(Beyond Pesticides, November 24, 2015) The Canadian province of Quebec has announced plans for a major overhaul of its pesticide laws in order to protect pollinators, public health and the wider environment. Canadian provinces, particularly Quebec and Ontario, have long led the way in crafting common sense pesticide legislation that responds to sound science on the dangers of these chemicals. The proposed reforms will focus on further restricting the most toxic pesticides allowed for use in both agriculture and residential pest control, including atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and the neonicotinoid class of insecticides, which are  widely implicated in pollinator declines.

“Québec has made progress in recent years with respect to responsible pesticide management,” said the Quebec Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change. “However, the time is  right to intensify our efforts and become even more proficient at reducing the risks to health and the environment that are associated with pesticide use, particularly by supervising the use of highest-risk pesticides like neonicotinoids, which have a recognized major effect on bee mortality.”

Quebec’s Pesticide Strategy 2015-2018  is structured  to incentivize farmers and home gardeners to choose lower risk pesticides through economic motivators such as levies, permits, and compensation fees. The provincial government is working closely with other public health agencies to create a pesticide risk indicator based on chemical properties to identify “high risk” chemicals that have a disproportionate impact on health and the environment. This strategy is based on the recognition that certain pesticides with the broadest range of public health and environmental effects are not necessarily those that are most often used. “Atrazine and chlorpyrifos are good examples of this,” notes the government’s summary document on its strategy. “These pesticides account for less than 5% of sales but 14% of health risk indicators and 20% of environmental risk indicators.”

Changes for Agriculture

Quebec’s reforms will alter the way pesticides are used in agricultural landscapes in the province. The government notes that 85% of all pesticide sales occur within the agricultural industry. New measures will require farmers to consult with and gain approval from an agronomist in order to apply “high risk” pesticides. This requirement is similar to that put in place in Ontario, where new regulations require farmers to prove the presence of pests before allowing the planting of bee-toxic neonicotinoid-coated seeds. However, Quebec goes further by implementing this requirement across the board for “high risk” pesticides.

When “high risk” pesticides are allowed, the province will require additional restrictions. Specifically, the government plans to increase buffer zones, the distance allowed between the use of “high risk” pesticides and inhabited areas. “By tightening the conditions under which the highest-risk pesticides can be used in agricultural environments, the Québec Pesticide Strategy 2015-2018 will offer greater protection to public health, but also to the health of farmers, who are the main users of these products,” said the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Pierre Paradis. Groups across Canada joined the Quebec Environment Minister in celebrating the new approach. Sidney Ribaux of the nonprofit environmental group Equiterre noted, “With this pioneering strategy, Québec becomes the first jurisdiction in North America to restrict the use of the pesticide atrazine, which has been banned in Europe for more than 10 years. We salute the approach favoured by the government.”

Urban and Residential Environments

In addition to curbing toxic pesticide use in agriculture, Quebec’s strategy aims to reduce the public’s exposure to these pesticides in urban areas. Although Quebec, Ontario, and a number of other Canadian provinces already have strong restrictions on the cosmetic use of pesticides, Quebec plans to go further to protect public health. Objectives include strengthening compliance with pesticide laws, raising applicator certification requirements, increasing buffer zones, and tripling the number of pesticides banned for use in urban areas. The new plan also contains far-reaching measures to protect bees. The government plans to ban the use of all neonicotinoids on lawns and flower beds for aesthetic purposes.

François Reeves, MD, interventional cardiologist at Notre-Dame  Hospital, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, who joined the Quebec Environment Minister in announcing the strategy, said, “The use of pesticides is far from being inconsequential, which is why the implementation of the Québec Pesticide Strategy is so important for protecting public health and the biosphere’s insect populations. This strategy will encourage more responsible pesticide management by improving practices and particularly by promoting biopesticides and keeping the use of pesticides in urban environments like lawns and public parks to a strict minimum. This will have the benefits of reducing illness caused by pesticides and stopping the decline of the bee, butterfly and earthworm populations. The massive decline in the number of vital insects imperils the basis of life: plants, trees and food.  The entire population will benefit from this Strategy thanks to the positive results achieved by tighter supervision of pesticide use.”

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. While there is certainly further steps that can be taken to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of toxic synthetic pesticides, Quebec’s new approach makes significant strides towards a safer, sustainable agriculture and landscapes. Regulators in the U.S., particularly in states and localities, should watch the experience of Canadian provinces and aim to follow this health protective path. In the meantime, U.S. residents can encourage these actions by buying organic, and advocating for a pesticide free community like Montgomery County, Maryland, which recently enacted Canadian style restrictions on the cosmetic use of pesticides harmful to pollinators, public health, and the wider environment.

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

Source: Canadian Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, and the Fight Against Climate Change

(Beyond Pesticides, November 23, 2015) Commonly-used pesticides can impact aquatic species over multiple weeks, even when chemicals are no longer detectable in water nor  monitored by regulators, according to new research. The study, titled A long-term assessment of pesticide mixture effects on aquatic invertebrate communities,  published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, investigates the long-term effects on aquatic invertebrate communities of commonly-used insecticides: two pyrethroids (permethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin) and an organophosphate (chlorpyrifos). Pesticide applications were based on environmentally relevant concentrations and lethal concentrations (a concentration required to kill a certain percentage of animals tested) ranging from 10% (LC10) to 50% (LC50). Researchers made repeat applications in order to mimic runoff events in a multiple grower or homeowner watershed. The results indicate that insecticide mixtures continue to impact natural systems over multiple weeks, even when bound to particles and no longer detectable in water. Combinations of indirect and direct effects caused consequences across the food chain. Pyrethroids rapidly dissipated from the water column, whereas chlorpyrifos was detectable even six weeks after application.

“The effects we observed indicate that many species were affected at a sublethal level,” said Simone Hasenbein, Ph.D., lead author of the study tells Phys.org. “Thus, populations exposed to low concentrations of pesticides could  be even more sensitive to other abiotic or biotic factors, such as invasive species, or changes in salinity or temperature leading to a magnification of multi-stressor situations.”

Over half a billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the U.S., mostly in agriculture and to reduce insect-borne disease, but some of these pesticides are occurring at concentrations that  are identified by the  government as a  concern for aquatic life. The potential for adverse effects on aquatic life is likely underestimated in these results because resource constraints limit the scope of monitoring to less than half of the more than 400 pesticides currently used in agriculture each year and monitoring focuses only on pesticides dissolved in water.

Already,  nearly 2,000 waterways are impaired  by pesticide contamination  and many more have simply not been tested.  A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report from last year  finds that levels of pesticides continue to be a concern for aquatic life in many of the nation’s rivers and streams in agricultural and urban areas. The study, which documents pesticide levels in U.S. waterways for two decades (1992-2011), finds pesticides and their breakdown products in U.S. streams more than 90 percent of the time. Known pesticide water contaminants, such as the herbicides  atrazine,  metolachlor, and  simazine, continue to be detected in streams more than 50 percent of the time, with the insecticide  fipronil being the pesticide most frequently found at levels of potential concern for aquatic organisms in urban streams. The report also found that for urban areas, 90 percent of the streams exceeded a chronic aquatic life benchmarks.

Aquatic organisms like algae and fish face numerous risks from pesticide exposures, even at low levels. In fact, USGS scientists identified pesticides as one of the contaminants the Potomac River linked to intersex-fish (male fish producing eggs) observed there. Atrazine, one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world, has been shown to affect reproduction of fish at concentrations below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) water-quality guidelines. Concentrations of atrazine commonly found in agricultural streams and rivers have been associated with a reduction in reproduction and spawning, as well as tissue abnormalities.

Last year, EPA finalized a settlement to restore no-spray buffer zones around waterways to protect imperiled salmon and steelhead from five toxic pesticides. The settlement follows litigation filed by Earthjustice, representing the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and Defenders of Wildlife, back in 2010 that called for EPA adoption of reasonable fish protections from the insecticides. More recently, EPA proposed to revoke all food tolerances for chlorpyrifos (also known as Dursban). If EPA’s rule is finalized, chlorpyrifos would be effectively eliminated from use in agriculture 15 years after residential  uses were discontinued. However, other non-food uses, including golf courses, turf, green house and mosquito control are not affected by this decision and will remain.

Water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health in surface water are  set for only a handful of pesticides. In 2012, EPA added new health and environmental benchmarks for acute pesticide effects, however, benchmarks are notoriously limited in fully assessing risks because of ongoing deficiencies in analyzing the complexities associated with chemical exposure, specifically a failure to evaluate the effects of chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, and health effects associated with consistent low-dose exposure. If benchmarks are exceeded, the state or local water municipality can consider how frequently the benchmarks are exceeded and the magnitude of the exceedance in other samples. Exceeding the benchmark consistently means that aquatic life and human health may be at risk from continued exposures.

Clean water is essential for human health, wildlife, and a balanced environment. Check out Beyond Pesticides’  Threatened Waters webpage  for more information.

Source: Phys.org; Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 19, 2015) French scientists say that they have found the “missing link” between laboratory studies and field studies that assess the adverse effects of neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides on bees. The study, published in Royal Society Journal Proceedings B, evaluates the effects of neonics on honey bees in field trials. After 15 years of research into the effects of neonicotinoids on bees, researchers had identified a gap between the results of toxicity assessments on individual bees in the laboratory and  impacts seen at the colony level in the field. The new two-year study made two discoveries: First, they found that field exposure to thiamethoxam combined with imidacloprid contamination is associated with a significant excess mortality in individual free-ranging bees.  Second, while colonies appeared to be able to compensate for the excess mortality and preserve population size and honey production, this was done at the expense of a change in brood laying patterns. Thus, this study provides an explanation for the “missing link” in the discrepancies between labs studies and field studies, where the former establishes harmful and fatal effects that had yet to be replicated in real-life conditions. Because the bees responded to the increased mortality with selective population regulation, the proportion of male bees declined significantly, representing an abnormality with potentially widespread impacts for the health of honey bee colonies.

Researchers found that “there was a change in the way reproductive effort was allocated between female (worker) brood and drone (male disperser) brood. During flowering, the most exposed colonies tended to invest more in worker brood production at the expense of drone brood production. Drones are more costly to produce and maintain than workers, among others because they do not participate to the foraging task force.” Because male drone bees are only necessary for mating, their decreased population proportion is temporarily beneficial for maintaining honey flow, yet detrimental to long-term colony sustainability. A study led by Geoff Williams, MD, Ph.D, at the University of Bern in Switzerland found that queens exposed to noenics were more likely to not lay worker eggs, a key indicator of queen health and mating success.  In light of this recent study, it may be inferred that individual bee mortality due to neonicotinoid insecticides results in an adverse positive feedback response from the queen that causes detrimental effects on the long-term success of the colony.

Christopher Connolly, Ph.D. of the University of Dundee explained that, “It is important to remember that all other insect pollinators do not possess the enormous buffering capacity of honeybees and are therefore more acutely at risk to the impact of pesticides.” He also said that the study identifies, “

The French scientists had to obtain special permission from the French Food Safety Agency, ANSES, to use rape (canola) seeds treated with thiamethoxam; their use is currently prohibited on flowering crops within the European Union. “These systemic insecticides,” explains the scientists, “which now represent  about  30% of insecticide use worldwide, pose a particular risk for pollinators, because once the active substance has been taken up in the plant, its residues translocate to the pollen and nectar collected by foragers throughout flowering.”

In addition to thiamethoxam, researchers discovered an unexpected and substantial concomitant exposure to imidacloprid at residue levels high enough to adversely affect bees. In France, this neonic is still currently used to treat seeds for crops such as wheat, barley, and sugar beet, but had not been used on rapeseed. In January, imidacloprid was found to cause  mitochondrial dysfunction  in bumble bees, which then negatively impacts navigation and foraging skills. The contamination of imidacloprid in current study where it was not purposefully applied points to its ability to persist in nature for long periods of time. That persistence not only exposes bees to the harmful effects of imidacloprid alone, but also a potentially synergistic combination of neonics that have unknown effects. The discovery of this chemical in the nectar of rapeseed crops concurs with the substantial re-uptake of neonicotinoid residues recently reported in pollen and nectar samples from wild flowers in field margins (where wild flowers at sometimes contained even higher concentrations than in the flowering crop itself).

Scientists concluded that “more detailed studies on the environmental fate of neonicotinoid residues are urgently needed to properly control for potential confounding effects or synergistic effects between different active substances.” While this statement speaks to the need for more studies to determine specific mechanisms regarding how neonics impact pollinators, it also gives weight to existing studies showing significant harm. In 2013, scientists at Royal Holloway University of London determined that low-level exposure to imidacloprid causes chronic sublethal stressors that lead to colony collapse. That year, a study by David Goulson, Ph.D, of the University of Sussex, also found that  the soil half-life of the most commonly used seed treatments can range from 200-1000 days, resulting in  wide ranging ecological damage.

In the U.S., action at the federal level has done  little to take the sting out of pollinator declines. Despite the announcement of a coordinated National Pollinator Health Strategy this May, federal agencies continue to exhibit widely different approaches on how to address pollinator declines. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  banned the use of neonics  on National Wildlife Refuge Land, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality  released new guidelines  prohibiting the planting of neonic-treated plants at federal facilities, EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have taken little substantive action. Although EPA recently proposed  modest label changes  to protect bees from acute pesticide exposure, USDA submitted comments criticizing the agency’s proposed rule, saying that it had “not established the need for such a prohibition.” In fact, USDA has gone as far as suppressing and targeting its own scientists that have linked neonics to bee-toxic effects.

The  Saving America’s Pollinator’s Act of 2015  remains an avenue for Congress to address the pollinator crisis.  Contact your U.S. Representative  and ask them to support this important legislation today. You can also get active in your community to protect bees by advocating for policies that restrict their use. Montgomery County, Maryland recently  restricted the use of a wide range of pesticides, including neonics, on public and private property.  Sign here  if you’d like to see your community do the same!

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

Source: The Royal Society: Proceedings B

(Beyond Pesticides, November 19, 2015) Thanksgiving offers an opportunity for family and friends to eat, drink and be thankful for the bounty of the organic harvest. Unfortunately, conventional Thanksgiving meals are more common, which include a host of pesticides, genetically engineered foods, and can affect  the health of consumers and agricultural workers alike. Read below to find out why now, more than ever, it’s important to go organic, and how you can combat the shortcomings of conventional agriculture with an organic Thanksgiving Day feast.

Now, more than ever, it’s important to go organic.

1. The most widely used weedkiller, glyphosate, has been classified as a probable carcinogen to humans, based on laboratory animal studies.

Glyphosate, produced and sold as Roundup by Monsanto, is touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by EPA and industry and is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. However, IARC’s recent classification of glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen finds that glyphosate is anything but safe. According to IARC, Group 2A means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. The agency also notes that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Further, epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL).

2. Genetically Engineered (GE) crops and herbicide-resistant weeds are increasing.

2,4-D Enlist Duo ®, a new 2,4-D and glyphosate formulated product to be exclusively used on GE 2,4-D tolerant crops, was registered in October 2014. In response to Enlist Duo’s registration, new 2,4-D tolerant crops were approved for U.S. cultivation by USDA in April 2015. Over 70% of all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are altered to be herbicide-tolerant. Increased planting of herbicide-resistant GE crops has led to a dramatic increase in herbicide use. The over use of herbicide-resistant crops has also led to “super weeds,” and the destruction of pollinator habitat.

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.

3. Appropriate responses and protective measures by  federal agencies are limited at best, especially when it comes to consumer health, pollinator health and agricultural worker protections.

Consumer Safety

According to a 2014 Government Accountability (GAO) report, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not test food for several commonly used pesticides with established tolerance levels —including glyphosate, one of the most commonly used pesticides in the U.S. This and other disturbing findings documented in GAO’s report,  Food Safety: FDA and USDA Should Strengthen Pesticide Residue Monitoring Programs and Further Disclose Monitoring Limitations, sounds an alarm that GAO initially sounded  in the 1980’s in several reports that identify shocking limitations of  FDA’s monitoring of  pesticide residue violations in food.

Pollinator Health

On May 19, 2015,  the White House released its much awaited plan for protecting American pollinators, which identified key threats, but fell short of recommendations submitted by Beyond Pesticides, beekeepers, and others who stress that pollinator protection begins with strong regulatory action and suspension of bee-toxic pesticides. A major component of the federal plan is the creation and stewardship of habitat and forage for pollinators. Although well-intentioned, the Strategy ultimately works at cross-purposes by encouraging habitat, but continuing to allow systemic pesticides that contaminate plants ssand causing indiscriminate poisoning of pollinators. Without restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids, pollinator habitats  are pesticide-contaminated and provide no real safe-haven for bees and other pollinators.

Farmworker Protection

On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally released its new regulation regarding farmworker pesticide safety, revising the Agricultural Worker Protection Standards (WPS), which are designed to provide protections from pesticide exposure to farmworkers and their families. Farm work is demanding and dangerous physical labor. As the scientific literature confirms, farmworkers, their families, and their communities face extraordinary risks from pesticide exposures. Application and pesticide drift result in dermal, inhalation, and oral exposures that are typically underestimated. In Beyond Pesticides’ comments to EPA, Beyond Pesticides  made clear that the exemption, incorporated in WPS, for farmworkers that results in their  children’s exposure to dangerous chemicals is unacceptable.

How can you combat the shortcomings of conventional agriculture? Go Organic.

Our food choices have a direct effect on the health of our environment and those who grow and harvest what we eat.   That’s why food labeled organic is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, protection of farmworkers and farm families, and stewardship of the earth. USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, ensuring that  the  toxic, synthetic pesticides used in chemical-intensive  agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic–pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife.

To help better explain the urgent need for a major shift to organic food consumption, Beyond Pesticides has developed its  Eating with a Conscience database, which evaluates the impacts on the environment and farmworkers of the toxic chemicals allowed for use on major food crops

Fortunately, the majority of common Thanksgiving 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 with  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, can  be replaced with homemade stuffing or organic stuffing mix from Arrowhead. Simply Organic has tons of organic recipes posted to their website if you need more ideas.

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.

While the organic label dramatically increases protection for  consumers and agricultural workers from exposure to toxic pesticides, it also creates important benefits for environmental restoration. Research from the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial ® (FST) has revealed that organic, regenerative agriculture actually has the potential to lessen the impacts of climate change. This occurs through the drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage to produce the crops (approximately 75% less than conventional agriculture) and the significant increase in carbon sequestration in the soil.

Eating organic is a first step as committed consumers, but we still must protect the true core values and principals of the organic label, as they are meant to be.

This Thanksgiving, you can avoid exposure to harmful chemicals like glyphosate, steer away from genetically engineered food, and protect your family, pollinators, and farmworkers from the shortcomings of federal agencies by striving for a 100% organic, healthy meal.

And don’t stop there!

It is important every day of the year to look towards organic to keep your family and friends safe from toxic chemicals. You can continue to fight for the well-being of organic by helping to defend organic standards against USDA changes that will weaken public trust in the organic food label. Organic practices follow tough standards that do not compromise the health of people and the planet. Let’s grow the organic food label as a symbol that honors this tradition. To learn more, visit Beyond Pesticides Save Our Organic webpage.

Best wishes for a Healthy and Happy Thanksgiving!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2015) Last week, the European Union’s (EU) European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) announced its determination that the popular herbicide glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” This is in direct contrast with findings released  earlier this year by  the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate a ”˜probable carcinogen.’  However, these seemingly conflicting conclusions from these premier scientific agencies are put into perspective by knowing that EFSA’s report is limited in that it reviewed glyphosate alone, unlike IARC which reviewed glyphosate and its formulated products (Monsanto’s Roundup) which are more relevant for evaluating risks to human health.

In light of the March 2015 IARC findings —listing glyphosate as a probable carcinogen due to  sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity  based on laboratory studies, the European Commission requested EFSA consider glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity. In its report released November 12, 2015, EFSA concludes that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential..”

However, the agency notes that there are “several reasons explaining the diverging views” from IARC’s earlier conclusion. The most important difference is that IARC’s review was more comprehensive in that it not only assessed glyphosate but also glyphosate-based formulations (such as Roundup product formulations), while EFSA focused on the pure active ingredient only. This is an important distinction since glyphosate formulations like Roundup are available to consumers and is widely used on crops throughout the U.S. and Europe. These formulations (which can contain 99 percent of “other” undisclosed ingredients), from a public health standpoint, are most relevant to human health.

Further, EFSA notes that the “toxicity of the formulations should be considered further” as studies that evaluated glyphosate formulations did find positive results of genotoxicity both in vitro and in vivo. EFSA also notes that other toxic outcomes, such as long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity and endocrine disrupting potential of glyphosate formulations, should be clarified and addressed further.

“This is important,” continues EFSA in its backgrounder factsheet, “because although some studies suggest that certain glyphosate-based formulations may be genotoxic (i.e., damaging to DNA), others that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect. It is likely, therefore, that the genotoxic effects observed in some glyphosate-based formulations are related to the other constituents or ”˜co-formulants.’” See EFSA’s factsheet on its finding here. Just this past summer, one scientist who was a part of IARC’s expert panel reviewing glyphosate spoke of glyphosate’s genotoxic potential, saying that the herbicide can damage human DNA, which could result in increased cancer risks.

This corroborates mounting scientific evidence that has long found glyphosate-formulated products to be more toxic than the active ingredient glyphosate alone. Roundup formulations can induce a dose-dependent formation of DNA adducts (altered forms of DNA linked to chemical exposure, playing a key role in chemical carcinogenesis) in the kidneys and liver of mice. Human cell endocrine disruption on the androgen receptor, inhibition of transcriptional activities on estrogen receptors on HepG2, DNA damage and cytotoxic effects occurring at concentrations well below “acceptable” residues have all been observed.  A 2008 study  confirmed that the ingredients in Roundup formulations kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells, even at very low concentrations, and causes total cell death within 24 hrs.

EFSA also  proposed a new safety measure to  limit  glyphosate residues in food. EFSA set an acute reference dose  of 0.5 mg per kg of body weight, the first time such an exposure threshold has been applied for glyphosate. EFSA’s assessment will be used by the European Commission in deciding whether to keep glyphosate on the European Union’s list of approved active substances.

The EU’s EFSA and WHO’s IARC take different approaches to the classification of chemicals. The EU scheme —assesses each individual chemical, and each marketed mixture separately. IARC assesses generic agents, including groups of related chemicals, as well as occupational or environmental exposure, and cultural or behavioral practices.

EFSA’s full report can be found here.

Glyphosate, produced and sold by Monsanto, is touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by industry. But recent research  links chronic, ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water to adverse impacts on the health of liver and kidneys. Previous epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly  associated  with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s  Lymphoma  (NHL), even though these studies have been discounted. In addition to impacts on human health, glyphosate has been linked to adverse effects on earthworms and other soil biota, as well as  shape changes in amphibians. The widespread use of the chemical on genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops has led it to be implicated in the  decline of monarch butterflies, whose sole source to lay their eggs, milkweed plants, are being devastated as a result of incessant use of glyphosate.

Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, is currently facing personal injury lawsuits  that  cite the link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL). Personal injury law firms around the U.S. have found a multitude of plaintiffs and are preparing for what could be a “mass tort” action against Monsanto for knowingly misinforming the public and farmworkers about the dangers of the chemical.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reviewing the human and ecological risks of glyphosate. The agency has said that its preliminary assessment of the chemical is scheduled to be released this year. Given the mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or ban the use of the chemical.  Tracy Madlener, a mother of two, who got  her neighborhood in Laguna Hills, California to eliminate the use of the widely-used weedkiller. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through our Tools for Change page. This page is designed to help activists and other concerned citizens organize around a variety of pesticide issues on the local, state, and national level. Learn how to organize a campaign and talk to your neighbors about pesticides with our factsheets. See Beyond Pesticides’ article Glyphosate Causes Cancer and sign the petition to ban glyphosate.

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

Source: EFSA

(Beyond Pesticides, November 17, 2015) Last Thursday, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper issued an executive order directing state agencies to address public safety concerns related to pesticide-contaminated cannabis. The next day, the state of Oregon adopted new rules strengthening its requirements for laboratory testing of cannabis for pesticides. The state-level action on  pesticide-tainted cannabis is viewed as responsive to an ongoing public health threat. However, safety advocates say steps are needed to ensure that cannabis users, particularly medical patients with cancer, seizures, or other immune compromising diseases, are safe from toxic chemicals.

Governor Hickenlooper’s Executive Order

As a result of a number of quarantines on pesticide-laced cannabis in Denver, a warning letter and testimony delivered by Beyond Pesticides, and a recent lawsuit against a major Colorado grower, pressure has been building on

the state to address this issue. In the executive order (EO), the governor acknowledges that because of cannabis’ status as a schedule 1 narcotic under federal law, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has “neither assessed the potential health hazards posed by treating marijuana with pesticides, nor has it authorized the application of any pesticide specifically for use on marijuana.” The EO notes that it is a violation of both state and federal law to use pesticides in a manner inconsistent with a pesticide label, and proclaims that off-label pesticide use that contaminates a crop “constitutes a threat to the public safety.” It further directs state agencies tasked with overseeing state cannabis policy to use “all existing investigatory and enforcement authorities established by law to protect against threats to the public safety posed by contaminated marijuana including, but not limited to, placing contaminated marijuana on administrative hold and destroying contaminated marijuana pursuant to existing law.”

Governor Hickenlooper’s move raises the issue in the public eye, and encourages state agencies to conduct inspections and take enforcement action when pesticide contamination is detected, rather than leaving individual localities, such as Denver, to take the lead on oversight. However, despite the governor’s acknowledgment that off label pesticide use is illegal on cannabis crops, his  Statewide Marijuana Pesticides Policy Statement allows the use of certain pesticides under arbitrary conditions, such as when the label allows use on “unspecified crops and/or plants.” This is contrary to the policy position taken by Beyond Pesticides and health advocates. Beyond Pesticides has notified states that have legalized marijuana use that, because no pesticide has ever been registered for use on cannabis by EPA, the only allowable pesticide products for cannabis production are those classified as exempt from federal registration under 25(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Colorado is currently in the process of updating its rules and may make  this contradictory policy official. Beyond Pesticides has notified the state that it would consider any allowance of registered pesticides to be a violation of FIFRA.

Oregon’s New Regulations

Last week, the state of Oregon updated its rules governing pesticide use to require the mandatory testing of nearly 60 pesticide compounds that are of particular concern. All growers will be required to undergo this testing, and failure will result in the untested batch being destroyed. This is a change from prior rules which allowed laboratories to determine on their own what pesticides to include in a screening. The Oregonian reports that some labs had stopped testing for a common pesticide that is included in the new rules because failed samples hurt its business.

While the state’s list includes a number of toxic pesticides, The Oregonian also reports that growers are already looking for products outside of the list, and it is likely that the products they are searching for are not those exempt from federal registration. Moreover, the new rules raise the current allowable level of .1 parts per million for any pesticide residue and creates individual action levels for each pesticide compound. Oregon has yet to create a list of allowed pesticides on cannabis like Colorado and Washington State have done. Thus, it remains to be seen whether this list of pesticides to be laboratory tested will result in safer practices, if growers are already looking to potentially more toxic alternatives.

The Organic Approach

While recent moves in Colorado, Oregon, and previously in California represent steps in the right direction, they also contain significant pitfalls and loopholes that allow contaminated cannabis to market where it threatens public health. Beyond Pesticides continues to encourage states to take a stronger approach to regulating this budding industry, so that it blazes an agricultural path that protects its most sensitive at-risk users. Three elements must be passed and enforced in order to do so. They are:
1. A prohibition on the use of federally registered pesticides on cannabis;
2. Allowance of pesticides exempt from federal registration, but not those that are only exempt from tolerances and;
3. Requirements for an organic system plan that focuses on sustainable practices and only 25b products as a last resort.

Implementing these three requirements will ensure the sustainable growth of a new agricultural industry, and lead to the protection of public health. For more information and background this important issue, see Beyond Pesticides’ report Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options.

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

Source: The Oregonian, The Denver Post

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2015) Bayer CropScience, the manufacturer of neonicotinoid pesticides that are linked to severe decline in pollinator populations, is expected to pay fines to multiple countries in Europe for wine grape damages associated with another of its pesticides. Citing “atypical symptoms” resulting from the use of a relatively new fungicide, Bayer initially sent out a warning to wine growers to cease use of their product. Now, Bayer is collecting data and assessing how much it will offer to wine growers for the damages its product has caused.

European grape growers, including vineyards in Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Switzerland, have reported deformed leaves and lower yields after using Moon Privilege, also known as Luna Privilege in some

markets, from the German company’s CropScience unit. In Switzerland, losses are estimated at 80 million Swiss francs ($83.73 million), as reported by marketing group Swiss Wine to Reuters. Swiss Wine’s general secretary estimates harvest losses totaling 6.65 million kilos (14 million pounds) of grapes in 2015, or about  4.85 percent of 2014’s crop. It is also estimated that wine makers have lost approximately six million bottles of wine, with  Pinot Noir grapes and Chasselas, a white wine grape, hardest hit. Switzerland’s Federal Office of Agriculture suspended its approval of Moon Privilege in wine growing in July.

“Bayer will on a voluntary basis compensate affected wine growers which have used the Moon Privilege/Luna Privilege fungicide last year,” a Bayer spokesman said to Reuters, adding that no “clear cause” has been determined.

In addition to the possibility of crop damage and subsequent monetary loss from the use of pesticides, vineyard workers, owners, and their families can suffer from health effects caused by the prophylactic use of these toxic chemicals. The active ingredient in Luna Privilege fungicide, fluopyram, is  classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a likely carcinogen to humans. Fluopyram also affects the liver, and has led to liver tumors in rats at high doses. Thyroid effects have also been observed. Even consumers can be wary of conventionally grown wine grapes. An examination of 300 French wines in 2013 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.)

Unfortunately, there are no EU toxicity limits for bottled wine, only for wine grapes before fermentation. Other reports have also identified several pesticide residues in wine. The health impacts of pesticide exposure to vineyard farmworkers is also a concern. According to a PAN-Europe report, “Published scientific analysis suggests that those exposed to pesticides in grape production suffer a higher incidence of allergic rhinitis, respiratory problems, cancers, and chromosomal and nuclear abnormalities, as well as lower neurological capacities.”

Some vineyard owners are taking a stand against the use of pesticides in wine production. Emmanuel Giboulot, an organic winemaker in Burgundy, France, 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. 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 pesticide spraying won broad support across the globe, and his conviction was overturned.

Despite fines, safety procedure overhauls, and lengthy trials, chemical and pesticide manufacturing and use still poses hazards for  workers, nearby residents, consumers, and  crop damage. Decreasing marketplace demand for noxious chemicals in favor of least-toxic biopesticides, organic, and sustainable alternatives on farms, will reduce the need to produce these chemicals. Like Mr. Giboulot, vineyard owners and workers can turn towards organic agriculture to protect themselves from the harmful effects of toxic pesticides. 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 as organic wine.

For more information on ways to ensure that organic production  continues to represent a production system that protects public health, the environment,  biodiversity, water quality, and enhancement of soil fertility practices that eliminate the need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that contribute to global climate change.

Source: Reuters

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2015) Research finds that sound waves could combat the Asian citrus psyllid, an insect that has been devastating Florida orange groves, and possibly reduce the need for pesticides. The Asian citrus psyllid carries a bacteria that causes “citrus greening,” an incurable disease with symptoms that include yellow shoots, uneven discolored patches, and deficiencies with the production of chlorophyll, green pigment found within plants. To stem the spread of the disease  —which is responsible for an estimated $3.63 billion in lost revenue from orange juice for the state of Florida from 2006-2012— researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and University of Florida (UF) are developing vibration traps that hijack psyllid mating calls to locally bring their populations under control.

“We’re trying hard to cut down on use of pesticides in orange groves, partly because we are worried they’ll build up resistance to pesticides, and that will make things even worse,” said Richard Mankin, Ph.D., a research entomologist with USDA. He presented  findings  on acoustic disruption at the meeting of the American Acoustical Society  last month in Jacksonville.

When a male Asian psyllid is looking for a mate, he situates himself on a twig and alerts females by buzzing his wings to send vibrations along adjacent leaves and branches. To disrupt that activity, researchers created a device containing a buzzer and a microphone wired to a microcontroller. The device detects the incoming male call and emits a fake female response call through the buzzer before any neighboring psyllids can answer. When the male bug comes near the device, he gets snagged and immobilized on an adhesive surface. In lab tests, the insects subjected to the noise were four times less likely to find a mate than other psyllids.

USDA has pushed for alternative methods in combatting citrus greening in the past. In 2014, USDA broadened the use of tiny parasitic wasps, Tamarixia radiata. The agency is already committed to provide $1.5 million dollars to the T. radiata breeding and release program in California, Texas, and Florida. Congress also allocated more than $125 million dollars over the next five years to fund more research on containing the spread of the Asian citrus psyllid.

In addition to threatening the citrus industry, the disease has caused significant difficultly between beekeepers and citrus farmers  who are  combating the spread of the psyllid  with toxic chemicals. Local beekeepers are worried over the increasing use of harmful  neonicotinoid pesticides, a class of chemicals linked to the worldwide bee decline, and citrus growers are concerned about the increasing population of Asian citrus psyllids.

The proven effectiveness of biological agents such as  parasitic wasps, as well other alternative measures such as sound waves, show that the use of lethal pesticides is unnecessary. Additionally,  farm operations that are USDA certified organic already avoid the use of toxic chemicals by implementing organic systems plans that can include biological pest management. To learn more about the policies and management strategies of organic agriculture, please visit Beyond Pesticides’  Keeping Organic Strong page.

Source: Takepart

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 12, 2015) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently performed the first-ever study of pesticide residues on native bee populations and found that they are exposed to neonicotinoid insecticides, as well as other pesticides, at significant rates. This study digs deeper into a question  that was previously considered by a researcher who  studied chemical-intensive  apple orchards and linked a steep decline in wild or native bees to the application of pesticides. The USGS study  broadens understanding about the effects of toxic pesticides to native bee species, expanding field research that has principally focused on managed honey bee populations.

The study tested for 122 different pesticides including bifenthrin, atrazine and chlorpyrifos, a chemical for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed to revoke all food tolerances in response to  a court-ordered deadline. According to study findings, 72% of bees tested positive for pesticide residues, raising concerns for the potential for unintended pesticides exposures where land uses overlap or are in proximity to one another.  

Residues of pesticides found in bees in the study include  thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid, all of which are highly toxic neonicotinoids, a class of chemicals that have been linked to the global decline in bee populations by a  large body of science. Neonicotinoids are especially harmful to honey bees, causing adverse effects on their ability to perform basic tasks necessary for survival, such as foraging and reproduction, as well as cause overall population decreases, findings that scientists fear may translate to native bee populations. Neonicotinoids also contaminate over half of urban and agricultural streams across the U.S. and Puerto Rico, according to a recent study by USGS that expands on a previous USGS report that found the chemicals to  contaminate Midwest waterways.

The most common pesticide detected is the neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam, which is found in 46 percent of the composite bee samples. Thiamethoxam, specifically, is used as a seed coating on a variety of different crops, a practice that has been found to have no role in reducing crop damage from pests, despite manufacturer claims touting the benefits of its use.

In 2014, EPA  released a memorandum  concluding that soybean  seeds treated with neonicotinoid insecticides provide little or no overall benefits in controlling insects or improving yield or quality in chemical-intensive soybean production.  The memo states, “In studies that included a comparison to foliar insecticides, there were no instances where neonicotinoid seed treatments out-performed any foliar insecticide in yield protection from any pest.” Also published last year was a  report by Center for Food Safety  refuting claims that neonicotinoids bring greater benefits than costs to farmers.  In the report, researchers analyzed independent, peer-reviewed, scientific literature and found that the benefits of prophylactic neonicotinoid use via seed treatments are nearly non-existent, and that any minor benefits that did occur were negated due to  honey bee colony impacts, reduced crop pollination by honey bees, reduced production of honey and other bee products, loss of ecosystem services, and market damage from contamination events. Furthermore, preliminary reports out of the UK find that the country is poised to  harvest higher than expected yields of canola  in its first neonicotinoid-free growing season since the  European moratorium on neonicotinoids  went into place in 2013.

The study also identified the presence of traditional agricultural operations as a factor in whether or not native bees tested positive for pesticide exposure. “We found that the presence and proximity of nearby agricultural fields was an important factor resulting in the exposure of native bees to pesticides,” said USGS scientist Michelle Hladik, Ph.D, the report’s lead author. “Pesticides were detected in the bees caught in grasslands with no known direct pesticide applications.” These bees were determined to have at least one of the pesticides measured, which indicates they are potentially exposed to pesticides applied to nearby agricultural areas. Pesticide concentrations and detections are generally less in bees collected in grasslands with a smaller percentage of active agriculture within one  kilometer, which is the maximum foraging distance for native bees. As a result, it seems that the land cover surrounding the agricultural fields could be an important factor for consideration in conservation planning.

Farmers increasingly understand the benefits of  employing hedgerows, which have been found to be an effective barrier against spray drift as well as reduce pesticide use by promoting biodiversity and providing habitat for natural pest predators. For more information on hedgerows and their numerous benefits, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article  Hedgerows for Biodiversity: Habitat is needed to protect pollinators, other beneficial organisms, and healthy ecosystems.

It is important to note that the study performed by USGS was a reconnaissance study, making it an important first step, but not the last, in understanding the exposure of native bee populations to pesticides in relation to the surrounding landscape. Its preliminary findings will be used to design more focused research on exposure, uptake and accumulation of pesticides relative to land-use, agricultural practices and pollinator conservation efforts on the landscape, an important step for the approximately 4,000 native species of bees in the U.S. Native bees are responsible for pollinating native plants like cherries, blueberries and cranberries, and were here long before European honeybees were brought to the country by settlers. Many native bees are also efficient crop pollinators, a role that may become more important if honey bees continue to decline.

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

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 10, 2015) Exposure to organochlorine chemicals, such as DDE and PCBs, is linked to increased rates of sperm abnormalities that may lead to fertility problems, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. This is the latest study in a long line of research implicating endocrine (hormone)-disrupting chemicals in reproductive diseases.

Researchers investigated this issue by observing the blood serum and sperm quality of 90 men, aged 22-44, participating in health studies in the Faroe Islands, an archipelago under  Denmark’s control that is  located between Iceland, the UK and Norway. Faroe islanders consume a high seafood diet that often consists of pilot whale, integral historically as a  food source for the Faroese people. However, this practice exposes the Faroese to higher than average levels of environmental contaminants. For the study, data on umbilical cord blood and blood serum at age 14 was available for 40 of the participants, allowing a researchers to measure lifetime impacts.

Faroese participants were screened for sperm aneuploidy, a condition which usually involves an abnormal number of X or Y chromosomes in sperm, and is suspected as contributing to congenital abnormalities and up to 50% of early pregnancy losses. Results found that adult concentrations of DDE and PCBs in participants was associated with increased rates of aneuploidy. Concentrations of the organochlorine chemicals at age 14 were significantly correlated with increased rates of aneuploidy at adult age, however the link between concentrations in umbilical cord blood and adult aneuploidy was not significant.

“Exposure to these chemicals in adolescence may lead to reproductive problems years later,” said Melissa Perry, ScD, MHS, chair of the Environmental and Occupational Health program at George Washington University and lead author of the study in a press release,

DDE (dichlorodiphenyldicholorethylene) is the breakdown chemical of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), an organochlorine pesticide that was banned in the U.S. in 1972, following a massive environmental movement spurred by Rachel Carson’s  Silent Spring, which documents the adverse environmental effects resulting from the indiscriminate use of pesticides. DDT was widely used to control mosquitoes for malaria abatement, and in agriculture. Despite the fact that DDT was banned in the U.S. 43 years ago, concentrations of this DDE have remained alarmingly high in many locations, including  surface waters, the Arctic, and even some U.S. towns and  national parks. DDT, DDE, PCBs and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are known to resist environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes.

“DDT and other pesticides like it continue to linger in our environment and contaminate our food,” said Dr. Perry to NY Daily News. A study published in 2015 found that long banned but persistent pesticides like DDT may reemerge as a result of soil erosion in agricultural fields. However, a large source of exposure to these chemicals is through eating meat. This is because many POPs are also known to bioaccumulate and biomagnify, increasing in concentration as they move up the food chain from prey to predator. “Most people can reduce their exposure to PCBs and DDT by cutting back on foods that are high in animal fats and choosing fish wisely,” said Dr. Perry in a press release.

DDT and DDE have been linked to a number of reproductive and endocrine diseases. A 2013 study found that exposure to DDT and a range of other pesticides was linked to decreased sperm quality. A two-part French study published in 2014 found that sperm quality in French men had decreased 30% over the past 16 years as a likely result of chemical exposure, with the implication that these similar results would be seen in other areas of the world. Research shows women have also been impacted by exposure to POPs. A study published early this year found that exposure to POPs is associated with an earlier start to menopause. Another study published in June found that in utero exposure to DDT was directly linked to breast cancer later in life. Lastly, DDT has been shown to cause adverse impacts that span generations. A study published in 2013 by Michael Skinner, PhD, found that exposure to DDT contributed to obesity three generations down the line.

The results of this and numerous other studies confirm that relying on the same risk-based approach to regulating toxic chemicals that allowed the widespread use of DDT and other POPs is simply unacceptable. “This study, and others like it, suggest that any decisions about putting biologically active chemicals into the environment must be made very carefully as there can be unanticipated consequences down the road,” said Dr. Perry. Beyond Pesticides urges regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strongly consider the data and conclusions developed by independent scientists. As EPA continues to allow pesticides to market that pose unacceptable risks to the environment given widely available organic and natural alternatives, local residents must stand up in opposition, and start at the community level to get unnecessary toxins out of their environment.

To read more about an alternative approach to regulating toxic pesticides, and to see more studies linking pesticide exposure to common diseases, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, George Washington University Press Release.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 09, 2015) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cancelled a webinar on the presence of neonicotinoids in waterways in the Prairie Pothole region, according to the government watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). PEER states that the cancellation is “another example of USDA interfering with the release of new science-based information about adverse effects linked to  neonicotinoid (neonics) pesticides.” As a result, PEER continues, “Growing ecological risks posed by the most widely used insecticides in North America will likely not be considered in developing USDA policies, planning or management practices.” Neonicotinoids are a controversial class of chemicals that have been linked to the global bee decline by a rapidly growing body of scientific literature.

A webinar, titled Pesticides and Potholes: Understanding the Risks of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Aquatic Ecosystems in Prairie Canada and Beyond,  was supposed to take place June 24, 2014, according to PEER. Instead, the online event was cancelled by Wayne Honeycutt, Ph.D., the Deputy Chief for Science and Technology at USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

The online event would have featured Christy Morrissey, Ph.D., an assistant professor in the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, School of Environment and Sustainability, whose research includes studying the fate of neonicotinoids in wetlands as they affect aquatic insects and birds in agricultural ecosystems in the Prairie Pothole region, which covers the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa. The region is one of the world’s most important wetland region and is home to more than half of North America’s migratory waterfowl. NRCS devotes considerable resources to wetland restoration in the region. Yet, drainage from surrounding cropland carries increasing amounts of ultra-potent neonics that threaten the health of the region’s aquatic systems.

A companion webinar on the efficacy of neonicotinoid seed coatings  and practices to minimize adverse impacts on pollinators and other non-target organisms was also called off. The cancelled webinars were part of a series addressing priority training needs identified by NRCS and partner biologists.

“I am sorry to disappoint you, but I determined that these topics were not appropriate for an NRCS sponsored webinar,” Dr. Honeycutt wrote in an email to William Hohman, Ph.D., the Fort Worth, Texas-based NRCS biologist who organized the webinar. PEER published the email online, as well as internal emails from NRCS conservation staff expressing the need for training that stand in stark contrast to Dr. Honeycutt’s cancellation of the event.

An NRCS official refuted the idea that the webinar was cancelled to hide information on neonicotinoids, saying the online presentation is  “inappropriate” since  it was not developed by USDA and did not meet the scientific research criteria for an NRCS webinar.

The studies to be presented in the webinar were “not fully research-based,” said the official.

“Neonics are apparently a taboo topic for USDA scientists to discuss,” PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said in a statement. “This episode suggests political science essentially trumps biology, agronomy and every other discipline inside today’s USDA.”

USDA has a long and notorious history in its attempts to quash science and scientists whose research does not fall in line with the agency’s paradigm.  Last week, USDA entomologist Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D. was suspended out of what he believes is retaliation for research on a neonicotinoid pesticide’s effect on monarch butterflies. In April, PEER  filed a petition  for rulemaking, seeking to strengthen USDA’s Scientific Integrity Policy. PEER argued that language in the current policy actually encourages the suppression of scientific study where large agribusiness corporations’ reputations are at stake. PEER  explains that  USDA management regularly uses this provision as reason for suppressing technical work of employees when industry stakeholders disagree with the scientific conclusions reached.

Neonicotinoids are a highly pervasive environmental contaminant. A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study last year found high levels of neonicotinoids in Midwestern waterways, where agricultural intensity is strong. Another USGS study found that neonicotinoids contaminate over half of urban and agricultural streams across the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing class of insecticides in agriculture. They are now the  most widely used class of insecticide chemicals  and are registered in  more than 120 countries. Studies continue to question the efficacy of these chemicals in pest control, showing  no yield increases  as a result of their use. Beyond food production, neonics are  frequently detected in nursery plants  sold at big box home and garden centers throughout the United States. And recent research also produced by the Harvard School of Public Health finds these chemicals to be  ubiquitous in our environment  during flowering season, present in a vast majority of pollen samples taken throughout the state of Massachusetts.

The impacts these chemicals have on  birds  (a single kernel of neonic-coated corn  is enough to kill a songbird),  honey bees,  wild pollinators, and other  beneficial organisms  are  clear and has been  well-researched. Large-scale use of neonicotinoids can also alter and harm aquatic communities. Aquatic invertebrates, which  play an important role  in ecological diversity, are especially susceptible —  neonicotinoids can exert  adverse effects  on survival, growth, emergence, mobility, and behavior of many sensitive aquatic invertebrate taxa.

With independent science both in and outside of the U.S. pointing to a growing list of impacts from neonicotinoid pesticides, advocates argue that it is critical that federal scientific agencies tasked with protecting human and environmental health be able to inform the public without repercussions from an industry whose only interest is in protecting profits. For more information, see PEER’s  pattern of science manipulation at USDA. To see the history of industry influence in federal agencies, visit  this link  to Beyond Pesticides’  Daily News blog.

Source: E&E News (subscription required); PEER

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2015) New York State Senator Tim Kennedy (D-NY) has called for a statewide ban on triclosan, one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds found in common household products. Minnesota is the only state to have passed a triclosan  ban. If passed, the New York Bill (Bill S6070) would prohibit the sale of cleaning products containing triclosan, triclocarban, or derivatives of similar antibacterial compounds, and mark a clear victory for human health and safety interests within the state.

Triclosan has been used for over 30 years in the U.S., mostly in a medical setting, but more recently in consumer products. Beyond Pesticides has generated extensive documentation  of the potential human and environmental health effects of triclosan and its cousin triclocarban, called on manufacturers to stop using triclosan in its products and retailers to stop carrying these products, and previously petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the cancellation of registered products that contain the antibacterial pesticide. In May 2015, EPA issued its long-awaited response to the Citizen Petition filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food & Water Watch, denying the request.

When introduced to the market in 1972, triclosan was confined to hospital and health care settings. Since then, triclosan exploded onto the market place in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products. Triclosan’s success on the consumer market has been aided by the false public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria. Numerous reports have increasingly linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban), to a range of adverse health and environmental effects from cancer and endocrine disruption, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistance, to the contamination of water and its negative impact on fragile aquatic ecosystems. Data presented at the 248^th National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society, revealed that 100% of pregnant women in a multi-ethnic urban population in Brooklyn, New York tested positive for triclosan in their urine. In half of the pregnant women tested, the chemical also showed up in umbilical cord blood. A study published in 2010 by the University of Florida (UF) raised concerns about triclosan’s endocrine disrupting properties inhibiting proper fetal development.

Senator Kennedy’s legislation includes  plans to get triclosan off of store shelves in New York to prevent further harm to public health and important ecosystems like the Great Lakes that border the state. “We need to protect our Great Lakes and water supplies for future generations,” Sen. Kennedy said. “We have an obligation to protect them.” Over 95% of the uses of triclosan are in consumer products that are disposed of in residential drains. As a result, widespread use of triclosan and other antibacterial compounds result in contamination of the nation’s waterways, with triclosan being the most prevalent contaminant not removed by typical wastewater treatment plants. In fact, triclosan has been detected in wastewater, activated sludge, surface water, and sediments. According to a U.S. Geological Survey study of 95 different organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, triclosan was one of the most frequently detected compounds and at some of the highest concentrations. Brian Smith, associate executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, joined Senator Kennedy in supporting the ban: “When we wash our hands or brush our teeth, we don’t expect we’re contributing toxic pollutants to our Great Lakes,” Smith said. “Clean hands and clean teeth don’t have to mean polluted water.”

In the past, public pressure, led by Beyond Pesticides and other groups, has contributed to growing awareness of the dangers of triclosan’s use. As a result, several major manufacturers have already taken steps to exclude the chemical, including Johnson & Johnson,  Procter & Gamble  and  Colgate-Palmolive, which reformulated its popular line of liquid soaps, but continues to formulate Total ® toothpaste with triclosan. Minnesota became the first state to ban the toxic antibacterial, announcing that retailers would no longer be able to sell cleaning products that contain triclosan, effective January 2017. In June 2015, the agency responsible for chemical oversight in the European Union announced that the antibacterial pesticide, triclosan, is toxic and bioaccumulative, and will be phased-out for hygienic uses and replaced by more suitable alternatives. According to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), “[N]o safe use could be demonstrated for the proposed use of triclosan.”

Interested in taking steps to rid triclosan from your community? Here are a few things you can do. Encourage your local hospitals, schools, government agencies, and businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free, or  follow the lead of Minnesota and New York by introducing a ban on triclosan. Additionally, organizations can  adopt Beyond Pesticides’ model resolution  which commits them to not procuring or using products containing triclosan. For additional information and resources on the human health and environmental effects of triclosan, join the  ban triclosan campaign  and  sign the pledge  to stop using triclosan today.

Source: The Buffalo News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 05, 2015) Research  at  the University of California, Davis finds  that hedgerows, a line of shrubs and trees that form a boundary at the edges of farm fields, improve a farm’s ecology and reduce the need for pesticides. Hedgerows serve many other beneficial functions; they can provide ornamental and aesthetic value, sequester carbon, and be a source of food, and more. There is also evidence that they can be an effective barrier against spray drift, reduce soil erosion, and act as habitat corridors for forest plants in agricultural landscapes.  Hedgerows support biodiversity in the face of habitat decline, given fence row to fence row cultivation practices in agriculture, manicured lawns and landscapes, urban sprawl, and the use of broad spectrum pesticides that threaten the diverse organisms that make up a healthy ecosystem.

Rachael Long, M.S., a farm advisor for the UC Cooperative Extension, tells Capital Public Radio, “We have Christmas berries, and  elderberry — which has these beautiful blueberries that a lot of birds really like. We have redbud which has terrifically bright red flowers in the spring. And also ceanothus which is California lilac which has blue flowers in the spring.” She adds that birds and bees feast on the flowering plants’ nectar and pollen.  The bushes also provide habitat for natural enemies. “Your lady beetles, and big eyed bugs, as well as green laced wings and little parasitic wasps.” The insects eat the pests that chew on tomato plants.

And, if a farmer does spray, hedgerows can prevent water pollution. Long explains, “If they’re planted along some of the drainage ditches then they can really help with trapping sediments and pesticides and also nitrates so they keep those water pollutants away from our streams, rivers and groundwater.” Long’s research concludes that farmers who dedicate some land to hedgerows tend to use fewer chemicals.

With severe loss in recent years of pollinators, including bees, butterflies, and birds, natural and diverse hedgerows take on a new importance in nurturing and restoring populations in decline. They can provide nectar and pollen over the course of an entire growing season, serving as a food source for honey bees as well as parasitoids and other predaceous arthropods that are natural enemies to “pests” like caterpillars. Hedgerows can also provide food such as nuts and berries for insectivorous birds when the insect supply is low, as well as nesting and roosting sites for hawks and owls, whose rodent prey are a perennial concern for farmers.

Of course, hedgerows alone will not counterbalance the widespread use of synthetic pesticides, but they can be a critical tool in slowing pollinator decline and creating zones of protection until land managers (agricultural and nonagricultural) make the shift to sustainable practices that protect biodiversity. Beyond Pesticides supports  organic agriculture  as affecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat. To attract beneficial insects like monarchs and protect their habitats in your own backyard, there are several steps  you can take. Like any other living organism, pollinators need food, water, and shelter in order to thrive. For more information, see  Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind  and  Hedgerows for Biodiversity: Habitat is needed to protect pollinators, other beneficial organisms, and healthy ecosystems.  You can also visit the  BEE Protective Habitat Guide  and  Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity  for more ways in which you can protect monarchs and other pollinators.

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

Source: Capital Public Radio

(Beyond Pesticides November 4, 2015) On Monday, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Environmental Health, El Quinto Sol de America, Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Food Safety and the Pesticide Action Network released a report with findings that that more than half of the commercial glyphosate sprayed in California is applied in the state’s eight most impoverished counties. Glyphosate is a phosphanoglycine herbicide that inhibits an enzyme essential to plant growth.  Commonly known as Roundup, glyphosate is classified as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research of Cancer (IARC), based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, and is currently under review to receive a similar designation from the state under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

The report,  Lost in the Mist:  How Glyphosate Use Disproportionately Threatens California’s Most Impoverished Counties, found that 54 percent of glyphosate spraying in California is applied in eight counties, many of which are located in the southern part of the Central Valley. The analysis finds that the populations in these counties are predominantly Hispanic or Latino, indicating that glyphosate use in California is distributed unequally along both socioeconomic and racial lines. The report aligns with another recent  study  by California EPA that found Hispanics and people in poverty disproportionately live in areas of high  pesticide use, and a 2014 California Department of Public Health  study  showing that Hispanic children are 46 percent more likely than white children to attend schools near hazardous pesticide use. All of these findings bring awareness to the factors that perpetuate environmental injustice in our low-income and minority communities.

“We’ve uncovered a disturbing trend where poor and minority communities disproportionately live in regions where glyphosate is sprayed,” said Nathan Donley, Ph.D., a staff scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “In high doses glyphosate is dangerous to people, and California can’t, in good conscience, keep allowing these communities to pay the price for our overreliance on pesticides.”

Glyphosate, touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and industry, is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. However, IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen represents a finding of  carcinogenicity in humans based on laboratory  animal testing. The agency considered the findings from an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel report, along with several recent studies in making its conclusion. The agency also notes that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Further, epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL).

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

All of these findings support the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) efforts to list glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical under Proposition 65. As evidence of the hazardous effects of glyphosate continue to mount, environmental groups like Beyond Pesticides are urging localities to ban or restrict the use of the chemical. California’s glyphosate listing is certainly a step in the right direction; however, further steps toward a restriction or ban will be needed to  protect the public’s health. Being  the number one agricultural producing state, California’s action may help to move glyphosate off  the market, which would serve as a victory for the low-income communities in the southern part of the Central Valley that  are exposed to glyphosate at higher levels than the general population. Disproportionate exposure to glyphosate and the negative health effects that accompany it extend beyond these Californians. In Argentina, the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops and companion pesticides, including glyphosate, has caused significant health impacts in small farming towns, sending cancer rates skyrocketing and quadrupling the number of birth defects. Advocacy groups say that this serves as another example of environmental injustice associated with pesticide products produced by  agrichemical  companies like Monsanto.

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

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

 Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, November 3, 2015) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revoke all food tolerances for the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos (also known as Dursban), a neurotoxic pesticide produced by Dow AgroSciences that poses particular risks to children and farmworkers. If EPA’s rule is finalized, chlorpyrifos would be effectively eliminated from use in agriculture 15 years after consumer uses were discontinued. However, other non-food uses, including golf courses, turf, green house and mosquito control are not affected by this decision and will remain.

EPA’s proposed rule came on the day of a court-ordered deadline from the U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Ninth Circuit, M. Margaret McKeown. In August of this year, Judge McKeown ordered EPA to respond to a petition filed by Pesticide Action Network North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council nearly nine years ago. The lawsuit called on the agency to ban all uses of the insecticide in light of scientific evidence and public comments ignored by the agency after its cumulative risk assessment for organophosphate insecticides.

In 2012, EPA imposed “no-spray” buffer zones around public spaces, including recreational areas, schools, and homes to reduce bystander exposure risks. Earlier this year, the agency updated its 2011 preliminary human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos, a report that was widely criticized by health and environmental groups. The update identified significant risks to children, farmworkers, and drinking water as a result of the chemical’s use.

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

While EPA had requested the Judge give the agency until April 15, 2016 to revoke food tolerances for chlorpyrifos, the court rejected this timeline, ordering EPA to deny the petition or issue a revocation rule by October 31, 2015. EPA indicates it is proposing the rule rather than issuing a final rule in order to provide for public comment, and the agency indicates it will release its final rule in December 2016.

EPA’s decision to revoke food tolerances for chlorpyrifos was based upon aggregate risk calculated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The law requires the agency to consider all sources of exposure to a certain chemical. Though EPA asserted that food exposure was not of concern, when aggregated with potential exposure through drinking water, safety standards were exceeded in certain watersheds where chlorpyrifos is heavily used.

This outcome is similar to the decision handed down on another neurotoxic pesticide produced by Dow AgroScience, sulfuryl fluoride. In 2006, Beyond Pesticides, Environmental Working Group, and Fluoride Action Network petitioned EPA to cancel food tolerances for the pesticide. The agency found that when residues on food products are combined with fluoridated drinking water and toothpaste, aggregate exposure levels were too high. In 2011, EPA announced plans to phase-out the use of sulfuryl fluoride with the intent of eliminating its use by 2014. However, in 2015, a backdoor amendment to the Agriculture Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) made behind closed doors at the last minute barred EPA from considering the risks of fluoride exposure in drinking water. This action effectively allowed sulfuryl fluoride to remain on the market despite the tangible risks the chemical still poses to children’s health. Thus, while celebrating this victory, health and environmental advocates must remain vigilant of Dow’s ability to lobby Congress to protect its profits over health.

Chlorpyrifos leads a list of numerous toxic chemicals that are central to chemical-intensive agricultural practices that threaten  human health and the environment. Although eliminating its use in agriculture is important,  the delay in removing the remaining uses of this well-researched and highly toxic chemical  reflects the dysfunction of the pesticide regulatory process. Ultimately the widespread adoption of organic management is necessary to protect consumers and the environment in the long-term. Beyond Pesticides has long sought a broad-scale marketplace transition to organic practices that disallows the use of toxic synthetic pesticides by law and encourages a systems-based approach that is protective of health and the environment. This approach never allows the use of highly toxic synthetic pesticides, let alone organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos, and advances  a viable, scalable path forward for growing food.

EPA will open and accept public comments for 60 days at regulations.gov (docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653).

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

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2015) The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) submitted a formal notice last week for intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approving benzovindiflupyr, a fungicide that is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. CBD asserts that EPA recognized that benzovindiflupyr could harm wildlife and critical habitat protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but approved it for use without consulting with expert wildlife agencies as required by the act. This is  not the first time that EPA has approved toxic chemicals without fully understanding the consequences.

On August 28, 2015, EPA granted broad approval for use of benzovindiflupyr on most crops, including cereals, corn, vegetables, fruits, turf grass and ornamentals. The agency’s own data show that benzovindiflupyr is highly persistent in the environment and will build up in waterways due to runoff from treated fields. Nonetheless, EPA approved benzovindiflupyr for immediate use. “This pesticide is highly poisonous to fish and other wildlife, but the EPA approved it anyway,” said Stephanie Parent, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in their press release. “This agency’s cavalier approach to approving new toxic chemicals without required consultation or studies must end. The EPA’s indifference is once again putting imperiled wildlife across the country in harm’s way.” ESA requires EPA to consult with federal wildlife biologists on the effects of chemicals applied in the habitat of endangered species. EPA failed to follow these requirements.

In addition, EPA approved products containing benzovindiflupyr and three other pesticides ””difenoconazole, propiconazole and azoxystrobin”” despite the fact that none of the chemicals had undergone proper consultation for their impacts on certain wildlife species. EPA also refused to consider the impacts of benzovindiflupyr when combined with these other chemicals, despite the likelihood that synergistic impacts may make these products more toxic.

EPA’s approval of toxic products without following proper procedure is nothing new. On October 23, 2015, a coalition of public health, conservation and food safety groups filed their opening brief in the ongoing legal challenge to EPA approval of the herbicide Enlist Duo for use on genetically engineered corn and soybeans. The groups argue that in its approval of Enlist Duo, a combination of the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate, the agency disregarded negative impacts on sensitive species, including nearly two hundred species protected under the ESA. In September 2015, after EPA unconditionally registered sulfoxaflor (a bee-toxic insecticide similar to neonicotinoids) without obtaining the necessary impact information, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unequivocally rejected the unconditional registration of the toxic insecticide as a response to a 2013 lawsuit filed against EPA. The Court concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. Farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow in the European Union’s footsteps by following the precautionary principle, which generally approves products after they have been assessed for harm, not before. Beyond Pesticides  suggests an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of toxic chemicals.

Source: The Center for Biological Diversity

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 30, 2015) The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) needs policies and procedures to manage pesticide petitions in a transparent and efficient manner, according to new report  that  highlights inadequacies in the way the agency responds to petitioners. The report, published by EPA’s Office of Inspector General, an independent office within EPA that investigates agency compliance with laws governing its programs, concludes that the lack of transparency and efficiency “leaves petitioners unaware of petition status, which can result in unreasonable delay lawsuits costing the agency time and resources.”

While the public has the right to submit pesticide petitions to EPA and the agency is required to respond to these petitions “within a reasonable time,” there are no set requirements for what constitutes a specific time frame. However, petitioners can file a lawsuit claiming unreasonable delay if the petitioner finds that EPA has not responded within what the petitioner considers a reasonable amount of time. Of the 40 public petitions received by OPP from Fiscal Year 2005 through 2014, nearly a quarter of them are  associated with unreasonable delay lawsuits. The specific issues contributing to these delays involve:

• Petition documentation not being readily accessible;
• Some of the petition data were inaccurate, leading to more work being required to confirm data;
• Lack of guidance on how to submit petitions directly to OPP, leading to weeks of delay in petitions arriving at the correct office for action; and
• OPP does not provide public guidance on how to submit complete petitions, which resulted in petitioners providing supplemental information, and increased the time and resources to reach petition decisions.

In August, a federal appeals court judge mandated that EPA respond to a petition filed nearly nine years ago that seeks to force the agency to restrict the dangerous insecticide chlorpyrifos (an organophosphate also known as Dursban). U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Ninth Circuit, M. Margaret McKeown, stated that federal agencies should never practice the “venerable tradition” of putting off statutory requirements when it comes to human health. Another recent instance of egregious delay involves EPA’s issuance this summer of a long-awaited response  to a  Citizen Petition  filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch in 2010, denying the request to cancel registered products that contain the antibacterial pesticide triclosan. In 2014, Beyond Pesticides joined Center for Food Safety in filing  a lawsuit against EPA over the agency’s failure to regulate novel nanomaterial pesticides. The lawsuit challenged the agency for its failure to answer a 2008 petition filed by more than 13 organizations.

The report recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention “develop policies and procedures to manage public petitions in a transparent, effective, and efficient manner; communicate directly with petitioners; train staff to adhere to the Records Management Policy; implement an effective tracking system for public petitions; and provide guidance to the public on how to submit petitions with sufficient data for review.”

Beyond Pesticides believes that local and grassroots action is one of the best ways to reduce pesticide use and its harmful effects in communities. The outpouring of grassroots support from around the country after the passage of local laws, like that in Montgomery County,  exemplifies the important of local laws in the protection of health and the environment, as government regulators, the chemical industry, and the chemical  lawn care industry see to thwart action. Beyond Pesticides encourages residents to become aware of national efforts to undermine critical health and environmental laws, and to take  action in their community to fight for these important public health and environmental protections.  Click here to show  your support for a pesticide-free community.

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

Source: EPA

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2015) One of the top entomologists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) filed a whistleblower complaint against a  federal agency, citing unprofessional retaliation following the publication of a study linking neonicotinoid insecticides to the decline of monarch butterflies. Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D., Senior Research Entomologist and Lab Supervisor for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in South Dakota, is fighting suspension for publishing research deemed “sensitive” by his USDA superiors. According to Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which is providing legal services to Dr. Lundgren, this case underscores why legal protections for government scientists are sorely needed.

Until recently, Dr. Lundgren worked for USDA for eleven years with great success, and his cutting edge research has drawn national attention and international recognition. In April of this year, Dr. Lundgren published a study in The Science of Nature that shows that clothianidin, a neonicotinoid seed treatment, kills monarch butterfly larvae in the laboratory. On August 3, 2015, USDA imposed a 14-day suspension against Dr. Lundgren for submitting the Science of Nature study and for a paperwork error in his travel authorization for his invited presentation about his research to a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as to a USDA stakeholder group, the Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance. The suspension was cut to 14 days from 30 after Dr. Lundgren filed an appeal.

“Having research published in prestigious journals and being invited to present before the National Academy of Sciences should be sources of official pride, not punishment,” said PEER Staff Counsel Laura Dumais. “Politics inside USDA have made entomology into a most perilous discipline.”

In September 2014, Dr. Lundgren filed a complaint of violations of USDA Scientific Integrity Policy with the Scientific Integrity Office stating that allegations of his misconduct earlier that year stemmed from ulterior motives. According to USDA, he had made inappropriate remarks in the workplace, violated IT policies by connecting his home computer to the office’s internet, and discussed sensitive topics with the press. He said, “It was clear that the motivation for it [was] associated with my talking to the press about pesticide risks.” USDA’s ARS department approved the press interview and the publications discussed in the interview. His complaint argues that, “This abrupt onset of actions undoubtedly appears to have been prompted by the scientific activities that are supposed to be specifically safeguarded and encouraged under the USDA Scientific Integrity Policy.”

USDA has been under the public’s microscope concerning political suppression for some time now. In April, PEER filed a petition for rulemaking, seeking to strengthen USDA’s Scientific Integrity Policy. PEER argued that language in the current policy actually encouraged the suppression of scientific study where large agribusiness corporations’ reputations were at stake. PEER explains that USDA management regularly uses this provision as reason for suppressing technical work of employees when industry stakeholders disagree with the scientific conclusions reached.

With independent science both in and outside of the U.S. pointing to a growing list of impacts from pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) crops, ranging from the decline of bees to the carcinogenicity of the widely used herbicide glyphosate, it is critical that federal scientific agencies tasked with protecting human and environmental health be able to inform the public without repercussions from an industry whose only interest is in protecting profits. For more information, see PEER’s pattern of science manipulation at USDA. To see the history of industry influence in federal agencies, visit this link to our Daily News Blog.

For more details on Dr. Lundgren’s whistleblower case:

See the whistleblower narrative

Read Dr. Lundgren’s scientific integrity complaint

Look at the suspension decision

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

Source: Public Employees for Public Responsibility

Photo Source: Rio Grande Watershed Conservation and Education  Program

(Beyond Pesticides, October 28, 2015) On the heels of a recent federal court decision that rejected the U.S. registration of sulfoxaflor, which cited inadequate and flawed review of the science on the chemical’s toxicity to bees, European beekeepers filed complaint that that asks the European Court of Justice to take the same action. The complaint  asks the court to cancel sulfoxaflor’s authorization. Sulfoxaflor is a neonicotinoid-like chemical that, like neonicotinoids, is highly toxic to bees. Three of the most widely used neonicotinoids are currently under a two-year European-wide moratorium which began December 2013, due to concerns about risks to bee populations.

European beekeepers, Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination, the Italian National Beekeeping Union (UNAAPI), and PAN Europe, filed the complaint which cites a published  negative opinion on Dow AgroScience’s sulfoxaflor by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). According to EFSA, the pesticide is categorized as ”˜highly toxic to bees’ and it identified crucial toxicity data gaps, which according to the beekeepers, makes a proper risk assessment for bees impossible. Despite these facts, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG Sante) and the EU member states authorized sulfoxaflor in July 2015, completely bypassing the pesticide regulation, the complaint notes.

In contrast, back in 2013, a similar analysis of three neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) prepared by EFSA —which found high risk to bees, many data gaps to carry out a proper risk assessment—  led to an EU-wide ban on bee-attractive crops.

Martin Dermine, PAN Europe’s honey bee project coordinator explains, “In 2013, DG Sante made a positive step towards a better protection of bees and the environment in general. This U-turn is not acceptable. We put it in parallel with other negative developments in the pesticide area since the Commission was established”.

On September 10, 2015, the  Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unequivocally rejected  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor. The Court concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies. The Court vacated EPA’s unconditional registration of the chemical, meaning that sulfoxaflor may no longer be used in the U.S. In 2013, in response to EPA’s initial registration of sulfoxaflor,  beekeepers filed suit against EPA, citing that the insecticide further endangers bees and beekeeping, noting that their concerns were not properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted. The case:  Pollinator Stewardship Council, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Beekeeping Federation, Thomas Smith, Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson v. U.S. EPA  (9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals,”¯No. 13-7234).

According to the decision, EPA skirted its own regulations when it ignored risk concerns, even with the reduced maximum application rate, which EPA has done before, despite prior reprimands from the Court. The panel vacated the EPA’s unconditional registration because, given the precariousness of bee populations, allowing EPA’s continued registration of sulfoxaflor risked  increased  environmental harm.

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

Bees in the U.S. and Europe have seen unprecedented losses over the last decade- losses attributed to widespread pesticide use, especially neonicotinoids which gained popularity during the same time. In the U.S., farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow the European Union’s  lead  and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market. Thus far, EPA has amended neonicotinoid product labels to make clearer the hazards posed to bees, placed a moratorium on new neonicotinoid products, and  proposed to place a temporary prohibition  on the foliar application of pesticides acutely toxic to bees. The plight of bees was recognized by the Obama Administration, which has since directed federal agencies to find solutions to reverse and restore healthy pollinator populations. The  federal report, released May 2015, outlines several measures including public education and habitat creation, but little to nothing on bee-toxic pesticides. States are also encouraged to develop pollinator plans to help mitigate risks to bees, but many including beekeepers believe these do not go far enough.

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

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

Source:  PAN Europe Press Release

Photo Source: Susan Q, TN

(Beyond Pesticides, October 27, 2015) Late Friday,  a coalition of public health, conservation and food safety groups filed their opening brief in the ongoing legal challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of the herbicide Enlist Duo for use on genetically engineered corn and soybeans. Enlist Duo, a blend of glyphosate and 2,4-D, was approved on October 15 for use on genetically engineered (GE) crops, despite concerns for human and environmental contamination. The challenge was originally brought in November 2014, shortly after the EPA approved the controversial herbicide for 6 Midwest states. Since then, EPA has expanded its approval to a total of 15 states, with more expected. Counsel from the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice are jointly representing Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, CFS, the Environmental Working Group, the National Family Farm Coalition, and Pesticide Action Network North America.

“The Enlist Duo approval violated the laws protecting our communities, land, and farms,” said George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety senior attorney, counsel in the case. “Regulators bowed to the chemical industry, but we are committed to holding them accountable.”

The groups argue that in its approval of Enlist Duo, a combination of the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate, the agency disregarded negative impacts on sensitive species, including nearly two hundred species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), from the increased use of the toxic cocktail on crops genetically engineered to withstand its application. EPA’s own analyses also demonstrate plainly that the increased application of 2,4-D on Dow’s genetically engineered crops may affect nearby native plants, other valuable agricultural crops, and wildlife. In addition to environmental damage, these chemicals have been linked to a myriad of human health problems. 2,4-D has been linked to soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and harm to the reproductive system. Glyphosate has been recently classified as a human carcinogen  based on laboratory studies by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March.

“Allowing this 2,4-D/glyphosate cocktail to be sprayed on the up to 150 million acres of corn and soybean acreage found in these states may harm or kill dozens of imperiled species, as well as increase the health risk to humans,” said Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff.  “EPA is supposed to be our watchdog, not the chemical industry’s lapdog.”

“With the expanded use of 2,4-D on GE crops, EPA ensures that the nation’s farmers remain on a pesticide treadmill, subject to an increasing reliance on more and more toxic chemicals,” said Jay Feldman, executive director at Beyond Pesticides.

EPA approved Enlist Duo to address the epidemic of glyphosate-resistant super weeds that now infest tens of millions of acres of U.S. farmland as a result of overuse of glyphosate —the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup— on crops genetically engineered to resist glyphosate’s effects. Dow Chemical has introduced 2,4-D tolerant  crops to as a short-term  fix to the problem, allowing farmers to douse their fields with both 2,4-D and glyphosate to kill these herbicide resistant weeds. Scientists, however, predict that the Enlist Duo “crop system” will only foster expanded weed resistance to the pesticides 2,4-D in addition to glyphosate, continuing the GE crop pesticide treadmill. In fact, in addition to corn and soybeans USDA announced in July that it has also added 2,4-D tolerant cotton to the lineup of available GE crops. 2,4-D is known to  drift for miles, posing a serious threat   to crops and farmers’ livelihoods.

“EPA’s reckless approval this dangerous pesticide cocktail puts hundreds of our nation’s most imperiled animals, like the majestic whooping crane, in harm’s way,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “EPA has left us with no choice but to go to court to stop this dangerous product from being sprayed across the American heartland.”

EPA’s assessment identified risks to endangered species like the whooping crane, gray wolf, and Indiana bat through consumption of prey contaminated with the toxic chemical. EPA violated both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the ESA. Under the ESA, EPA is required consult with the expert wildlife agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, to address these risks but EPA refused to do so.

“The lack of oversight by federal agencies is outrageous,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network and one of the plaintiffs. “EPA has ignored the threats to the health of rural communities and the livelihoods of farmers who rely on the agency for protection. Instead, EPA gave the greenlight to allow a dramatic increase in the use of the hazardous and volatile chemical, 2,4-D.”

Supporting organic agriculture can prevent the pesticide treadmill that results from the over use of pesticides like glyphosate and 2,4-D on GE crops. By utilizing ecological pest management strategies, organic practices, and solutions that are not chemical-intensive are the most appropriate and long-term solution  to managing unwanted plants, or weeds. Additionally, organic agriculture is an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, mechanical production practices, and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving. To learn more about organic agriculture, see  Beyond Pesticides Organic Program Page.

For more information on GE foods and what you can do, see Beyond Pesticides Genetic Engineering Program Page.

Read the petitioner’s opening brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case: 15-71207 here.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2015) Last week, Pop Weaver, the second largest popcorn supplier in the country, released an official statement on its commitment to “removing 50 percent of its neonicotinoid usage in 2016, 75 percent in 2017, with a long-term commitment of further reducing usage by working with agricultural universities and those companies supplying neonicotinoids to the seed industry.” Widely-used neonicotinoids (neonics), which as systemic chemicals move through a plant’s vascular system and express poison through pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets, have been identified in multiple  peer-reviewed studies  and by beekeepers  as the major contributing factor in bee decline. This commitment is a response to a campaign led by Center for Food Safety (CFS), which asked citizens to sign a petition asking Pop Weaver, and other large popcorn suppliers, to protect bees and other pollinators by phasing out the use of neonicotinoid-coated corn seed. Over 37,000 people have signed their petition.

Americans eat, on average, 17.3 billion quarts of popcorn each year; each American eats about 68 quarts. According to CFS, there are roughly 40 insecticides currently registered for use as an active chemical on popcorn, including 3 bee-toxic neonicotinoid chemicals: clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid. Between  79 and 100 percent of corn seed in the U.S. is coated with neonicotinoids, including the corn used for popping.

There have been additional reports and studies published over the past few years questioning the benefits of neonic use.  In 2014, Beyond Pesticides featured an article, No Longer a Big Mystery, in the  quarterly newsletter Pesticides and You that challenges  industry claims that neonics are safe. The article references bee health science that reports that even small, low-dose (sublethal) neonicotinoid exposures can have detrimental effects on bees. Also in 2014, CFS  published a report  refuting claims that neonicotinoids bring greater benefits than costs to farmers. In the report, researchers analyzed independent, peer-reviewed, scientific literature and found that the benefits of prophylactic neonicotinoid use via seed treatments were nearly non-existent, and that any minor benefits that did occur were negated due to  honey bee colony impacts, reduced crop pollination by honey bees, reduced production of honey and other bee products, loss of ecosystem services, and market damage from contamination events. According to an international team of researchers led by Geoff Williams, MD, PhD, at the University of Bern in Switzerland, exposure to neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides results in overwhelming negative impacts to the health of honey bee queens. This year, the U.S. Geological Survey found that neonic insecticides contaminate over half of urban and agricultural streams across the United States and Puerto Rico; which exemplifies the impacts these chemicals have on other organisms, like  birds  (a single kernel of neonic-coated corn  is enough to kill a songbird).

Neonic-coated seeds are a target of anti-neonic campaigns because this class of insecticides is systemic, meaning that they live within the plant and last much longer and in much more critical areas than other insecticides. Across the nation, jurisdictions, like Boulder and Lafayette, Colorado, have been banning or limiting neonicotinoids. Last year, Ontario, Canada proposed a plan to reduce the use of neonic-coated corn and soybean seeds by 80%. In 2013, the European Union issued a 2-year moratorium banning neonics. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) agreed to ban neonicotinoid insecticides from all wildlife refuges nationwide by this January. For more information on pollinators and pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ BeeProtective page.

The  Saving America’s Pollinator’s Act of 2015  remains an avenue for Congress to address the pollinator crisis.  Contact your U.S. Representative  and ask them to support this important legislation today. You can also get active in your community to protect bees by advocating for policies that restrict their use. Montgomery County, Maryland recently  restricted the use of a wide range of pesticides, including neonics, on public and private property.  Sign here  if you’d like to see your community do the same!

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

Source:  Center for Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2015) Tests on produce collected by California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) for 2014 show high levels of  illegal toxic pesticide residues. The CDPR report found 1 percent of produce containing an excess amount of pesticide residues, and an additional 5.5 percent of produce tested contained illegal residues of pesticides that are not allowed for use on that product. Additionally, the data shows residues of a banned  chemical, which was taken off the market  over 20 years in the U.S. due to health concerns related to farmworker exposure. These findings showcase issues related to  system-wide failure in  enforcement. Advocates stress that violations may continue to occur due to inadequacies in regulations governing enforcement authorities, which include warnings or low fines for violators. In raising concerns about the safety of food grown with chemical-intensive methods, advocates point to the need to expand the transition to organic agriculture for better protection of public health and safety.

The highest percentage of illegal pesticides was found on cactus pads and cactus fruit imported from Mexico. Some of the other tainted fruit and vegetables include limes, papaya, summer squash, tomatillos, chili peppers, and tomatoes, also from Mexico, ginger imported from China, and U.S.-grown spinach and kale. While over 93 percent of the produce tested contain legal levels of pesticide residue, the data shows a pattern of  low dose exposure  to hazardous  pesticides, such as endocrine disruptors.

Monocrotophos is one of the highly toxic chemicals found in the cactus samples, and is not only a major cause of concern for consumers, who can experience flu-like symptoms from eating large quantities of it, but for the laborers harvesting it. In fact, the U.S. has banned the chemical since 1989, on the basis that it caused  farmworker poisoning. Other chemicals found, which either exceeded the set tolerance level or were illegally used, include  chlorothalonil, methomyl, dimethoate, thiabendazole, permethrin, and chlorpyrifos. Health effects of these chemicals range from neurotoxicity to cancer, kidney/liver effects, and endocrine disruption. The surrounding community, including the environment, wildlife, and farmworkers, is also greatly affected by these toxic chemicals. A 2004 study detected agricultural pesticides in the homes near agricultural fields. According to a 2010 study, workers experience repeated exposures to the same pesticides evidenced by multiple pesticides routinely detected in their bodies.

The U.S.  can set  an import tolerance on unregistered pesticide-food combinations when no U.S. tolerance exists. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a tolerance (called a Maximum Residue Limit or MRL in Canada and many other countries) is the maximum residue level of a pesticide permitted in or on food or feed grown in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. from other countries. Import firms that buy and sell crops in the U.S. that exceed those maximum residue limits are at risk for fines. Repeat violators face higher fines than first offenders. Unfortunately, EPA tolerances continuously receive exemptions to protect industry leaders. Tolerance levels are sometimes raised based on EPA reviews, even in the case of known toxic pesticides. In 2013, EPA “temporarily” granted an exemption for the banned endosulfan (known to cause endocrine disruption and toxicity to birds and aquatic organisms) on imported Chinese tea. Not even one year ago, Greenpeace discovered that 94% of tea samples from India were tainted with European Union (EU) banned pesticides. That exemption is still in effect today.

According to CDPR, if produce with illegal residues is found, it is quickly removed from the chain of distribution (to prevent it from reaching consumers) and attempts are made to trace it to its source. The tainted lots are quarantined. However, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in a 2014 report found deficiencies in the Federal Drug Administration’s (FDA) monitoring of residues. For imported food, GAO found,  “FDA tests relatively few targeted (i.e., non-generalizable) samples for pesticide residues. For example, in 2012, FDA tested less than one-tenth of 1 percent of imported shipments.” See also Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News on the subject.  An earlier 1986 GAO report,  Better Sampling and Enforcement Needed on Imported Food,  that most foods adulterated with pesticides make their way into commerce and are not recovered. The report found: “(1) the FDA pesticide monitoring program provides limited protection against public exposure to illegal residues in food; (2) FDA samples less than 1 percent of 1 million imported food shipments annually; (3) FDA inspectors at various ports of entry decide the extent to which they apply sample criteria; and (4) FDA uses five multi-residue tests that individually detect many pesticides on a single sample; however, FDA laboratories normally use only one method for each sample. GAO also found that: (1) although FDA policy requires importers to maintain all sampled shipments intact until FDA determines that the product is residue-free, FDA permits importers to release the majority of sampled shipments to U.S. markets before they spoil; (2) of 164 adulterated samples, 73 were not recovered before public consumption; and (3) there were only eight documented cases where FDA assessed importers damages when adulterated food reached the marketplace.

According to CDPR, businesses that violate California pesticide residue laws face loss of their product and also fines. On July 28, 2015, CDPR released a statement announcing recent sanctions for six California import firms who repeatedly violated pesticide regulations. Since December of last year, these six firms have been selling imported products that have been tainted with pesticides not approved for production or sale in the U.S., including DDE (metabolite of DDT), imidacloprid, and endosulfan. The fines for these companies ranged from $10,000 to $21,000. While the CDPR tests California food, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for federal food testing. FDA makes testing for pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables for human consumption seem like a top priority; yet, rarely performs their due diligence when it comes to foreign, imported products. That diligence is an important protocol to ensure the safety of humans consuming those crops. As the report by Government Accountability Office (GAO) states, it was found that FDA tested relatively few targeted samples (one-tenth of one percent of all imported fruits and vegetables to be exact) for pesticide residues and furthermore discovered that FDA does not test for several commonly used pesticides with an EPA established tolerance, including glyphosate.

Advocates point to the use of warnings, repeated violations, and low fines as a sign that the current system is failing to protect public health.  These producers knowingly, after being repeatedly warned, expose consumers to pesticides that are so toxic that they have been banned for use on these food products. Advocates say pesticide offenses like these need to be met with fines that cannot just be considered a cost of doing business —they must be large enough to cause the businesses to change their practices. These findings also provide proof that banned pesticides are still affecting our food supply.

Pesticide use in conventional agriculture does not just affect consumers. Beyond the impacts that residues of pesticides have  on  people who eat food grown with chemical-intensive practices, the pesticides used in conventional food production can also have devastating impacts on farmworkers. As the scientific literature confirms, farmworkers, their families, and their communities face extraordinary risks from pesticide exposures. Application and pesticide drift result in dermal, inhalation, and oral exposures that are typically underestimated. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, farmworkers  and their children, who often times also work on the farm, are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems such as cancer, neurological impairments, and Parkinson’s disease

Food choices have a direct effect on those who grow and harvest what we eat around the world. This is why  food labeled organic  is an important choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual toxic pesticide food residues, food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, and the protection of farmworkers and farm families. For more information on the health effects of pesticide exposure, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. For additional information on impacts of food purchasing decisions on the full range of environmental and worker hazards, wee Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience data.

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

Source: TakePart, California Department of Pesticide Regulation

(Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2015) With increasing consumer concern about genetically engineered (GE) food, yesterday  the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a hearing,  entitled Agriculture Biotechnology: a Look at Federal Regulation and Stakeholder Perspectives, that critics called lopsided. Most witnesses characterized GE food as safe or side-stepped the issue of safety, as government witnesses refused to distinguish GE from conventional food and opposed food labeling.

“This is the first time in 10 years we’ve had a hearing on biotech. I guess we’re a little late, but we’re here,” said chair of the committee, Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS). The ranking  minority member of the committee, Senator  Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)  said,  “Biotechnology is proven to be safe, beneficial, and I believe will play a major role in helping to solve these dual global challenges of climate change and global food security,”

Central to the hearing is the the issue of labeling food products containing GE crops. Senator Stabenow called for the adoption of legislation on GE food labeling, presumably with language that will preempt the authority of states to adopt more stringent labeling standards. Senator Stabenow said that she wants labeling that “doesn’t stigmatize biotechnology.” The GE food industry is urging Congress to act to override state labeling before the Vermont label law goes into effect in July 2016.

The committee heard government and industry witnesses on the federal regulation of agriculture biotechnology, with limited input from consumer critics. Two panels (one representing agencies, the other industry) received questions from the 20 committee members on GE  crops, biotechnology, and labeling. The agency panel represented  “business as usual,” discussing administrative procedures at length, while the industry panel  stressed the science of GE. The Just Label It group, a coalition of organizations  advancing labeling, called for the public’s right to know. Environmental groups not invited to testify criticized the lopsided hearing and the government’s  opposition to GE labeling of food.

While Senators spent two of the three hours questioning agency officials on their regulatory procedures of GE crops and biotechnology, no answers were given that address scientific studies needed to ensure their safety. When asked by Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) if there was anything that made GE crops harmful to the environment, all of the members of the regulatory panel said “no,” despite impacts of GE crop production on the environment, reliance on hazardous weed killers in herbicide-tolerant crops, and the associated  decline of monarch butterflies.

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program indicated that it registers “plant incorporated protectants” (PIPs) in 86 GE crops and acknowledged pest resistance problems. Insects that are the target of the engineered plant, incorporated with a pesticide, develop resistance, putting farmers’ crops at risk because of their dependency on the technology. Organic agriculture identifies genetic engineering as an “excluded method” and prohibits its use in certified organic production. As the GE technology advances, farmers are increasingly threatened with crop loss, as was the argument made by Texas cotton farmers last year when 3 million acres of GE cotton was threatened by weed resistance to Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant Roundup. The state of Texas, on behalf of the farmers, requested that EPA allow the use of a triazine herbicide not registered for use on cotton under an emergency exemption (Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act), but EPA denied the request because it said that  exposure to  triazines, linked to  hermaphroditism in frogs, “already show[s] unacceptable risk levels.”

In 2012, Washington State University researcher  Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. found that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops (cotton, soybeans and corn) has increased, contrary to industry claims that biotechnology will  reduce pesticide applications. According to a  series of studies in the journal  Weed Science, at least 21 different species of weeds Monsanto’s  “Roundup-Ready” crops, which leads to an increased pesticide use  to try to combat resistance, escalating the pesticide treadmill effect. The latest herbicide tolerant GE corn and soybean plants are engineered to be used with the herbicide 2,4-D, one-half of the mixture of Agent Orange and linked to non Hodgkins lymphoma. Experts expect increased public exposure to 2,4-D through the food supply and in the environment, leading to weed resistance.

At the Agriculture Committee hearing, the  first panel included of officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Center for Food Safety and FDA’s Director of Applied Nutrition, Susan Mayne, Ph.D., took opposing positions  on GE labeling with the government witness  arguing that mandatory labeling is unnecessary because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) does not recognize a “material” difference between GE and conventional crops. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a long-time member of the committee, cited the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s interpretation of GE crops as “novel for patent purposes” and asked the panel why agencies were in disagreement about the differences between GE and conventional crops. Dr. Mayne responded that, if there were a material difference in the food safety and nutrition between  GE and conventional crops, FDA would support  labeling.

The second panel consisted of five members of the agricultural, production, and consumer industry. Joanna Lidback, producer and farmer from the Farm at Wheeler Mountain, voiced her concerns about the costs associated with GE crops used to feed her dairy cows. She calculated an increase of $48,000 per year on her farm if GE feed was ever banned, but no calculations for the costs of the proposed GE label. With economic hardships in mind, organic farmers  are threatened with  adverse economic impact  due to the  contamination from  GE pollen drifting onto their crops. Organic farmers also report  losses due to a need to establish buffer zones.

In opposing labeling Daryl Thomas, Senior Vice President of Herr Foods, Inc., stated, “Mandatory labels on food products are reserved for critical information about nutrition and safety. GMO ingredients don’t change the nutritional profile or safety of our products.”

Opponents of mandatory GE labeling on both panels cited the growing concern of global food insecurity as a reason for denying consumers the right to know if GE crops are in their food. While the developing  world is facing a food crisis, most GE crops are used as animal feed, with  only 12 percent of crop calories used in that feed end up as calories consumed by humans. Gary Hirshberg, co-founder of Stonyfield Farm and chairman of Just Label It, addressed these concerns. He pointed to other nations that, unlike the U.S., have experience with GE labeling laws. He stated that crop acreage across the GE-labeling world has increased, and asked the Senators to recognize that existing experience has shown that post-labeling trends lean toward increased profit.

Though Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) pointed to the “unanimity” among regulatory bodies’ belief that GE crops are safe and well-regulated, and expressed confidence in agency oversight, recent violations and deficiencies by regulators paint a different story. On August 10, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Ninth Circuit, M. Margaret McKeown, responded to EPA’s lack of attention to the toxic insecticide dursban (chlorpyrifos), stating that federal agencies should never practice the “venerable tradition” of putting off statutory requirements  when it comes to human health.  Just one month later, that court unequivocally rejected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) unconditional registration of the systemic and bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor. Similarly, federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,  in a bench ruling, rejected the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)  motion to dismiss a  federal lawsuit  (Case3:15-cv-01690) that challenges the National Organic Program’s (NOP) failure to follow proper legal procedures  in making a substantial rule change to the organic standard.

Although absent from  the hearing discussion,  GE crops present serious public health and environmental concerns, specifically when it comes to the high levels of chemicals such as glyphosate  (Roundup), recently classified as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The increasing use of toxic pesticides in GE crop production  elevates  public exposure through the food supply and environmental contamination.

In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 1599), commonly referred to as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act. After passing the bill, H.R. 1599 was sent to the Senate for review by applicable committees. The act will, if passed, preempt individual states’ rights to require GE labeling. Yesterday’s hearing indicates the rapid movement of the bill through congress and the upcoming Senate bill. Vermont was the first state in the nation to pass a GE labeling law and then  survive a federal court challenge from the food industry.  If the DARK Act passes through Senate and is enacted into law, it will nullify Vermont’s recent law, set to go into effect on July 1, 2016. Beyond Pesticides encourages  people to communicate your  concerns about GE food and the right to know what’s in your food to your U.S. Senators .

Take Action:
Take part by writing to your Senators today to tell them to support federally mandated GE labeling.

You can learn more about the reasons to say no to genetically engineered crops and food by reading Beyond Pesticides’  factsheet on the subject or visiting the Genetic Engineering page on our website.

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

Source:  U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry