practices and products that poison and contaminate.

Thank you for giving first this holiday season!

To read Beyond Pesticides full letter to supporters, written by executive director Jay Feldman, see here, and see Ogunquit Leads the Way with Ordinance Banning Pesticides.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 24, 2014) Last Wednesday, a special Task Force on Pollinator Health in Oregon delivered a series of recommendations to the Oregon legislature on how to help the state’s honey bees, native bees, and other pollinators,but failed to address the clear threat that neonicotinoid insecticides pose to pollinators. Because the task force only prioritized consensus recommendations, groups representing pesticide manufacturers, retailers, and the nursery industry were able to stifle advice on protecting pollinators from highly toxic, long-lived systemic neonicotinoids and other potential pesticide threats. Instead, the consensus decisions include: expansion of outreach and education, supporting new research, and increasing pollinator habitat. Five of the eight voting members also supported targeted oversight of pesticide use.

According to Xerces Society, one of the conservationist members of the task force, industry’s opposition to targeted oversight of pesticide use stood  in stark contrast with the scientist, master gardener, beekeeper and conservationists on the task force. Actions opposed only by industry representatives include requiring a pesticide applicator’s license for anyone who regularly uses pesticides as part of his or her job, halting the use of two highly toxic, long-lived neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin and thiamethoxam) on linden trees, and increasing consumer awareness about whether retail ornamental plants have been treated with neonicotinoids.

The task force was established following the new law, HB 4139, which was enacted partially in response to several bee-kill incidents in Oregon last summer, particularly one that killed more than 50,000 bumblebees after a licensed pesticide applicator sprayed blooming linden trees, a violation of the pesticide label. The Oregon Department of Agriculture confirmed that the massive bee die-off was caused by the use of the neonicotinoid insecticide, dinotefuran. HB 4139 required the Governor to establish the task force directed to continue the research on bee health and pesticides for legislative action in 2015. The bill also requires anyone applying for a pesticide license to take a course on pollinators and pesticides and pass the exam. While the legislation fell short of the original bill that would have restricted the neonicotinoids —dinotefuran, imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, many advocates in Oregon saw this as a step forward for bee protection considering the lack of action by the EPA and other states.

Mounting science has documented the neonicotinoid class of pesticides  as a major factor in bee decline. Neonicotinoids have been shown, even at low levels, to impair foraging, navigational and learning behavior in bees, as well as suppress their immune system to point of making them susceptible to pathogens and disease. (Read  No Longer a Big Mystery.) These chemicals are also systemic, meaning they contaminate the entire plant, including pollen and nectar, leading to contamination of the entire colony, including juvenile bees, when pollen is taken back to the hive. More recent research is even finding that neonicotinoids persist for long periods of time in the  environment, contaminating soil and water, and  adversely affecting  other non-target organisms.

“By excluding pesticide oversight in the priorities, the task force has created a two-legged stool,” said task force member Aimee Code, Pesticide Program Coordinator for the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. “If we are to bring back pollinators we need to address all the core issues.”

The plight of bees and other pollinators is an important one for all to be concerned. Bees and other pollinators provide an estimated $600 million in pollination service in Oregon alone. That contribution helps provide better quality fruits and vegetables and helps keep food prices down. Across the U.S., one third of the foods we eat are dependent on pollination services, which contribute $20-30 billion to the agricultural economy. The reliance on toxic, systemic inputs that dominate our agricultural systems and how we manage pests, is being found to have more environmental costs than benefits. The time for action  is now.

On the plus side, the task force presented some good consensus recommendations. These include: increasing pesticide registration fees to fund Oregon Department of Agriculture’s pesticide use outreach and education; prioritizing creation and management of pollinator friendly habitat on state lands, including parks and rights-of-way; and supporting the creation of a bee-health diagnostics facility. For more information on how to improve pollinator health and habitat, see the  BEE Protective webpage. BEE Protective includes a variety of educational materials to help encourage municipalities, campuses, and individual homeowners to adopt policies and practices that protect bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticide applications and create pesticide-free refuges for these beneficial organisms. See  the  Pollinator-Friendly Seeds and Nursery Directory, which lists sources of seeds and plant starts that are safe for bees and not poisoned with neonicotinoids or other pesticides.

Members of the Task Force on Pollinator Health:

Dr. Ramesh Sagili (task force Chair), Assistant Professor (honey bee health, nutrition and pollination), Oregon State University.
Aimee Code, Pesticide Program Coordinator, the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
Scott Dahlman, Executive Director, Oregonians for Food and Shelter.
Betsy Earls, Vice President & Counsel, Associated Oregon Industries.
George Hansen, commercial beekeeper, owner of Foothills Honey Company.
Rich Little, Master Gardener, Oregon State University Extension Service.
Doug Moore, Executive Director, Oregon League of Conservation Voters.
Jeff Stone, Executive Director, Oregon Association of Nurseries.
Non-voting members: State Senator Chuck Thomsen and State Representative Jeff Reardon.

Source:  Task Force on Pollinator Health’s report,   Xerces Society Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2014) Researchers of a new study published on Monday find increased resistance in the fall armyworm to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-incorporated genetically engineered (GE) maize in the southeastern region of the U.S., calling this evolution of insect resistance to transgenic crops “a serious threat to the sustainability of this technology.”

The pest was found to be resistant to a toxin derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, which is inserted into seeds. Bt is a naturally-occurring soil bacterium that, when used in non-genetically engineered forms, is an important biological pesticide for organic and sustainable farmers. This study is just one of many that show increasing insect resistance to Bt crops, which are produced by Dow and DuPont, but is the first to document field resistance related to the reduced efficacy of Bt maize in a lepidopteran pest in the mainland U.S.

The study, “Cry1F Resistance in Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda: Single Gene versus Pyramided Bt Maize,” led by Fangneng Huang, Ph.D., an entomologist at Louisiana State University, finds that the fall armyworm has exhibited increased resistance to the Bt subspecies Cry1F protein. When expressed, the protein controls larvae from an order of insects known as Lepidoptera, which includes pests such as the European corn borer, southwestern corn borer, and black cutworm, as well as beneficial organisms such as butterflies and moths. Armyworms can plague farmers in many parts of the U.S., but these resistant insects have been documented only in some areas of Florida and North Carolina. The range of these resistant armyworms is unknown, researchers said.

The researchers recommended that farmers should plant more non-GMO corn as a refuge and possibly increase the use of pesticides to control the resistance.

Newer types of Bt corn with multiple modes of action are still showing effectiveness, Dr. Huang said. He added, “We don’t know how long they can last.”

Dr. Huang’s uncertainty is not only suggested by the results of his most recent study, but is also supported by a growing literature of cross-resistance in regards to other resistant insects.  A 2013 study,    “Potential shortfall of pyramided transgenic cotton for insect resistance management,” by Thierry Brévaul, Ph.D., and colleagues found that stacking several  Bt-incorporated traits does not stop resistance. Researchers assumed that caterpillars resistant to the first  Bt  toxin would survive on the one-toxin plants, but die when consuming two-toxin plants because they had not yet developed resistance to the new formulation. However, caterpillars selected for resistance to one toxin survived significantly better than caterpillars from a susceptible strain.

Several additional studies have documented growing insect resistance to Bt maize. In 2011, the study “Field-Evolved Resistance to  Bt  Maize by Western Corn Rootworm,”  led by Aaron Gassmann, Ph.D., verified the first field-evolved resistance of corn rootworm, from the order Coleoptera,  to a  Bt  toxin, Cry3Bb1. The study found the western corn rootworm’s ability to adapt is strongest in fields where Bt  corn is planted for three consecutive years and suggests that insufficient planting of refuges contributes to the problem. This study was cited by a group of  22 prominent entomologists  who submitted  formal comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  on their concerns about the viability of Cry3Bb1 corn. In January 2013, EPA concluded that, “Corn rootworm may not be completely controlled by Cry3Bb1 in certain parts of the corn belt.” However, after this release, EPA did little to mitigate resistance beyond announcing that Monsanto had committed to conducting grower education programs demonstrating the value of crop rotation.

Other consequences related to growing insect resistance to GE technology include an increase in insecticide use. According to a report by the  Wall Street Journal  in 2013, insecticide sales soared  in 2013 as target insects have developed resistance to genetically engineered insecticide-incorporated crops. Pesticide manufacturers American Vanguard, FMC Corp, and Syngenta have all reported higher sales in 2012 and 2013 than in previous years. Syngenta alone reported doubling sales in 2012. Similarly, American Vanguard reported soil insecticide revenues rose by 50% in 2012.

Beyond Pesticides believes that whether it is the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium (Bt) or the development of an herbicide-tolerant crop, the GE approach to agriculture and pest management is short sighted and dangerous. There are  serious public health  and  many other problems  associated with GE crops. The failure of EPA to properly exercise its authority to regulate the plant-incorporated protection used in Bt corn products is unacceptable. Further delay on EPA’s part to implement refuge requirements and compliance activities that seek to  preserve the efficacy of Bt corn products and extend their utility in the field will result in undue adverse environmental, human health, and economic consequences, as well as undermine the use of Bt as a biological pest management tool in organic production.

For more information on the hazards associated with GE technology, visit Beyond Pesticides’  Genetic Engineering webpage.

Sources: Reuters

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2014) A study published in the Journal of Organic Systems this week examined potential connections between the increase in chronic diseases seen within the United States and other parts of the world over the last 20 years and the explosion of glyphosate use, finding a significant correlation between glyphosate use, genetically-engineered (GE) crops, and human health.

Glyphosate, one of the most popular weedkillers in both the U.S. and the world, is the active ingredient in Roundup ® ””the leading glyphosate product developed by Monsanto. Known as “Roundup Ready,” GE soybeans, corn, cotton, and other crops have been genetically altered and patented by Monsanto to be glyphosate-tolerant. Whether a crop stems from a Roundup Ready seed or not, glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural areas of the U.S., as well as on an international scale, in conventional, non-organic farming operations.

Because of Roundup’s popularity, glyphosate use has skyrocketed, leading to an estimated application of nearly 250 million pounds of the chemical across the U.S. alone and resulting in significant problems of glyphosate resistance and the increased presence of the herbicide in our food and environment.

The increased presence of glyphosate has also ushered in independent data and research on the chemical’s adverse health and environmental effects. As noted in the study, “Evidence is mounting that glyphosate interferes with many metabolic processes in plants and animals and glyphosate residues have been detected in both. Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.”

To explore if there was a connection between the known increase glyphosate use and similar rise in chronic diseases, the study, Genetically Engineered Crops, Glyphosate and the Deterioration of Health in the United States of America, examined U.S. government data on GE crops, glyphosate application, and disease epidemiology and developed correlation coefficients for 22 diseases. The correlations were highly significant, according to researchers, and while the correlation did not necessarily mean direct or exclusive causation, it did warrant a recommendation to reevaluate glyphosate residue levels and potential adverse health effects.

In the meantime, people concerned about the potentially toxic effects of glyphosate and other pesticides in their food, can find significant protections from GE crops and pesticides in certified organic foods. Please visit Beyond Pesticides Eating with a Conscience and Keeping Organic Strong webpages to learn more about choosing organic foods and keeping synthetic chemicals, like glyphosate, out of organic.

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

Source: Sustainable Pulse

(Beyond Pesticides, November 19, 2014) A group of doctors and nurses is urging the Ontario government to ban neonicotinoid pesticides, blamed for the decline of bees and other insect pollinators. As Canada’s first neonicotinoid campaign organized by doctors and nurses, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario say that these pesticides are a “major threat to both nature and people.”

The doctors and nurses in Ontario, Canada, now urging the province to ban the pesticides adds to growing pressure on the Ontario government to take action on neonicotinoids (neonics), the insecticide class of chemicals linked to the deaths of bees across Canada and the U.S. Central to the initiative is an advertising buy which starts this week on the Toronto subway system. The ads show an anxious child beneath the caption, ”˜Doctors and Nurses say neonic pesticides hurt our bees and us.’ The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO) also plan to meet with the Ontario Environment Minister, Glen Murray, later this year  to urge the government to ban the chemicals. CAPE is the campaign’s main funder, with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation and Ontario Nature.

“Physicians believe neonics are a major threat to both nature and people,” says CAPE Executive Director Gideon Forman. “These nerve poisons are fatal to bees but there are also concerns they may adversely affect the human nervous system. We need to ban neonics to protect public health.”

The campaign is also sending a letter to all Ontario  Members of Parliament  urging them to prohibit neonics’ use and sale. Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner, Gord Miller, recommends that Ontario act on its own to ban the use of the agricultural pesticides, saying there is ample science to find that neonics are responsible for the collapse of bee colonies, and that Ontario faces a potential ecological and economic crisis because of the disappearance of bees, which pollinate hundreds of crops in the province.

The Canadian government is studying the effects of three of the pesticides on bee colonies in agricultural areas. In September 2013, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) —responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada— discovered neonicotinoid-contaminated dust had caused severe bee mortality in Ontario and Quebec, and released new measures intended to protect bees from exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides. These included guidelines for soybean and corn growers who use neonicotinoids on treated seeds, requiring a dust-reducing lubricant to prevent the pesticide from spreading at seeding time. Additionally, ongoing monitoring is being used to determine whether these mitigation techniques will help reduce bee mortality in 2014. Based on the results, new measures could be introduced for next year, such as a permit system for the use of neonics. A final report is expected in 2015. Ontario has said it will wait for the results of the study before it makes a recommendation to restrict neonicotinoids, as has been done in the European Union. But many, including the doctors and nurses, recommend banning the chemicals outright, and urge the province to adopt an ecological approach to pest control that minimizes use of pesticides. Crop rotation, improved planting techniques and pest resistant crops that can help eliminate the need for pesticides in agriculture have been suggested.

“This is a unique campaign because health professionals have teamed up with environmental groups to urge a ban on these toxic pesticides. And it makes perfect sense because as nurses we know that if you kill bees —and endanger our food supply— you undermine human health,” says Doris Grinspun, RN, MSN, PhD, and Chief Executive Officer of RNAO. Dr. Grinspun also notes that neonicotinoids go well beyond the corn and soybean fields  to disrupt other ecological systems. “The issue with the  neonic  pesticides is that they are absorbed and incorporated into every part of the plant, from leaves and stems to seed, pollen and nectar. They are very persistent, they are highly water soluble, so they can contaminate ground and surface water and can persist in aquatic environments for a very long time,” Dr. Grinspun  said.

This summer, one county in southern Ontario was reported to be the first Canadian community  to temporarily ban neonicotinoids, while officials in Prince Edward County passed a motion prohibiting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides on municipal lands. Canadian municipalities have an illustrious history of restricting pesticides to safeguard human and environmental health. For several years, Canadian communities have been restricting cosmetic uses of pesticides on their lawns despite pushback from industry giants. Similarly, neonicotinoid restrictions could gain traction across the provinces, especially if bee losses continue to mount.

Neonicotinoids, including imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, have already been given a two-year moratorium in the European Union. Despite calls for similar action from beekeepers and environmentalists, Canadian officials, and their counterparts in the U.S., have refused to follow suit. Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, and beekeepers  filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2013 calling for a ban on clothianidin and thiamethoxam, which are used extensively on corn, soybean and canola seeds, even though a recent report finds that this use pattern provides no additional benefit to agriculture. A recent EPA report also confirms that soybean  seed treatments with neonicotinoid insecticides provide little or no overall benefits in controlling insects or improving yield or quality in soybean production

Mounting science has documented the neonicotinoid class of pesticides  as a major factor in bee decline. Neonicotinoids have been shown, even at low levels, to impair foraging, navigational and learning behavior in bees, as well as suppress their immune system to point of making them susceptible to pathogens and disease. Read: No Longer a Big Mystery. These chemicals are also systemic, meaning they contaminate the entire plant, including pollen and nectar, leading to contamination of the entire colony, including juvenile bees, when pollen is taken back to the hive. More recent research is even finding that neonicotinoids persist for long periods of time in the  environment, contaminating soil and water, and  adversely affecting  other non-target organisms.

At a recent listening session hosted by EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), many beekeepers voiced their dissatisfaction at the slow pace of  U.S. action on pollinator protection, and industry misrepresentation of the crisis facing bees. While industry stakeholders, like Syngenta and Bayer, try to deflect blame away from their products and focus on the prevalence of varroa mites, improved farming technologies, and best management practices, beekeepers insist that pesticide exposures, especially to neonicotinoids, are to blame for massive hive losses. Canadian beekeepers recently filed a class action lawsuit against Syngenta and Bayer CropScience charging that the companies were negligent in the design, sale, manufacture, and distribution of neonicotinoid pesticides and this negligence caused the plaintiffs to suffer $450 million in damages.

The plight of bees and other pollinators is an important one for all to be concerned. One third of the foods we eat are dependent on pollination services, which contribute $20-30 billion to the agricultural economy. The reliance on toxic, systemic inputs that dominate our agricultural systems and how we manage pests, is being found to have more environmental costs than benefits. The time for action  is now. The White House  issued a Presidential Memorandum  on pollinator health to the heads of federal agencies requiring action to “reverse pollinator losses and help restore populations to healthy levels.” The President is directing agencies to establish a Pollinator Health Task Force, and to develop a National Pollinator Health Strategy, including a Pollinator Research Action Plan within 180 days.  The memorandum recognizes the severe losses in the populations of the nation’s pollinators, including honey bees, wild bees, monarch butterflies, and others and the impact to the agricultural economy. However, the White House recently announced that it would miss the deadline to provide a pollinator health strategy. Let EPA and the White House know that the time is not for action! Comments may be submitted by Monday, November 24 online at www.regulations.gov, EPA docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0806.

For more information on how to improve pollinator health and habitat, see the BEE Protective webpage, where you can find the Pollinator Friendly Seed and Nursery Directory. The directory lists sources of seeds and plant starts that are safe for bees and not poisoned with neonicotinoids or other pesticides. Join efforts to protect pollinators and educate your community about the importance of these creatures at BEE Protective.

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

Source: Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, CBC News

(Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2014) Four workers died this past weekend 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. The chemical, which has a strong odor of rotten eggs, spread throughout the Houston metropolitan area, causing concern for people up to 40 miles away. This incident is the latest in a string of chemical disasters for DuPont and across the United States. A 2011 U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) investigation determined that “a series of preventable safety shortcomings” led to three accidents over a 33-hour period that resulted in the death of one worker from phosgene gas exposure at a DuPont plant in Belle, West Virginia. CSB, an independent federal agency tasked with investigating chemical accidents, has begun a probe into the recent incident. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will conduct a separate investigation.

In 2013, in the wake of an explosion at a chemical plant in West, Texas that claimed the lives of 15 people and injured hundreds more, President Obama signed an Executive Order entitled Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, in an effort to improve the safety of U.S. chemical manufacturing for workers and those in surrounding communities. Beyond Pesticides joined with over 100 organizations, including health, labor, consumer, and environmental justice groups in a letter urging then newly appointed Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy to make chemical disaster prevention a priority initiative. In the letter, groups advocated for the only fool-proof way to prevent chemical disasters; switching to safer chemical processes. While the President’s Executive Order took important steps to move the country toward safer chemical processes, many groups at the time questioned whether the Order was forceful enough. A report on the Executive Order was delivered to the President in May 2014, though it is too early to say whether further action would have prevented the recent disaster at the DuPont plant.

The chemical released in the DuPont incident, methyl mercaptan, is a colorless flammable gas with an unpleasant odor described as rotten cabbage, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. OSHA has set legally acceptable airborne exposure limits of the compound at 10ppm. Methyl mercaptan acts as a central nervous system depressant as well as a respiratory-tract and skin irritant at high levels of exposure. The La Porte plant uses methyl mercaptan for the production of methomyl, a carbamate class of insecticide shown to be highly toxic to humans, with the potential to cause cholinesterase inhibition, resulting in flu-like symptoms such as weakness, lack of appetite, and muscle aches. Although methomyl is not registered for residential use, tolerance levels for the insecticide have been set on over 80 crops.

Many groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have focused on encouraging safer alternatives in chemical processing since before the tragic events that occurred nearly 30 years ago in Bhopal, India by Union Carbide, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical. In 2008, an explosion at a chemical plant in Institute, West Virginia owned by Bayer released high levels of methyl isocyanate, the same chemical released in the Bhopal disaster, and also used as an intermediate in the production of methomyl. Two Bayer workers died as a result of the explosion. Although Bayer reduced the amount of methyl isocyanate it held in its production facility by 80% after the disaster, the company kept up to 50,000 pounds of the chemical stored at this location until 2011, when it announced it would stop all manufacture of the toxic chemical.

According to the 2011 risk-management plan for DuPont’s La Porte plant, 122,000 pounds of methyl mercaptan were stored on site. In addition to the toxicity of the end use product, methomyl, these disasters highlight dangers inherent in the production of pesticides. From cradle to grave, these chemicals pose unnecessary hazards to workers and the environment. 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.” Though a focus on investing in safer alternatives to toxic pesticides, and fostering alternative systems like organic agriculture, which do not require these chemicals, future tragedies like what occurred this past weekend in La Porte, Texas can be prevented.

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

Source: New York Times, NBC News,

Photo Source: Marie D De Jesus/Houston Chronicle

(Beyond Pesticides, November 17, 2014) In anticipation of the lawsuit by agrichemical giants following a newly passed initiative to suspend the planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops in Maui, five residents preemptively filed a lawsuit last Wednesday, November 12 beating their opponents by one day. The moratorium is only a temporary measure that bans GE crops until the county analyzes the public health and environmental effects, and it is deemed safe. Yet, despite this Monsanto, along with Dow AgroSciences, the Maui Farm Bureau and other businesses filed their own lawsuit against the county Thursday, November 13 saying that  the “referendum is invalid and contrary to long established state and federal laws that support both the safety and lawful testing and planting of GMO plants.”

Maui County residents Dr. Lorrin Pang, Mark Sheehan, Lei’ohu Ryder, Bonnie Marsh and Alika Atay, along with the Shaka Movement, filed their lawsuit in the Second Circuit court in Hawaii against the county, Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences. The lawsuit seeks to assure transparency and influence over the implementation of the initiative, in light of the enormous amount of money that the ag companies have poured into the county in an attempt to beat the initiative. According to Honolulu Civil Beat reporters, opponents of the measure outspent advocates more than 87 to 1, amounting to $300 for every “no” vote.

“We applaud the county’s recent indication that they will implement the moratorium,” Mark Sheehan, spokesperson for the citizen group in a statement from his attorney, according to Maui Now. “However, given the strong prior opposition of the Maui County Council and Mayor’s Office during the campaign, we want to ensure that the citizens of Maui have full access to the implementation process and that the new law is properly administered.”

The resident’s complaint states: “Plaintiffs bring this action seeking declaratory relief against Defendants in order to (1) assure that the GMO Bill is timely and properly implemented and to be able to assist and participate in the County’s implementation of the GMO Bill, including being consulted by the County with respect to the GMO Bill’s implementation; and (2) resolve the claims that the GMO bill is not legal and enforceable, as there is an actual controversy and threat of imminent and inevitable litigation regarding this issue.”

In addition to pouring money to fight the initiative, the litigation from the agrichemical giant companies came as no surprise, as they had already promised to file a lawsuit against Maui if the memorandum passed. Previously, Syngenta, DuPont Pioneer, BASF Plant Science LP, and Dow AgroSciences also filed a lawsuit against the neighboring county of Kauai to prevent a similar measure, Ordinance 960, from being implemented. While Kauai’s law did not impose a full ban of GE farming, it did require mandatory notification concerning pesticide applications and buffer zones for crops and pesticide spraying in certain areas. Even with these more moderate restrictions, the Kauai law was stuck down by a federal court in August. While attorneys defending the law filed an appeal in the 9th Circuit in September, some Kauai County Councilmen have introduced a bill to repeal the challenged law, which would invalidate the appeal.

The initiative in Maui is part of a growing movement on the Islands that seeks to protect health and the environment while strengthening local food economies and resiliency. Residents living on the Hawaiian Islands are subject to a particularly pronounced form of environmental assault, as the state’s premiere growing conditions have made it a prime target for agrichemical companies to test new, experimental forms of GE crops. Data released earlier this year reveals that high levels of restricted use pesticides, in some cases almost double the pounds per acre average of other states, are being used in Kauai County. Residents of the Hawaiian Islands that live, work, or go to school near these fields are subject to incessant pesticide spraying, as the climate provides a year-round growing season for GE crops. A May 2014 report found 25 herbicides, 11 insecticides and 6 fungicides in Hawaii’s waterways, underscoring resident concerns for both the land and human health.

Despite the deep pockets of the agrichemical industry, residents both in Hawaii and across the United States continue to raise their voices for increased protections from GE crops and the hazardous pesticide use that is associated with their planting. In fact, Maui is not the first U.S locality to bar the planting of GE crops. In May, Jackson and Josephine County, Oregon voted overwhelmingly to ban the cultivation, production, and distribution of GE crops within their borders. “We fought the most powerful and influential chemical companies in the world and we won,” said Elise Higley, a Jackson County farmer and representative from  Our Family Farms Coalition told Oregon Live. The fights may be long, drawn out, and grueling, but concerned residents continue to stand up for common sense protections in order to safeguard the health of themselves, their families, their community members, and the unique areas in which they live.

Additional background on the fight for increased protections on the Hawaiian Islands, including testimony Beyond Pesticides provided in support of Kauai’s Bill 2491, can be found here. For more information on the hazards that continue to be associated with the growth of GE agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides Genetic Engineering webpage.

Sources: Honolulu Civil Beat, Maui Now

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