(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2015) A community in central Michigan is still dealing with the fallout of a pesticide company that produced DDT nearly half a century ago. St. Louis, MI, a city about one hour north of the state capital Lansing, has long dealt with contamination left behind by the Velsicol Chemical Corporation, which manufactured pesticides in the town until 1963, when it left  and  abandoned loads of DDT in its wake. DDT, known for accumulating in food webs and persisting for decades in soil and river sediment, was banned in the U.S.  in 1972, but problems associated with its prevalent use until that time still plague the community to this day. This situation  has led to a multi-million dollar clean-up effort at taxpayers’ expense  by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

EPA took control of the Velsicol plant as a Superfund site in 1982, but decades-long delays in the cleanup of the old chemical factory have left songbirds, and potentially people at risk nearly thirty years later. After years of complaints from residents, researchers  recently reported  that robins and other birds are dropping dead from DDT poisoning. The dead robins and other songbirds tested at Michigan State University had some of the highest levels of DDT ever recorded in wild birds, and it is believed they were contaminated by eating worms in the soil in the neighborhoods around the factory. In 2006, DEQ started sampling some yards in a nine-block area near the plant after complaints from residents. Upon finding DDT in the soil, orange fences were installed around heavily contaminated areas. In 2012, EPA cleaned up those yards, but further sampling found that nearly the entire neighborhood needed remediation.

In 2014, EPA contractors began excavating contaminated soil from 59 yards in the town of 7,000 people, and this summer they will tear up 47 more yards, 10 city-owned properties, the athletic fields at the local high school, and replace St. Louis’ entire water system by tapping into a nearby community’s pipes. Most of the yards are being cleaned because the levels of DDT are a threat to wildlife, however, five of the 47 yards being cleaned this summer have levels of chemicals of concern that exceed human health criteria. One of the yards also has excess polybrominated biphenyls, or PBBs, a flame retardant chemical Velisocol also manufactured and, in 1973, infamously mixed up with a cattle feed supplement, which led to widespread contamination in Michigan. While the majority of the contamination is in the top six inches of the soil, probably from the chemicals drifting over from the plant, some yards have DDT as deep as four feet, according to an  EPA report.

DDT is not just toxic to wildlife, but humans too. Researchers have linked DDT exposure to effects on fertility, immunity, hormones and brain development Jonathan Chevrier, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at McGill University, said research suggests that fetuses and young children are most vulnerable to DDT. The major worry is brain development in the womb, he said. “Research shows those with prenatal exposure scored lower on neurodevelopmental scales,” which can indicate lower IQs, he said. There also is evidence that DDT is linked to low birth weights.

In addition to the aforementioned concerns, a  study  published in July of 2014 found female mice exposed as a fetus were more likely to have diabetes and obesity later in life. This link can span multiple generations, having contributed to obesity three generations down the line from the initial exposure. In another study, lead researcher Michael Skinner, PhD., professor of biological sciences at Washington State University, and colleagues exposed pregnant rats to DDT to determine the long-term impacts to health across generations. The study,  Ancestral dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) exposure promotes epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of obesity, finds that the first generation of rats’ offspring developed severe health problems, ranging from kidney disease, prostate disease, and ovary disease, to tumor development. Interestingly, by the third generation more than half of the rats have increased levels of weight gain and fat storage. In other words, the great grandchildren of the exposed rats are much more likely to be obese.

DDT may also induce asthma in St. Louis residents, explains David Carpenter, Ph.D., director of the University at Albany-State University of New York’s  School of Public Health and an expert in Superfund cleanups. “Let’s say your backyard has DDT in it. If wind blows, and kicks up dust, you might [be exposed to] DDT. The sun shines, water evaporates, you might get a little DDT,” explains Dr. Carpenter. “And who knows what other chemical exposure they’re getting from the site.”

Nevertheless, EPA officials say  St. Louis residents are not in danger, claiming that DDT levels in the soil are not high enough to pose an immediate risk to people. Thomas Alcamo, remedial project manager for the Superfund site, has gone on record stating that, “This [cleanup] is all for long-term risk so there’s no one that needs to leave during cleanup activities.”

Perhaps the most concerning part of this town’s seemingly endless plight is the fact that despite wildlife deaths and some lawns contaminated to levels deemed harmful to humans, no one is conducting health testing on DDT exposure in the community. Mr. Alcamo said a comprehensive health study of the community would be the responsibility of the state’s health department or the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, neither of which is studying the community. The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman recently stated that the department “is neither planning or currently conducting a human health study or an exposure investigation in that community.”

Failure to look into the human health effects that could be plaguing this community more than four decades after the ban of DDT is not only an unjust act towards community members that may be suffering from adverse health effects, but it is also a disservice to the greater American public. The fact that the EPA has only just begun to scratch the surface, both literally and figuratively, when it comes to addressing some of the long standing effects of a once widely used pesticide should serve as a warning and speak to the dangers of using pesticides when long-term environmental and health effects are unknown. Stories like this one from St. Louis, MI should make us heed warning of short term health effects and be wary of long term exposures.

In light of recent discoveries, like the classification of glyphosate as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), or the environmental effects caused to bee populations by neonicotinoids, a persistent chemical that may be a bigger threat than DDT, local governments, states and the EPA should learn from the past and work together to try and prevent the kind of long-term damage being experienced by the residents of St. Louis, MI and other communities around the country.

Source:  Environmental Health News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2015) Without input from or notification to the public, Cornell University  has released genetically engineered (GE) diamondback moths at its  agricultural experiment station in Geneva, New York. The university is testing a new way to  control agricultural  pests, much to the dismay of environmentalists. The moths, which are engineered to be autocidal (self-killing), pose a possible threat to the certification of organic farmers and create environmental risks. Environmental groups such as Food and Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, and Friends of the Earth, among others, sent a letter expressing concern over the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s assessment process, which neglected to address  the possibility of moth movement past the trial area, and the impacts that diamondback moth declines will have on their natural predators and the larger ecosystem. These groups are recommending that  all outdoor trials be stopped until more information is available.

Cornell has partnered with Oxitec, a self-described  pioneer in using advanced genetics to control target  insects. They plan on controlling the population growth of these GE moths through their genetic design that kills the moth  in the larval stage on plants. Normally, these larvae feed on crops such as broccoli and cabbage during development, but through this trial, Cornell hopes to quell this problem.  While this may be touted as a sufficient population control measure, there are many confounding variables and unintended consequences that can occur with the release of a new species into the environment. Furthermore, there are safer alternatives to using potentially dangerous GE organisms, such as organic agricultural practices.  Organic farmers have found that natural enemies, such as certain types of wasps, ground beetles, and spiders, are often effective controls for diamondback moths. According to the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources IPM page, the ichneumonid wasp,  Diadegma insularis, has been identified as the most common parasite for diamondback moths, and Trichogramma  pretiosum  may also attack diamondback eggs. Sprays of Bacillus thuringiensis and the Entrust formulation of spinosad are organically acceptable management tools.

Oxitec says that it  engineers its insects, including the diamondback moths and mosquitoes, by using  the antibiotic tetracycline to act as a chemical switch, allowing the GE larvae to develop and survive in the lab, rather than die immediately as planned in the wild. Larvae are then supposed to die in the wild due to an absence of tetracycline. Unfortunately, tetracycline is used in a variety of different settings, from agriculture to the control of human diseases, and ultimately makes its way into the environment. Studies show that most wastewater treatment plants are unable to effectively remove tetracycline antibiotics, and the compound is frequently detected in surface water, ground water, drinking water, wastewater, soils and sediment. Thus, low levels of tetracycline in the environment may result in only a temporary reduction in the numbers of pests. There are also further questions regarding the impacts of how tetracycline-exposed survivor GE insects may impact human health or wildlife. Oxitec has previously received pushback on its  genetically modified organisms. In February 2015, Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) officials sought approval to release a wave of mosquitoes that had been genetically engineered to produce offspring whose larvae are unable to survive, similarly to the autocidal diamondback moths.

Another unintended consequence of these GE moths is their possible impact on organic farmers. The moths were released into open field trials instead of a physically enclosed space, making it difficult to secure the whereabouts of each one that was released. Because of this, there is a possibility that the GE moths will travel and produce offspring on neighboring farms, which may result in the loss of certification for organic farmers if these GE larvae are found on their crops.

Beyond Pesticides seeks to educate on the public health and environmental consequences of GE technology, and generate support for sound ecological-based management systems. In February 2015, a 13-page statement was released by scientists to address the fact that the science on GE foods is underdeveloped and shaky, at best. The biotechnology industry behind GE foods have for years touted that their technology is safe, dismissing any attempts to challenge their science or regulate their material. However, 300 scientists, physicians and scholars assert there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GE foods and find that claims of safety are an “artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated” through various forums and media. While this report focused on GE foods rather than GE organisms, it still speaks to the fact that there is a lack of knowledge regarding the effects that genetic engineering may have on the environment, wildlife and humans.

The consequences of using GE material are not well understood, therefore Beyond Pesticides promotes the importance of eating organically and supporting organic agriculture. Not only does organic prohibit  GE material from production, but organic agricultural also promotes the use of biological controls. As mentioned before, organic farmers have found safer alternatives to using GE organisms to prevent and mitigate damage from pests. For more information on the hazards associated with GE technology, visit our  Genetic Engineering webpage; for more on the benefits of organic agriculture, see our  Organic Food program page.

Source: Food and Water Watch

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2015) On July 1, Ontario will become the first jurisdiction in North America to officially begin reducing the number of acres planted with neonicotinoid-coated corn and soybean seeds, an action that has been in the making since 2014. The new rules should curb the acreage planted with such seeds by 80 percent by 2017.

The new rules will be put in place to track the sale and use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds. Additionally, for the upcoming farming season, farmers will only be allowed to use the seeds on up to 50 percent of their corn and soybean fields. Exemptions are granted only to those who can provide evidence of pest problems. In 2017, any farmer who wants to use neonicotinoid-treated seeds will have to prove the presence of  pests.

“Farmers are environmental stewards of their land and this regulation will enable our province’s farmers to strengthen their approach to protecting their crops,” Agricultural Minister Jeff Leal said in a statement Tuesday.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Glen Murray said the government must take “necessary action to protect these vitally important species and the ecosystems they support from the effects of neurotoxic neonicotinoids.”

Tibor Szabo, president of the Ontario Beekeepers’ Association, said “while the new regs may not be perfect, in the end, the Ontario government did the right thing.”

“Our bees continue to die from the overuse of neonicotinoids,” said Szabo. “We hope Ontario farmers will now take it on themselves to go beyond 50 per cent reduction and only use neonicotinoids when there’s a real need to control pests.”

In the winter of 2013-2014, Ontario beekeepers lost 58 percent of the province’s honey bees, a level well above the 15 percent depletion considered sustainable for over-winter losses.

The phase-out may be a challenge ”” nearly 100 percent of corn seed and 60 per cent of soybean seed sold in Ontario is currently treated with neonicotinoid insecticides.

The action stands in stark contrast to the limited steps taken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the recent White House plan on pollinator health, which does little to address the chronic, sublethal threat of systemic, neonicotinoid pesticides. More recently, EPA released a proposal intended to create “physical and temporal space” between bees and toxic pesticides. While touted as monumental progress on bee health by the agency, the reality is that the proposal will only result in modest changes to pesticide labels. Additionally, EPA’s new rules contain only a temporary ban on foliar applications of acutely bee-toxic pesticide products, dubbed “temporary pesticide free zones” by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

Despite the increasing number of studies linking neonicotinoid use with declines in bee and pollinator health and EPA’s own study that outlines the lack of benefits associated with the use of soybean seed treatments, the U.S. continues to lag behind Canada, Europe, and other countries that have taken decisive steps to limit the use of neonicotinoids.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. We suggest an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which, of course, prohibit the use of neonicotinoids. See how  you can Bee Protective.

Source: Toronto Star

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2015) Activists and concerned parents have been working for years in Connecticut to extend the current prohibition of pesticide use on daycare centers and K-8 school grounds to include high schools, athletic fields, municipal parks and town land. Now, the state Senate approved legislation to ban pesticides from public playgrounds, but there will still be no extension of the ban on high school lawns or fields under the bill language. Activists claim a partial victory and vow to continue working on a full ban, despite heavy opposition from industry forces.

Connecticut was the first state to prohibit the use of toxic pesticides at K-8 schools and daycare centers, but high schools, athletic fields, parks and playgrounds were exempted from the ban. On May 27, 2015, a bipartisan bill (SB366) extending the ban to public playgrounds passed the Senate 34-2 and now goes to the House. The new legislation would extend the ban to municipal playgrounds, except for situations that the authors say could threaten human health, such as hornet nests or tick infestations. The bill also calls for parents of high school students to be promptly notified by email of any pesticide applications at schools. Additionally, it would also allow the use of nontoxic microbial or biochemical pesticides to combat grubs on school properties and playgrounds. Strong opposition from many municipalities and the pesticide industry has prevented the inclusion of language that would extend the ban to high school grounds and fields, despite calls from parents and local activists.

“There is growing evidence that pesticides do far more harm than good to our communities,” said Sen. Ted Kennedy Jr., D-Branford and co-chairman of the environment committee. Sen. Kennedy has repeatedly warned that research shows pesticide ingredients have been linked to health problems ranging from cancer to neurological disorders. “By keeping pesticides off playgrounds and [K-8 grade] school property, we are protecting those who are most susceptible to the health impacts of pesticide exposure,” he said.

Previous attempts to extend the ban have also fallen short over the years. In 2013, the then-proposed bill 6385 to extend a pesticide ban from pre-K through eighth grade to include high schools stalled and a task force to study pesticides was set up, despite a favorable vote in the education committee to move the bill along. Another bill to extend the ban, which  also included a ban on the use of genetically engineered (GE) lawn and turf seed, passed the Senate last year, but was eventually rejected in the House. There have even been attempts to repeal the existing ban for daycare centers and K-8 schools, with legislation allowing pesticide use as part of a weak “integrated pest management” (IPM) system. Current state law, adopted in 2005 and amended in 2007 and 2009 to cover facilities from day care centers up through grade 8, prohibits pesticides on playgrounds and playing fields at schools (except under emergency situations), allowing instead for non-toxic pest and fertility management.

Industry groups and local land managers argue the myth that banning pesticides from fields would cost schools and municipalities more money because of pest damage and could make playing fields hazardous. However these myths have been debunked by studies and real world successes of organically managed fields. First, fields that are intensively managed with chemicals are at greater risk for disease and weed infestation (leading to a dependence on chemical inputs) compared with those whose practices build healthy, balanced soil. Similarly, chemically-managed fields are generally harder and more compacted due to a loss of natural soil biology, while organic management focuses on cultural practices, such as aeration, that alleviates compaction and provides a softer, better playing surface. Any field with irregular surfaces, whether organically managed or not, can lead to falls or twisted ankles. Banning pesticides from playing fields also will not cost more in the long-term. While initial costs to transition a chemical-dependent field to organic care can be higher, in the long-run costs will be lower as inputs, like fertilizer and water, decrease, along with the absence of the cost of annual chemical treatments. Read the factsheet: Pesticides and Playing Fields

But there is still hope for Connecticut. New York, the only state that has banned pesticides on the grounds of all schools, pre-K through 12th  grade, saw previous versions of its  bill defeated nine times. New York’s Child Safe Playing Field Act passed in 2010 with over 8,000 letters sent to legislators in favor of the bill and over 18,000 people signed to a petition. Similar efforts are underway in New Jersey.

The need for legislation to protect vulnerable children from the hazards of toxic pesticides is clear. Studies show that pesticides are associated with several human health risks including cancer, learning/behavioral disabilities and reproductive and sexual dysfunction. The Pesticide-Induced Disease Database documents the association between pesticide exposures and the onset of disease. This is supported by the findings of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which concluded in December 2012 that, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.”  The report went on to discuss how kids are exposed to pesticides every day in air, food, dust, and soil. Children also frequently come into contact with pesticide residue on pets and after lawn, garden, or household pesticide applications.

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

Source: Hartford Courant

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2015) Agricultural pesticides are sprayed intensively throughout the growing season in New York’s conventional apple orchards. Researchers at Cornell University found that as the use of pesticides on these farms increased, the abundance of wild bees declined significantly. The study, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, focuses on the effects of conventional pesticide use on wild bees, which have often been overlooked in the midst of an ongoing crisis with managed honey bee colonies.

“Because production of our most nutritious foods, including many fruits, vegetables and even oils, rely on animal pollination, there is an intimate tie between pollinator and human well-being,” said Mia Park, an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota and the paper’s first author, who worked on the study as a Cornell entomology PhD graduate student.

Ms. Park and her colleagues analyzed wild bee populations on 19 apples orchards across the state of New York between 2011 and 2012. Data was broken down by class of pesticide (fungicide, insecticide, herbicides), and timing of applications (before, during, and after flower bloom). Researchers also analyzed the percentage of natural areas within the surrounding landscape.

The study uncovered a number of insights into the way that conventional pesticide use on a typical apple farm impacts native pollinator populations. Wild bee numbers declined significantly as pesticide use increased, but the overall impact of pesticides on wild bees was found to be highest in generations following pesticide exposure, indicating that pesticides affect bee reproduction or offspring. Further, researchers found that fungicides, widely regarded as having low toxicity to bees, had a measurable impact on wild bee abundance. “High and repeated exposure was the likely explanation” for this finding, according to the study.

Even more concerning is the relationship between timing of fungicide applications and wild bee populations. Fungicide applications prior to apple flower blooming resulted in the steepest decline in wild bee abundance and diversity. This result indicates that wild bees are visiting orchards before apple trees begin to bloom. Further, researchers found insecticide applications impacted bees the most after bloom occurred. The authors explain that, while honey bees are placed in orchards for a short time during bloom, wild bees are more frequently exposed to chemical pesticides because they continue to forage in and around apple orchards before and after the bloom period.

This finding is particularly important considering recent label changes proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of President Obama’s National Pollinator Health Strategy. The new changes call for “temporary pesticide-free zones” while beekeepers  are under contract with farmers for pollination services. As this new data shows, these changes may stop some honey bees from coming into acute contact with certain neonicotinoid insecticides, but will do absolutely nothing to address pesticide exposure to wild bees.

“We found there is a negative response of the whole bee community to increasing pesticide use,” said PhD candidate and lead author Mia Park.

There was one bright spot for pollinator health in the study. Researchers found that increasing natural habitat around farms — in other words, providing a true pesticide-free refuge for native pollinators — mediated the effects of pesticide use and resulted in less pronounced declines. While the National Pollinator Health Strategy calls for increased pollinator habitat, it is critical that any new planting prohibit pesticide use, in order to protect both our managed and wild pollinators. Beyond Pesticides and allies continue to call for EPA to suspend the use of the most highly toxic neonicotinoid insecticides, as the agency conducts further research.

This new study reveals how the intensive use of multiple pesticides on a typical conventional farm adversely affects the health of wild pollinators. Even synthetic pesticides widely considered of low toxicity to bees had an impact on these native species because they were sprayed at such high frequency during the course of these pollinators’ lives. Evidence continues to mount that, beyond issues with individual pesticides, there exists a wholly reversible and preventable problem in conventional agriculture’s entire approach to pest control. The approach taken on most organic farms reveals how to foster native pollinator health and broader biodiversity while maintaining pests at low levels. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and scheduled sprays, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and pollinators alike, set action levels for pests based upon monitoring, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.

To learn more about the benefits of organic agriculture, visit Beyond Pesticides’ webpage. And for more information and actions you can take to stem the global decline of both native and managed pollinators, support Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective campaign.

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

Source: Cornell University, Proceedings of the Royal Society B

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2015) Organic agriculture produces higher profits for farmers while doing a better job at protecting the environment and biodiversity, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS). When factoring in the price premium organic farmers receive for their products, researchers discovered that organic farming is 22-35% more profitable than conventional growing methods. The study’s findings are a positive sign for the future of organic, which, despite its exponential growth to a $35 billion industry over the past decade, currently only comprises 5% of the U.S. food market, and 1% of U.S. cropland.

Authors of the PNAS study indicate that there is a significant opportunity for growers wishing to transition to organic practices, as many of the findings assuage widely held concerns over the viability of organic. For instance, although labor costs are higher for organic crops, these expenses are offset by a decreased need for nonrenewable resources, such as the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that conventional agriculture relies upon. In fact, authors found that the breakeven point for organic farmers, 5 to 7%, is much lower than the 29 to 32% premiums often paid by consumers. This means that it is well worth it for organic farmers to undertake the 3-year transition to organic required under  the Organic Foods Production Act  (farms under organic transition must not use conventional products for three years before receiving the organic price premium through organic certification).

But consumers shouldn’t feel upset over paying the higher cost. In essence, organic shoppers are paying more to protect their own health, the environment where the food is grown, the farmworkers that grow the food, the soil the food is growth in, and the pollinators and other wildlife in the area. For example, organic methods of farming strawberries lead to healthier berries and soils, and result in improved pollination success. In terms of row crops, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Sustainable Agricultural Systems Lab finds organic methods of corn and soybean production significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions coming from soils. In fact, organic systems, particularly no-till organic, sequester more greenhouse gas emissions than they emit, and result in more fertile soil than conventional genetically engineered no-till agriculture.

“If we also put a price on the negative externalities caused by farming, such as soil erosion or nitrate leaching into groundwater, then organic agriculture would become even more profitable because its environmental footprint has been shown to be less than the environmental footprint of conventional agriculture,” say the authors of the study.

One drawback the authors note is yield  differences. Driven by increased uses of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, yields in conventional agriculture are higher by 10 to 18%, according to  the researchers. However, much more funding and research has gone into focusing on improving conventional yields than it has for organic agriculture. As the organic industry continues to grow, new methods and practices for organic agriculture are increasingly being tested and researched. A study published by the University of California Berkeley in Royal Society Proceedings B found that overall yield gaps between organic and conventional agriculture are much smaller than earlier studies have concluded when a crop-by-crop comparison is performed. The researchers of that study further indicated that the development of certain practices could further shrink the productivity gap. With greater research and more funding, studies are showing that organic agriculture can feed the world and be profitable for farmers.

Underlying the growth of organic is the importance of making certain that, as the industry grows, it maintains integrity and public trust. In April, organic farm and certification, environmental, and food safety groups and organic producers challenged a major USDA change to the organic rule, maintaining that the agency violated the federal rulemaking process when it changed without public hearing and comment long standing  procedures for reviewing the potential hazards and need for allowed synthetic and prohibited natural substances used in producing organic food. Environmental and food safety groups also  sued the agency for failing to follow the law and not seeking public comment on the organic compost rule.

As we encourage more farmers to move towards organic, and more consumers to purchase organic foods, we must fight to keep organic strong. Consumers and producers can help maintain the integrity of the organic label, and thus protect the food we eat as well as the environment, by reading more about the issues at our Save Our Organic page. And for more information on the benefits of purchasing organic foods, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database, which documents the impacts on the environment and farmworkers of the toxic chemicals used in conventional agriculture.

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

Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Mother Jones

(Beyond Pesticides, June 05, 2015) A new federal bill was introduced Wednesday that, if passed, would undermine the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to issue Clean Water Act permits for pesticide spraying over waterways. Titled the Sensible Environmental Protection Act  and introduced by Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo), this new bill would reverse a 2009 federal court decision in National Cotton Council v. EPA that directed EPA to require permits from applicators who spray over “navigable waters,” as outlined in the Clean Water Act (CWA). The bill’s authors claim that the need for water permits is duplicative, given that pesticide applicators also comply with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the law that requires applicators to follow instructions on pesticide labels.

“This issue is a prime example of an unnecessary, duplicative federal regulation impacting a variety of stakeholders in Idaho and across the nation that must be fixed,” Senator Crapo said in a statement.  “Our rural communities are already under a substantial amount of financial strain and regulatory pressure and are looking to Congress for much-needed relief.”

Contrary to  Senator  Crapo’s claims, the  CWA permit serves as a valuable tool that lets authorities know what is sprayed and when it is sprayed, so that the public may know what chemicals are used in their waterways and the potential dangers to sensitive aquatic ecosystems. Existing pesticide regulations under FIFRA do not achieve these protections and most agricultural pesticide applications are exempt from  CWA  permit requirements. Permits do not prevent applicators from using pesticides, especially for public health emergencies. The permits do require basic protections for water quality and aquatic wildlife. Applicators must record their pesticide applications and monitor application sites for any adverse incidents, which must be reported. For many states, the cost of the permit is as low as $25. The myth that the CWA permits for pesticide discharges near waterways are burdensome for farmers has not been substantiated.

The new bill is similar to H.R. 897, recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House Agriculture Committee unanimously passed the latest version of the inaccurately titled Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015 (H.R. 897), which would nullify regulations that require pesticide applicators to apply for  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  permits under CWA before applying pesticides on or near surface waters. The legislation also amends FIFRA by stating that no permit shall be required for the use of a pesticide that is registered under FIFRA. Generally, it means that pesticide applicators can discharge pesticides into waterways with no EPA oversight under the standards of the CWA and the permitting process, which takes into account local conditions that are not addressed under FIFRA.

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  atrazine,  metolachlor, and  simazine, continue to be detected in streams more than 50 percent of the time, with 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.

The potentially high cost of public health problems, environmental clean-up efforts, and irreversible ecological damage that can result from unchecked, indiscriminate pollution of waterways is being ignored by opponents of  CWA  regulation. The reality is that this permitting process encourages pesticide users to seek alternative approaches to pest management if their current methods are going to contaminate nearby sources of water. To learn more about these issues and more, visit our  Threatened Waters  page.

Source: EE News (subscription required)

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

(Beyond Pesticides June 4, 2015) Another study has found links between a commonly used household pesticide and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and young teens. Researchers at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center found an association between pyrethroid pesticide exposure and ADHD, particularly in terms of hyperactivity and impulsivity. These results reinforce the findings of a study led by a research team at Rutgers University earlier this year that found links between the pesticide deltamethrin and ADHD.

In 2001, over concerns about adverse health consequences, the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency banned several commonly used organophosphate (organic compounds containing phosphorus) pesticides from residential use due to the chemicals neurotoxic properties. The ban led to the increased use of pyrethroid pesticides, which are now the most commonly used pesticides for residential pest control and public health purposes. Pyrethroids, like deltamethrin, are commonly used in the home,  office buildings,  and on vegetable crops, gardens, lawns and golf courses.

This shift to predominantly using pyrethroids is troubling, as they have oft been promoted as a safer choice than banned organophosphates, despite the fact that they pose many real threats to human health. Many recent studies show significant concern with this class of chemicals, and their use has been linked to  learning problems, and adverse  behavioral and emotional development in children. In light of the misconception of the safety of pyrethroids, Tanya Froehlich, MD, a developmental pediatrician at Cincinnati’s Children’s, and a corresponding author of the study, observes that, “Given the growing use of pyrethroid pesticides and the perception that they may represent a safe alternative, our findings may be of considerable  public health  importance.”

In the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital study, researchers looked at data on 687 children between the ages of 8 and 15. The data came from the 2000-2001 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population designed to collect information about health. Pesticide exposure measurements were collected in a random sample of the urine of half the 8-11 year olds and a third of the 12-15 year olds. Interviews then determined whether a subject had ADHD by having an interviewer assess whether they met the criteria for the diagnosis under the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, a diagnostic instrument that assesses 34 common psychiatric diagnoses of children and adolescents. Alternatively, caregivers could report the presence of ADHD by providing a report of a prior diagnosis.

The study found that the association between pyrethroid pesticide exposure and ADHD is stronger in boys than girls. Boys with detectable urinary 3-PBA, a biomarker of exposure to pyrethroids, are three times as likely to have ADHD compared with those without detectable 3-PBA. Hyperactivity and impulsivity increased by 50 percent for every 10-fold increase in 3-PBA levels in boys. Biomarkers are not associated with increased odds of ADHD diagnosis or symptoms in girls.

These findings shed light on the relationship between pesticide exposure and its impact on developing children, showing that pesticides may have the ability to alter brain function, increasing levels of hyperactivity and impulsivity, especially in young boys. However, the researchers do point out that because pyrethroids are non-persistent and rapidly metabolized, measurements taken over time would provide a more accurate assessment of typical exposure, and more studies are recommended before definitive impacts on public health can be determined. It is important to note that ADHD is not the only pesticide-induced disease observed in developing children. Autism and developmental delays in children have also been linked  to pesticide exposure. Exposure rates among children is alarmingly high, a recent  study  at the University of California  found  pyrethroid and other harmful chemicals, including  chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate chemical that has been banned for household use for over 12 years, present in the urine of 65 percent of the children studied. This exposure occurs in nearly all aspects of a child’s life: home, school, day care, grocery stores- the list goes on.

High concentrations of pyrethroids have also been found in environmental settings. A  2008 survey  found pyrethroid contamination in 100 percent of urban streams sampled in California. Researchers also find pyrethroid residues in  California streams  at relatively low concentrations (10-20 parts per trillion) in river and creek sediments that are toxic to bottom dwelling fish. Other studies find pyrethroids present in effluent from sewage treatment plants at concentrations just high enough to be toxic to sensitive aquatic organisms.

With the mounting evidence of the impacts of pesticides to human health, the success of management approaches that do not rely on hazardous pesticides demonstrates that exposure to these pesticides are unnecessary. Beyond Pesticides has many resources, including the ManageSafe database  to help avoid and manage  unwanted insects without the use of synthetic chemicals. These techniques include exclusion, sanitation and maintenance practices, as well as mechanical and least-toxic controls (which include boric acid and diatomaceous earth).

For more information on the hazards of pesticides and human health, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, where we track the science on how pesticides are contributing to the rise of learning and developmental disorders in children, and see our factsheet,  Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.

Source: Environmental Health

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2015) After years of campaigning by local activists and a lawsuit filed by parents citing discriminatory practices from policies that led to disproportionate exposure of Latino children to pesticides, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) will now seek to gather input from stakeholders to determine what measures are appropriate to enhance protection of California’s schoolchildren. Given that Latino children are more likely to attend schools near areas with the highest use of pesticides of concern, and California’s pesticide use has actually increased over recent years, the state will need strong restrictive policies to provide any meaningful protections for school children.

According to CDPR, the agency will hold five  workshops from May 28 – June 9 2015 to gather input that will later help craft a statewide regulation on  pesticide use near schools, with a focus  on improving school pesticide notification procedures and reducing the risk of exposure. In California, many schools have been built on prime agricultural land next to farm operations. While there are currently state regulations on the use of individual pesticides, CDPR’s regulatory framework for restricted pesticides also allows for the establishment of additional rules to address local conditions. However, existing rules for pesticide use near schools are set by county agricultural commissioners and vary considerably. CDPR is considering whether to adopt some of these rules on a statewide basis, as well as other restrictions. See here for dates and locations.

The input gathered will be used to draft a new statewide regulation to focus on what must occur when a farm near a school wants to apply pesticides. Its aim, according to Brian R. Leahy, director of CDPR, is to clearly define the responsibilities of the farmers, detail the information that must be given to schools and add restrictions on pesticides used when school children are present.

In particular the department would like to hear ideas about:

1. Improving communication through notification to schools of intended applications of certain pesticides. The department is seeking input, for example, on when and under what circumstances such notifications should be made.

2. Reducing the risk of exposure by requiring additional restrictions on certain pesticides. Among other questions, the department is seeking input on is whether such restrictions should focus on specific application methods and within a certain proximity to the school.

For more information on the workshops and materials visit CDPR’s regulation page

The issue of pesticide exposure near schools has long been contentious. Latino children make up 54.1% of the population in the public schools in the 15 counties, and comprised 67.7% of the population in schools in the highest quartile of pesticide use. A 2014 report, issued by the California Environmental Health Tracking Program (CEHTP) and titled “Agricultural Pesticide Use near Public Schools in California,” called for larger buffer zones around schools, which now stand at 500 feet. The report found that 36 percent of public schools in the state have pesticides of public health concern applied within a quarter mile of the school. While not noted in the report, these children may mostly belong to farmworker communities living near agricultural areas. These communities tend to have disproportionate exposure risks to pesticides due to pesticide drift, and are at higher risks of developing serious chronic health problems. Persistent and toxic pesticides like chlorpyrifos, methyl bromide, and malathion are among the pesticides found to be applied near schools. The health effects linked to children’s pesticide exposure are extensive. Recent research from the University of California, Davis,  CHARGE (Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment) study found that pregnant women who lived within a mile of agricultural fields treated with insecticides are more likely to have their child develop autism.  For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides’  Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, which tracks the science on how pesticides are contributing to the rise of learning and developmental disorders in children.

More than a decade ago, six families filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that details  the dangerous levels of pesticides at Latino public schools throughout California that exposed Latino kids to chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, neurodevelopmental disorders and other serious health problems. The complaint urged EPA to enforce the  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits recipients of federal funds from engaging in discriminatory practices. In 2011, as a result of a settlement agreement EPA reached with CDPR, EPA found that CDPR’s past renewal of the toxic fumigant methyl bromide discriminated against Latino school children whose schools are located near agriculture fields, conceding that unintentional adverse and disproportionate impact on Latino children resulting from the use of methyl bromide during that period could have occurred. Methyl bromide is still widely used in California to grow strawberries, despite its ban under the Montreal Protocol. However, little was done to remedy these exposures and so a lawsuit was filed in 2013 against EPA’s continuing failure to protect Latino  students. The case was subsequently moved for dismissal in federal court in part due to lack of jurisdiction.

As a result of the 2011 settlement agreement, California conducts a monitoring program that tests for air particles from methyl bromide and scores of other pesticides and breakdown products, and measures the results against screening levels established by CDPR. However, critics maintain that the state’s sampling is not representative of peak agricultural exposures and question whether any level of a toxicant in air is reasonable under the law, given the viability of alternative agricultural practices that do not rely on these chemicals.

Despite efforts in California to reduce overall pesticide use, especially those around schools, CDPR reported just last month that overall pesticide use in agriculture increased by 3.7 percent between 2012 and 2013. Pesticide use increased by 6.4 million pounds in 2013, especially increased use of organophosphates, including chlorpyrifos, making for a grand total of 178 million pounds of pesticides used annually. CDPR’s efforts to reduce children’s risk of exposure to pesticides near schools are an important first step, but these must include strong restrictions on pesticide use near these sensitive areas.

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

Source: The Sacramento Bee

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2015) A federal judge released a ruling Friday rejecting a request by two alfalfa farms to overturn the ban on GE crops in Jackson County, Oregon. In his decision, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke found the ban on GE crops is not preempted by the state’s Right to Farm Act, thereby allowing the ordinance to become effective on June 5. The ordinance, which bans the cultivation, production and distribution of GE crops within the county passed overwhelmingly last May with 66 percent support. This decision is an important victory for farmers of organic and non-genetically engineered crops, who constantly struggle with the threat of GE contamination.

“We have always felt this was a strong case,” explained Tom Buchele, attorney with Earthrise Law Center, “but it was very encouraging to get such a strong and well-written opinion that affirms what we have argued since the beginning: communities have the ability under the Right to Farm Act to protect traditional agricultural crops from contamination from GMOs.”

Magistrate Judge Clarke rejected the legal challenge by two GE alfalfa growers, Schulz Family Farms and James and Marilyn Frink, who claimed that the Jackson County GE crop ban violated Oregon’s Right to Farm Act.   Instead, the court held that Jackson County’s ban was allowed under the law since it was intended to “protect against damage to commercial agriculture products, and therefore it falls into the exception to the Right to Farm Act.” The Court also relied on the fact that Oregon’s Legislature clearly intended to exempt the Jackson County ban when it adopted Senate Bill 863, the state preemption law, which was aimed at GE crops during the 2013 special legislative session.

“We are elated and could not have hoped for a better outcome,” said Elise Higley, a Jackson County farmer and the Director of Our Family Farms Coalition.  “Family farmers should not have to live in fear that our farms will be contaminated by genetically engineered crops. Monsanto can spend all the money they want fighting us at the ballot box and in the courts, but in the end we cannot let them and the other chemical corporations behind GMOs threaten the foundation of our farms and our food supply.”

Opponents of the ordinance had raised over $830,000 to advertise against the measure, with over 97% of the funding coming in from outside of the county, including over $450,000 from biotech giant Monsanto and five other corporations to defeat the initiative. For comparison, the previous county spending record on a ballot initiative was $111,000.

“This important decision protects the farmers of Jackson County, but also will stand as a precedent for the rights of farmers and communities across the United States to create GMO-free zones to protect the future of our food,” said George Kimbrell, attorney with the Center for Food Safety and counsel in the case.

However, the battle is not over yet. According to Ms. Higley, her group expects that plaintiffs may file an appeal to challenge the decision. And, while Judge Clarke dismissed the farmers’ arguments regarding the Right to Farm Act as protecting their GE alfalfa crops from being destroyed, their claim seeking $4.2 million in compensation from Jackson County remains alive in the case.

The fact of the matter stands, though, that organic and non-GE farmers stand to lose the most when it comes to damages inflicted upon their crops through genetic drift. A survey released last year finds that a third of U.S. organic farmers experienced GE contamination in their fields due to the nearby use of GE crops, while over half of these growers have had loads of grain rejected because of unwitting GE contamination. These rejections can lead to big income losses for farmers, with a  median cost of approximately $2,500 per year, according to the  survey. Additionally,  several farmers report annual losses of over $20,000 due to the need to establish buffer zones, while limit the threat of contamination from their neighbors by taking contiguous farmland out of production. There have also been several high profile cases of GE contaminating organic farms. In May of 2013, USDA announced that unapproved GE wheat was found growing in an Oregon wheat field. In September of 2013, USDA refused to take action or investigate after it was confirmed that GE alfalfa contaminated non-GE alfalfa in Washington State, claiming that contamination is a “commercial issue” and should be addressed by the marketplace and not the government.

Jackson County farmer Chris Hardy, who first proposed and was the chief petitioner behind the Jackson County ban on GE crops, says the decision was a vindication.   “No farmer should ever have to tear up their crops like myself and others did for fear they had been contaminated by GMO pollen. Family farmers know well that GMO contamination could quickly destroy a family farm, but it was so encouraging to have a federal court support farmers’ right to defend ourselves against GMOs.”

Beyond Pesticides continues to support the efforts of all farmers, counties, states, and countries to protect themselves against the unwanted invasion of GE crops and the risks that they bring to the environment and health. Please visit our Genetic Engineering webpage to learn more.

Sources: Capital Press, Our Family Farms Coalition, and Center for Food Safety

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2015) Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a proposal intended to create “physical and temporal space” between bees and toxic pesticides. While touted as monumental progress on bee health by the agency, the reality is that the proposal will only result in modest changes to pesticide labels. EPA’s new rules contain only a temporary ban on foliar applications of acutely bee-toxic pesticide products, including neonicotinoid class insecticides, during bloom and when a beekeeper is on site and under contract. The proposal doesn’t address the widespread contamination and detrimental effects of these toxic, systemic (whole plant poisons) chemicals that will continue to occur even during the temporary prohibition.

Media reports have generally overstated the implications of the proposal, applauding the “new” restrictions, and labeling the small portion of agricultural land that is affected  as “pesticide-free zones,” which couldn’t be further from the truth. The restrictions are not anything new — EPA pesticide labels already prohibit applications while in bloom where bees are foraging. Neal Bergman, a commercial beekeeper in Missouri, said in a statement to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the proposal is “basically enforcing label guidelines,” further highlighting the fact that EPA has failed to protect bees in the past. EPA did make one label change that eliminated the 48-hour rule exception, which previously allowed foliar application of pesticides while honey bees were on the property, as long as bee keepers were given notice no less than 48 hours in advance. Unfortunately, this minor label change won’t stop the widespread contamination of landscapes or prevent harm associated with systemic neonicotinoids. These dangerous pesticides  have been linked to the global disappearance of honey bees and other non-target organisms, such as earthworms, birds, and aquatic invertebrates.

Pollinators and other non-target organisms face unique threats from exposure to these systemic pesticides because they can be exposed through multiple pathways, including directly through foliar applications and contaminated field dust, as well as indirectly through contaminated guttation droplets, pollen, and nectar of treated plants. One of the biggest threats to honeybees, in particular, is the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments, which are seeds that have been coated in these harmful pesticides before planting, ensuring contamination of the surrounding land and every aspect of the crop as it grows. The mechanism through which the seeds are planted creates a toxic dust that can drift and harm non-target species in surrounding areas.  Even though EPA has found these seed treatments to be ineffective, they still continue to allow their use. Although the proposal notes that seed treatments may result in toxic residues in pollen and nectar, it fails to create any meaningful impacts that would occur through a restriction on neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

The proposal showcases the inadequacies of pesticide testing, registration and regulatory standards issued  by EPA. Its  methods fall short by failing to address the multiple  routes of pesticide exposure over time, focusing only on acute contamination rather than the persistent effects of systemic pesticides. This is a continual struggle, as EPA employs a risk-assessment approach for approving or restricting pesticides that involves researching for more data while attempting to mitigate any risks that occur instead of suspending the chemicals, while gathering more data, or not approving them in the first place. EPA would better protect the environment by employing a precautionary approach, including more rigorous and complex testing before approving a pesticide.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments. We suggest an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as organic agriculture, which, of course, prohibit the use of neonicotinoids. See what you can do to  Bee Protective.

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 29, 2015) A report released by the Canadian Senate’s Committee on Agriculture and Forestry this week acknowledges that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees, although it adds that more scientific data is needed before making any policies in response. The report was released exactly one week after a similar announcement by the White House, which also identifies key threats, but falls 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.

The Canadian report, titled “The Importance of Bee Health to Sustainable Food Production in Canada,” highlights different stressors that cause harm to bees, one of which includes neonicotinoids, a class of widely-used insecticides that have been linked by a growing number of studies to global bee declines. Other stressors mentioned include climate change, diseases and parasites, and lack of floral diversity. The report calls for Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) to quickly complete its re-evaluation of neonicotinoid pesticides. Neonicotinoids have been approved for use in Canada for 10 years, but the PMRA is in the process of re-examining their use.

Senator Percy Mockler, the chair of Senate’s agriculture committee, stressed waiting for the findings of the PMRA’s evaluations  before making a decision on the pesticide. He says similar evaluations are being carried out in the United States and in Europe.  “I think it very important that we establish policies based on science,” he said at a press conference following  the report’s release Wednesday.

The report outlines nine specific recommendations to improve bee health in Canada, including:

• Allowing the import of “bee packages” used to start colonies from other countries, such as the United States.
• Accelerate the conditional registration process in order to reduce the current number of conditional registrations granted to neonicotinoid active ingredients.
• Continue monitoring pollinator mortality during the spring of 2015 to determine effectiveness of protective measured adopted for the 2014 planting seasons.
• Increasing the amount and duration of research funding in order to conduct long-term research into the preservation of pollinator health.
• Improve management practices of hobbyist beekeepers and growers while minimizing chemical product use and ensuring the availability of untreated seeds.
• Improve pollinator habitat via initiatives such as the planting of selected wild flowering plants on median strips and highway shoulders, and other areas.

The Canada report mirrors the recent White House announcement addressing pollinator health. The Pollinator Health Task Force, established by President Obama in June 2014, brought together federal agencies to “reverse pollinator losses and help restore populations to healthy levels,” and involved developing a National Pollinator Health Strategy  and a  Pollinator Research Action Plan. The Strategy outlines several components, such as a focus on increased pollinator habitat, public education and outreach, and further research into a range of environmental stressors, including systemic neonicotinoid pesticides. While well-intentioned, the Strategy ultimately works at cross-purposes by encouraging habitat, but continuing to allow pesticides that contaminate landscapes. In comparison, although the Canada report puts more of an emphasis on addressing concerns regarding neonicotinoid insecticides, it also falls short by failing to suspend the use of these chemicals. In the meantime, the science linking neonicotinoids to widespread bee deaths continues to grow.

Beyond Pesticides and its allies have called for suspensions on neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly the most widely used and toxic: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. These pesticides are used in a variety of home and garden products, and most commonly in corn and soybean seed treatment, where they remain in plant tissues, including pollen and nectar, for long periods of time. Along with suspensions to registrations, groups have urged EPA to conduct broader reviews on the impact of these systemic pesticides on other beneficial non-target organisms, including endangered species, and impacts to ecosystem biodiversity.

There are several factors that contribute to pollinator decline. However, it is the neonicotinoid class of pesticides that is receiving the most scrutiny from scientists and beekeepers. A growing number of studies find that even at low levels neonicotinoids impair foraging ability, navigation, learning behavior, and suppress the immune system, making bees more susceptible to pathogens and disease. A recent study finds that bees will favor neonicotinoid contaminated food over uncontaminated food, indicating that these chemicals can pose unique risks within supposedly bee-friendly habitat. In April, EPA announced a moratorium on new neonicotinoid pesticide products and uses, and its draft report on treated soybean seeds concluded that the neonicotinoid treatments were not efficacious.

Source: CBC

Photo Source: Douglas Kirk

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 28, 2015) The same day that trade representatives from United States met with Secretary-General Catherine Day of the European Commission (EC), she sent a letter to the EC’s Environment Director-General Karl Falkenberg telling him to scrap draft criteria that could have led to a ban on over 30 endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemical (EDCs) in the European Union (EU). As reported by The Guardian, with resources obtained by Pesticide Action Network- Europe (PAN-Europe), the U.S. Chambers of Commerce and European-based chemical manufacturers (including Dupont, Bayer, and BASF) pushed to change the EC’s criteria for evaluating EDCs because they fear it would impede EU-US negotiations on  the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Two regulations, one concerning “plant pest protectants” (EU 1107), and another on biocidal products (EU 528), should prohibit from use chemicals categorized as having endocrine disrupting properties that may cause adverse effects in humans. However, last year, when the EC released a roadmap for evaluating EDCs, recommendations fell far short of what health advocates assert that EU regulations require. Earlier this year, the Guardian reported that a scientific paper that would have adequately established ways to identify problematic EDCs was suppressed by EU officials at the behest of the chemical industry.

“We were ready to go with the criteria and a strategy proposal as well but we were told to forget about it by the secretary general’s office,” a commission source told The Guardian. “Effectively, the criteria were suppressed. We allowed the biocides and pesticides legislation to roll over.”

The options outlined in the weaker criteria are based upon a traditional risk assessment approach that  would fail to take into account the health effects of lose-dose exposure to EDCs. Traditional risk assessments do not adequately address these impacts because they are based on an assumption that “the dose makes the poison,” and higher doses result in a greater effect. In a 2012 study on the low dose effects of EDCs published in Endocrine Reviews, scientists issue a stark warning on this under reported problem.

“We illustrate that nonmonotonic responses and low-dose effects are remarkably common in studies of natural hormones and EDCs. Whether low doses of EDCs influence certain human disorders is no longer conjecture, because epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures to EDCs are associated with human diseases and disabilities. We conclude that when nonmonotonic dose-response curves occur, the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. Thus, fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health.”

An international team of scientists tasked by the EC to study the impact of EDCs on health care costs published research finding that these chemicals result in over €150 billion ($162 billion) in health care costs in the EU each year. Pesticides were found to be the most costly of the EDCs analyzed, accounting for €120 billion ($130 billion) of the estimated total in healthcare expenditures each year. This total is approximately 1.23% of the EU’s GDP. Nearly 100 percent of people have detectable amounts of EDCs in their bodies, according to the introductory guide to EDCs published by the Endocrine Society and IPEN. As a recent article in Ars Technica notes, an “ambitious” assessment of TTIP’s economic benefits is approximately £100 billion (€ 140 billion/$153 billion) in 2027, meaning that Europe would save more money enacting its EDC regulations than it gains from TTIP.

The nefarious connection of these actions to trade with the US is certain to further intensify public distrust of TTIP trade negotiations both in Europe and America. In 2014, Beyond Pesticides joined with a broad array of health, environmental, labor, consumer and other organizations to express strong opposition to TTIP. Efforts in the U.S. have focused on blocking legislation which would grant “fast-track authority” to the President for six years, which would allow trade deals like TTIP to be completed without Congressional oversight.

Despite attempts from a number of U.S. Senators, including Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), fast-track legislation has passed the Senate and is on its way to the U.S. House of Representatives. In an opinion article to the Washington Post, Senator Warren wrote on a clause within TTIP regarding “investor-state dispute settlements,” which would allow multinational corporations to challenge US laws it views as unfavorable by leapfroging the court system, and pleading its case in front of an international panel of arbitrators. “If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions ”” and even billions ”” of dollars in damages,” Senator Warren wrote. “If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next.”

Thus, in addition to lowering the entire EU’s criteria regarding toxic pesticides, TTIP has the potential to undermine local ordinances that restrict bee-toxic neonicotinoids and cosmetic pesticide use. Concerned residents must work as hard against fast-track as multinational corporations are working to make it happen. Take Action: Tell your Representative to oppose fast-track today!

For more information on EDCs, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database on Endocrine Disruption.

Sources: The Guardian, Pesticide Action Network Europe

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 27, 2015) As summer approaches, local stores continue to set the pace for protecting pollinator populations from the harms of neonicotinoid pesticide use. In southern Maine, Kittery Ace Hardware joins Eldredge Lumber and Hardware in its efforts to actively seek alternatives to  pesticides that contain  neonicotinoids and other toxic pesticides by consciously stocking their shelves with organic compatible products as opposed to lawn and garden products that contain toxic chemicals. This shift by local stores like Eldredge and Kittery highlights the role retailers can play in responding to community concerns over dangerous pesticide use, and indicates their desire to be part of the solution when it comes to protecting pollinators. Local stores’ increasing  attention to local concerns over a common problem is  juxtaposed with  big box hardware stores’ response to neonicotinoid concerns that respond to public pressure with vague language, drawn out or nonexistent timelines, and failure to take a stance on overwhelming scientific evidence that neonicotinoids cause harm to pollinator populations. As more national retailers respond to public pressure to ban neonicotinoid-containing products, it becomes clear that local, small-scale efforts to stock shelves with alternative products offer a better and more concrete approach to stopping neonicotinoid use.

Neonicotinoid  use is concerning because it affects the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and eventual death. These pesticides have  consistently been implicated  as a key issue in pollinator declines, not only through immediate bee deaths, but also through sublethal exposure that causes  changes in bee reproduction, navigation, and foraging. The science has become increasingly clear that pesticides, either working individually or synergistically,  play a critical role  in the ongoing decline of honey bees.   Pesticide exposure can impair both detoxification mechanisms and immune responses, rendering bees more susceptible to viruses, parasites, and other diseases, and leading to devastating bee losses.

In response to public pressure raised about  these concerns, Ace Hardware Corporation recently joined Lowe’s in its commitment to phase out neonicotinoids. However, Ace’s plan fails to set a concrete timeline, stating that it  will replace neonicotinoid-containing products “as new and appropriate replacement products are made available by suppliers.” In contrast, Lowe’s set a 48-month timeline for phasing out neonicotinoid products, and Eldredge was able to bring in alternative products immediately, indicating that they are readily available on the marketplace. However, Ace does claim to have been monitoring issues related to bee health for some time now, citing the varied viewpoints related to stressors on honey bees as the driving force in its decision to move away from carrying products that contain neonicotinoids. Contrast this against yet another hardware retailer, Home Depot, which has yet to make a decision as to whether to continue to carry neonicotinoid-containing products due to varying opinions about their role in harming pollinator populations.

In 2014, Friends of the Earth, Beyond Pesticides and other allies released a report that found over half of garden plant samples purchased at major retailers like Lowe’s and Home Depot contained neonicotinoid pesticides, which when applied makes the entire plant poisonous to bees and other wild pollinators. After a year and a half long campaign asking for direct action to be taken, Lowe’s announced it was phasing out the sale of all products that contain neonicotinoid pesticides within 48 months. Ace is not following suit, although an absence of details regarding its  plan leaves the door open for scrutiny and raises questions as to whether chain officials  are genuinely trying to provide consumers with viable alternatives, or just reap the benefits of public praise for their surface level commitment to addressing the issue. Some action is better than no action, however, and compared to Home Depot, which has failed to even feign commitment to eliminating neonicotinoid products, the actions of Lowe’s and Ace are at least a step in the right direction.  Home Depot has not announced any intentions to phase out the use of neonicotinoids on their plants, although they have started requiring suppliers to label plants treated with neonicotinoids so that customers that are concerned about the effects of their use can make informed decisions.

In contrast to the slow movement to eliminate neonicotinoids in the market place, individual municipalities, encouraged by local interests, have seen success in taking meaningful action against the use of neonicotinoids. The City of Portland, Oregon recently voted unanimously to ban the use of neonicotinoid insecticides on city-owned property because these pesticides are persistent in the environment, harmful to pollinators, and have been involved in acute bee kills  in other areas of the state. Similar actions have been seen in Eugene, Oregon, Skagway (Alaska),  Shorewood, Minnesota, Boulder, Colorado  and, in Washington State,  Thurston County,  Seattle, and  Spokane.

These local actions show the power of communities to protect and conserve their natural resources from the dangers of products containing neonicotinoids. Efforts by local businesses, like Elderdge Lumber and Hardware, to stock alternatives and educate consumers on their use is a wonderful example of creating change through grassroots efforts and a bottom-up approach, and offers an alternative to waiting for big box hardware stores to carry neonicotinoid-free products. If you are a consumer looking for more information on how to manage pests without using harmful neonicotinoids, check out these Beyond Pesticides resources.

Source: Businesswire and Portland Press Herald

Photo: (left to right) Landscape Department Manager John Bochert and Scott Eldredge of Eldredge Lumber and Hardware, York, Maine.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 26, 2015) A study led by Purdue University Entomology Professor Michael Scharf, Ph.D. finds that small doses of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, can halt the normal functioning of termite behavior, leaving colonies vulnerable to disease and eventual death. While this effect may be celebrated by the pesticide industry as a victory for termite control, it has serious implications for the use of imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid pesticides on all eusocial insects, such as ants and bees.

Eusocial insects thrive as a colony, working, living and sometimes even fighting diseases as one organism, rather than as many individuals existing together. Termites, specifically, exhibit a remarkable resistance to many diseases because they engage in social grooming, clearing pathogens off of one another. Other examples of eusociality can be found in ant and bee colonies. Ant colonies create foraging trails and engage in cooperative transport, where they create long chains of ant individuals to form a whole assembly line to transport food back to the colony and work as one to carry large prey that would not be otherwise attainable. Honeybee colonies send out foragers to report back with the location of plentiful food sources so that other bees know where to go and don’t waste time searching.  Although we may often think of ants and termites as pests within structures, they also play important ecological roles. Termites are important decomposers. Ants perform many ecosystem functions –they are predators on many herbivores and their construction of nests and tunnels has impacts on chemical, physical, and biological properties of the soil. E.O. Wilson estimates that the biomass of ants on the earth is roughly the same as the biomass of humans. If low levels of neonicotinoids affect the eusocial behavior of these essential insects, there is a potential for serious ecosystem disruption.

The study, Molecular Signatures of Nicotinoid-Pathogen Synergy in the Termite Gut, found that small doses of imidacloprid in combination with the introduction of a previously manageable fungal disease wiped out the termite colony. When imidacloprid was introduced, termite social grooming slowed to a halt, leading to more pathogens left on the termite body. Termites have a symbiotic relationship with microbes in their gut, which normally help destroy any pathogenic threats. In addition to impairing grooming behavior, imidacloprid destroyed these microbial gut organisms, leaving the termites exposed to a fungal disease that normally would pose little threat.

A similar result was found in ants when exposed to low doses of imidacloprid. A 2012 study found that the grooming behavior of ants exposed to low doses of imidacloprid slowed, leaving them more vulnerable to disease and infection. For other eusocial insects like bumble bees, researchers have found that sublethal exposure to imidacloprid leads to mitochondrial dysfunction, which then negatively impacts navigation and foraging skills. Exposed bees will have greater difficulty, for instance, in recognizing the smell of a flower, or how to find their way back to their colony, which in turn can affect the colony as a whole. The United States Department of Agriculture completed a study on bees that found exposure to certain types of pesticides led to a higher occurrence of parasitic infection. While the study was not explicitly on neonicotinoids, it still demonstrates that pesticides create a vulnerability in insects that leave them open to destruction from a variety of other factors.

These studies add merit to the growing body of work that implicates neonicotinoid pesticides as the cause of bee declines. It has already been indicated that exposure to neonicotinoids can leave honey bees and other important non-target species vulnerable to viruses and predators, such as the Varroa mite. The pesticide industry likes to point to studies that conclude these viruses and predators are the only factors causing bee declines, but the refuting point that can be extracted from the study described above is that low-dose exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides is the tipping point, the first domino in a long line of implicated causes. Neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid break down normal functioning of eusocial insects, only then leaving them dangerously vulnerable to viruses and predators.

These findings showcase the inadequacies of pesticide testing, registration and regulatory standards issued  by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA’s methods fall short by failing to study the interactions between different pesticides, the combination of pesticides and pathogens, and the detrimental impacts caused by these interactions. EPA employs a risk-assessment approach for approving pesticides that characterizes the magnitude of health risks to humans and wildlife from chemical contaminants in the environment based on exposure probabilities. EPA would better protect the environment by employing a precautionary approach, including more rigorous and complex testing of chemical interactions before approving a pesticide. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  prohibits high hazard chemical use and requires alternative assessments, an approach that differs most dramatically from a risk assessment-based policy by rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations given  that there are safer alternatives.

It is important to explore the implications that this “victory” for termite control has on other non-target species. The pesticide industry will tout  this study as a breakthrough in pest control, but it is essential to note that the same mechanisms that break down termite functioning affects  beneficial insect species, breaking down their own necessary functioning. There are mechanical and least-toxic methods that are available to manage pests, like termites. See Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage, which is dedicated to pest management practices that are protective of  non-target species. Utilizing these least-toxic methods managing  pests in homes and gardens ensures your home will be free of pests, while also protecting you, your family and other species from the damaging effects of pesticides.

Source: Purdue Agriculture News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 22, 2014) Beyond Pesticides is pleased to announce that videos from Agricultural Justice, Age of Organics, and Alligators: Protecting Health, biodiversity, and ecosystems, the 33rd National Pesticide Forum are now available! The videos cover the range of topics that were discussed at the Forum and include keynote speeches, panel discussions, and workshops. The themes central to this year’s conference were creating a fair and organic food system, and utilizing the science to create sound policy protective of human health and the environment. While there is no substitution for the actual energy that comes from bringing scientists, practitioners and activists together in the same room, we publish these videos with the goal of sharing the incredible knowledge of the experts with the broader public to help inspire and inform community action.

Watch the videos here. You can access the playlist, which includes all of the available videos of the 2015 forum, as well as previous years, on Beyond Pesticides’ YouTube page.

Notable presentations include:

Sentinel Wildlife Species: What are they telling us about our health, by Louis Guillette, Ph.D. Dr. Guillette is a pioneer research scientist on endocrine disruption and reproductive health effects, who has studied the decline of Lake Apopka’s alligator population, where farmworkers were also exposed to agricultural pesticides. He is currently the Director of the Marine Biomedicine & Environmental Sciences Center and a Professor, Obstetrics & Gynecology at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). He is also Professor at  the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the SmartState Endowed Chair in Marine Genomics, at the SC Center of Economic Excellence. His current work examines the effect of environmental pollutants on the genetic-endocrine signaling associated with the development and functioning of the genitalia and gonads of various vertebrate species. His talk specifically describes how his work on endocrine disruption and reproductive health effects on alligators can teach us about health effects in the human population.

Learning from an Environmental Tragedy, by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. A trailblazing research biologist whose research finds that the herbicide atrazine feminizes male frogs, Dr. Hayes’ work has shown that current regulatory reviews allow widespread use of pesticides that cause serious adverse effects well below legal standards. He is the professor of Integrated Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Through his research, he states, “I have come to realize that the most important environmental factors affecting amphibian development are synthetic chemicals (such as pesticides) that interact with hormones in a variety of ways to alter developmental responses.” One of the driving points of Dr. Hayes’ keynote address is the need for independent research, and the importance of combining science with activism.

Organic Citrus Production in Florida, by Benny McLean II, production manager at Uncle Matt’s Organic Farm, in Clermont, FL. Mr. McLean has been working in the Florida citrus industry since the 1950’s when he was put on his dad’s hand crew at the young age of ten, and he is currently responsible for implementing Uncle Matt’s organic farm plan which includes all aspects of grove care and growing citrus. With his vast knowledge over his long career in the Florida citrus industry, Benny’s talk describes the challenges and benefits of organic farming, particularly in the face of one of the most devastating diseases of our time, citrus greening.

Agricultural Justice Initiatives Panel, featuring three domestic fair food standards organizations that are working to address and challenge the current food system: Agricultural Justice Project, Equitable Food Initiative, and the Fair Food Standards Council. Speakers on the panel include: Tirso Moreno, general coordinator, Farmworker Association of Florida, Apopka, FL; Leah Cohen, program coordinator, Agricultural Justice Project, Gainesville, FL; Sean Sellers, senior investigator/monitor, Fair Food Standards Council, Sarasota, FL; Margaret Reeves, PhD, senior scientist/program coordinator, Pesticide Action Network North America, Oakland, CA; with Nelson Carrasquillo, Beyond Pesticides board member, and executive director of CATA-The Farmworkers’ Support Committee as the moderator.

Also included are several other presentations and workshops, including, State of the Science and Law, plus an in-depth discussion on Pesticides and Farmworker Health, Organic Management Approaches and Cutting-Edge Alternatives, Pollinator Protection, and more. Be sure to visit the full playlist to see the rest of the videos.

Beyond Pesticides encourages activists, community leaders, scientists, and policy makers to attend its annual National Pesticide Forum in person to get together, share information, and elevate the pesticide reform movement; however these videos provide valuable information for those unable to attend. Beyond Pesticides believes that sharing this information beyond the Forum as an educational and organizing tool will prove extremely valuable, and encourages folks to share presentations with friends, community organizations, networks, and state and local decision makers.

Beyond Pesticides thanks everyone who helped make the 33^rd National Pesticide Forum a success! The Forum, held April 17-18 at the Florida A&M University College of Law, was convened by Beyond Pesticides, the Farmworker Association of Florida, Florida Organic Growers and Consumers, and the Florida A&M University Small Farms Program, and co-sponsored by a diverse range of local groups. For more details about the conference, download the program here, or see www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

The playlist, which includes all of the available videos of the 2015 Forum, as well as previous conferences are available on Beyond Pesticides’ YouTube page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2015) The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) published its Annual Pesticide Use Report last week, which finds that overall pesticide use for agricultural purposes has increased by 3.7 percent between 2012 and 2013. Pesticide use increased by 6.4 million pounds in 2013, the most recent data available, making for a grand total of 178 million pounds of pesticides used annually in California’s agricultural industry. The study also revealed several insights on trends in pesticide use, the most troubling of which is the increased use of organophosphates, and more specifically, the insecticide chlorpyrifos. This raises concerns that, absent aggressive efforts by CDPR to ban chlorpyrifos’ use in food production, industry reliance on the pesticide may continue to  increase.

Chlorpyrifos was banned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for nearly all residential uses in 2000, but since then has remained widely available for agricultural use. Efforts to limit the agricultural use of chlorpyrifos in the state of California have been in the works since the fall of 2014, and a regulation Designating Chlorpyrifos as a Restricted Material was recently adopted by California’s DPR.  The new regulation classifies as  ”˜restrictive use’  all pesticide products containing the organophosphate  insecticide chlorpyrifos “when labeled for the production of an agricultural commodity.”   With the submission of the regulation on May 6, 2015 (effective as of July 1, 2015), now only trained and licensed professionals who file a notice of intent to apply, and have a permit from a local county agricultural commissioner (CAC) will be able to use products containing chlorpyrifos, adding an additional regulatory step not required in the federal regulatory scheme under EPA.

This new regulation will not necessarily reduce the chemical’s use, and, as a result, falls far short of a more stringent and desirable program that would ban the use of chlorpyrifos altogether. Absent such a ban, there is no indication that the use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture will decrease, as the numbers released from CDPR’s recent study show an upward trend in the volume  of chlorpyrifos being used. This failure on the part of California, which has long been known for having the most comprehensive and protective regulatory program in the nation, to ban the use of chlorpyrifos is a missed opportunity to fully protect workers from toxic exposure on the farm, consumers from residues on the food, and the environment and wildlife from contamination.

Along with the state of California, EPA has also failed to take meaningful action on protecting citizens from chlorpyrifos. In January, the agency finally released a revised human health assessment for chlorpyrifos that found risks to workers who mix, load and apply chlorpyrifos, and that the chemical has the potential to pose risks to drinking water in small watersheds. The assessment, which was partly a response to a petition submitted by several environmental organizations in 2007, also noted that EPA will retain the 10X (10-fold) safety factor to protect children from all routes of exposures. This 10X “safety” factor refers to the margin of error for uncertain factors in risk determinations used by the EPA, a method that has consistently been criticized by Beyond Pesticides. The 10X factor is intended to protect children and infants from exposure and toxicity from pesticides, but has proven to be easily manipulated  by the agency and fails to keep harmful pesticide use in check.

Beyond Pesticides submitted comments to the EPA encouraging the agency to ban the use of chlorpyrifos completely. The comments cited serious toxicological issues associated with the pesticide’s use and exposures in support of its position that use of chlorpyrifos poses “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” under Section 3(c)(5)(C) of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Despite these comments and the findings of the revised human health assessment, EPA only proposed to place additional restrictions on chlorpyrifos’ use, falling short of  an opportunity to protect human health by implementing a widespread ban.

Chlorpyrifos  is an organophosphate insecticide that is known to be 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 in the brain, 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. One study from the University of California, Berkeley, which examined families in the intensive agricultural region of Salinas Valley, California, found that IQ levels for children with the most organophosphate exposure were a full seven IQ points lower than those with the lowest exposure levels. The Berkeley team also found that every tenfold increase in measures of organophosphates detected during a mother’s pregnancy corresponded to a 5.5 point drop in overall IQ scores in the 7-year-olds. Researchers from Mount Sinai School of Medicine also found that prenatal exposure to organophosphates is negatively associated with cognitive development, particularly perceptual reasoning, with evidence of effects beginning at 12 months and continuing through early childhood. See Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced-Disease Database (PIDD).

It is important to note that the DPR pesticide report indicated positive trends as well, showing noteworthy reductions in pesticide use including a 23% decrease in pesticides that could contaminate ground water (246,000 pounds), a 4.9% decrease in both pesticides with the potential to cause air pollution and fumigant pesticides (2.4 million and 2.2 million pounds respectively), and a 5.1% decrease in the use of carcinogenic pesticides (1.7 million pounds). The overall increase is also largely attributed to the growing use of biopesticides, which increased by 17% (653,000 pounds) and petroleum-based  pesticides derived from petroleum distillation, which increased by over 25% (7.1 million pounds).

Positive trends aside, the fact remains that chlorpyrifos is an old organophosphate pesticide that is highly toxic and has no place in modern agriculture. With the number of alternatives available, both California and EPA should be working to phase this chemical out of production and use. In light of public health concerns associated with the pesticide, Beyond Pesticides will continue working to revoke chlorpyrifos’ registration at the federal level, and will encourage states to ban the chemical from use, as we advance organic agriculture, which prohibits chlorpyrifos and other synthetic toxic insecticides.

Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation Annual Pesticide Use Report

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

(Washington, DC, May 20, 2015) Yesterday,  the White House released its much awaited plan for protecting American pollinators, which identifies key threats, but falls 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. The Pollinator Health Task Force, established by President Obama in June 2014, brought together most federal agencies to “reverse pollinator losses and help restore populations to healthy levels,” and involved developing a National Pollinator Health Strategy and a Pollinator Research Action Plan. The Strategy outlines several components, such as a focus on increased pollinator habitat, public education and outreach, and further research into a range of environmental stressors, including systemic neonicotinoid pesticides. Although well-intentioned, the Strategy ultimately works at cross-purposes by encouraging habitat, but continuing to allow pesticides that contaminate landscapes.

“Waiting for additional research before taking action on neonicotinoid pesticides, which current science shows are highly toxic to bees, will not effectively stem pollinator declines, and is unlikely to achieve the National Pollinator Health Strategy’s goal of reducing honey bee losses to no more than 15% within 10 years,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

A major component of the federal plan is the creation and stewardship of habitat and forage for pollinators. However, without restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids, these areas are at risk for pesticide contamination and provide no real safe-haven for bees and other pollinators. Beyond Pesticides continues to encourage federal agencies to adopt organic management practices that are inherently protective of pollinators.

Under the plan, EPA will propose prohibitions on foliar applications of bee-toxic pesticides during bloom only when a beekeeper is on-site and under contract. For all other situations, states have been tasked with creating their own pollinator protection plans that rely heavily on notification requirements and best management practices for farmers, placing an undue burden on beekeepers. The federal government’s emphasis on creating “physical and temporal space” between the use of pesticides and the presence of pollinators does little to address the chronic, sublethal threat of systemic, neonicotinoid pesticides.

“Though mitigating the effects of pesticides on bees is identified as a priority, the actions listed in the Strategy fail to address the immediate threats native and managed pollinators are experiencing from systemic chemicals that persist in soil, water, and the pollen and nectar which these critical insects feed upon,” said Mr. Feldman.

Beyond Pesticides and its allies have called for suspensions on neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly the most widely used and toxic: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. These pesticides are used in a variety of home and garden products, and most commonly in corn and soybean seed treatment, where they remain in plant tissues, including pollen and nectar, for long periods of time. Along with suspensions to registrations, groups have urged EPA to conduct broader reviews on the impact of these systemic pesticides on other beneficial non-target organisms, including endangered species, and impacts to ecosystem biodiversity.

There are several factors that contribute to pollinator decline. However, it is the neonicotinoid class of pesticides that is receiving the most scrutiny from scientists and beekeepers. A growing number of studies find that even at low levels neonicotinoids impair foraging ability, navigation, learning behavior, and suppress the immune system, making bees more susceptible to pathogens and disease. A recent study finds that bees will favor neonicotinoid contaminated food over uncontaminated food, indicating that these chemicals can pose unique risks within supposedly bee-friendly habitat. In April, EPA announced a moratorium on new neonicotinoid pesticide products and uses, and its draft report on treated soybean seeds concluded that the neonicotinoid treatments were not efficacious.

The White House announcement certainly elevates the importance of pollinators and the impact their dwindling numbers will have on U.S. agriculture. One in three bites of food is reliant on pollination, which translates into $20-30 billion to the agricultural economy. But while the action taken today is well-meaning, widespread, pervasive, systemic pesticide contamination will continue to place bees, both wild and managed, and other pollinator species at risk.

Source: Whitehouse.gov

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 19, 2015) Last week in Denver, Colorado a U.S. District Court judge handed down a preliminary decision that may  dramatically alter how marijuana is grown across the state. On Friday, Judge John Madden sided with the Denver Department of Environmental Health (DDOH), refusing to lift a quarantine that has been keeping tens of thousands of marijuana plants off the market since March over suspected use of certain pesticides. In the absence of federal regulations governing pesticide use on marijuana plants, as highlighted in a report written by Beyond Pesticides this March, the state-level decisions coming out of Colorado on this issue have the potential to set important precedents for pesticide regulation and pot production in other states that have legalized marijuana.

The plaintiff, marijuana producer Organic Greens, took the fight to court to ask a judge to determine whether Denver health officials and state agriculture inspectors have the right to quarantine and test marijuana they believe has been improperly contaminated with certain pesticides. On March 25, DDOH found “sufficient evidence that marijuana plants or marijuana product on the [Organic Greens] premises may have been contaminated by pesticides that have been determined by the Colorado Department of Agriculture to be a violation to use on marijuana.” In its finding, the city ordered the grower to place the plants on hold. The plants could still stay on site and employees could still harvest and water the plants, but no product could end up for sale. The marijuana currently under quarantine is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, with Organic Greens’ portion estimated to have a $50,000 wholesale value.

The dispute centers primarily around a fungicide called Eagle 20, which has not been approved for use on marijuana. Eagle 20 is 19% myclobutanil, an endocrine (hormone) disruptor classified as “toxic” by Beyond Pesticides. Myclobutanil is also listed as a reproductive toxicant in the California Environmental Protection Agency Proposition 65: Chemicals Know to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity. Greens is asking for a preliminary injunction so that they can resume sale of their plants, claiming that the chemical is widely used within the industry and by other farmers to fight powdery mildew and that it poses little risk to consumers.

In response to these claims, officials cite potential harm to sick children if they were to inhale or ingest marijuana treated with Eagle 20 as their rationale for taking control of the plants, a charge that is directly disputed by Organic Greens owner. Concerns over lack of science and lack of testing in the area are also core to the city’s argument and are explored in depth by Beyond Pesticides’ report. Preliminary studies, such as a 2013 study published in the Journal of Toxicology, have found that up to 69.5% of pesticide residues can remain in smoked marijuana, strengthening city officials’ cause for concern and highlighting the need for preventive and precautionary action  in this area.

Arguing to uphold the quarantine, Denver and state officials say that Organic Greens is violating state and federal law by using a chemical not approved for marijuana. Under Colorado’s legal marijuana system, licensed growers may use only approved pesticides on their plants, and to-date no official list of approved pesticides has been established. City officials raise valid concerns over the uncertainties and risks associated with using pesticides for marijuana, with a lack of peer reviewed research and continued abstinence on the part of the federal government to regulate the area making it hard to issue well informed decisions on the subject.

In light of its status as a schedule 1 narcotic, no pesticides have been approved for use on marijuana, which the state argues gives it the power to seize any pot plants testing positive for pesticides like Eagle 20. City officials may choose to look at what other states have done with pesticide allowances for marijuana production to determine the best way to regulate their use. Both New Hampshire and Massachusetts are leaders in this area, having developed comprehensive regulatory requirements that cannabis growers follow organic practices and create an organic system plan. California also recently released new guidelines for pesticide use on marijuana that do a good deal to promote a safer trajectory of the state’s marijuana industry, though they are not as comprehensive as the  policies in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Over the course of the hearing, which lasted four days, attorneys for Organic Greens tried to argue the city’s enforcement was “arbitrary” and unnecessary because the levels of pesticides found on the plants didn’t constitute any health risk. That argument was ultimately defeated, however, when the judge ruled that city health inspectors had the legal right to quarantine the marijuana. In his decision the judge stated:

“…The issuance of an order preventing the sale of marijuana plants containing a substance that may be harmful if ingested by purchasers of the marijuana until it can be determined whether the substance is actually safe is absolutely within the scope of the Department of  Environmental Health’s authority. Ultimately, the Plaintiff is seeking an injunction which would allow it to distribute marijuana in violation of federal law.”

This court ruling emboldens Denver health officials to even more aggressively inspect for pesticide use, an action necessary to ensure the safety of individuals using marijuana recreationally or for medicinal purposes. It allows city health inspectors to fill a void left by state regulators, who have repeatedly delayed the rollout of a program to test all consumer marijuana for pesticide contamination, and the federal government, which has chosen not to approve pesticides for marijuana because of its continued classification as an illegal drug under federal law. By highlighting the shortfalls of Colorado’s regulatory inaction, it is possible that this court hearing will spur the state to develop a regulatory scheme for marijuana growth like we have seen in the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

For more information about pesticide use and marijuana production, see here.
Download Beyond Pesticides’ investigative report here

Source: USA Today, 1 and 2.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2015) Delegates from more than 90 countries took the unprecedented step of voting last week for a global ban on  pentachlorophenol (penta) — a proven toxic pesticide and contaminant found  in wildlife and human biomonitoring studies worldwide. The historic vote came at the combined meetings of the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions — which usually make decisions by consensus — after India repeatedly blocked action. The U.S. is not a signatory to the Stockholm Convention, which provides the framework to moving persistent organic pollutants out of commerce.

During the meeting, India surprisingly rejected the findings of the Stockholm Convention’s own scientific expert committee in which it participated. Switzerland triggered the voting procedure — the first in the history of the convention. Ninety-four countries voted in favor of  global prohibition of pentachlorophenol; two opposed; and eight countries abstained.

“We commend the global community for this important decision which will help ensure that the Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic and the traditional foods on which they depend are protected  against toxic pentachlorophenol,” said Pamela Miller of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. The delegates of the Stockholm Convention also supported international bans on two other  industrial chemicals that harm the global environment and human health: chlorinated naphthalenes and hexachlorobutadiene.  Delegates at the Rotterdam Convention failed to list two deadly substances, chrysotile asbestos and a paraquat formulation, despite the fact that exporters would simply have been required to  notify and get permission from importing countries. Belarus, Cuba, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Russia all opposed listing chrysotile asbestos. Guatemala, India, Indonesia, and Paraguay blocked listing of the paraquat formulation.

“All the candidate substances meet the Convention criteria according to the treaty’s own expert committee,” said Mariann Lloyd-Smith, IPEN Sr. Policy Advisor. “That means that a small handful of opposing countries and their powerful industry representatives undermined the treaty  with a political decision that disrespects governments’ right to know what substances are entering their borders. They simply put their own economic and trade interests before the health and well-being of the global environment and its inhabitants.”

Wood preservatives used to chemically treat wood utility poles contain dangerous chemicals, including dioxins, which harm human health and the environment. They are ranked among the most potent cancer agents. They are also promoters of birth defects, reproductive problems and nervous system toxicants. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assigned a cancer risk 3.4 million times higher than acceptable for people that apply penta to poles in the field. There are many, safer options for poles to be made of alternative materials, such as recycled steel, concrete, composite, or there is the option to bury the lines. The steel, concrete, and composite alternatives yield a lifespan of 80 to 100 years. There are differences in maintenance costs associated with different materials. For example, wood may require retreatment, which some utilities perform on a set cycle, while steel, concrete and fiberglass do not. In addition, disposal costs for chemicals used in wood treatment are high and growing, while steel is recycled.

New research on  the chemical components of Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) treated utility poles found that heavy rainfall, damp conditions and weathered poles leads to the highest rate of leaching, groundwater contamination and toxic chemical runoff. CCA is one of three major chemical wood preservatives that Beyond Pesticides has long sounded the alarm on, along with creosote and penta.  The study, Leaching of Chromium, Copper, and Arsenic from CCA-Treated Utility Poles, was published in Applied and Environmental Soil Science in Canada. Researchers looked at the concentrations of Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), and Arsenic (As) in soils surrounding 26 Douglas Fir CCA treated utility poles. They also suspended a segment of a new CCA treated pole to study rainwater runoff. Of the three metals, they found that As was the most mobile in soil and prominent in water. The average soil concentrations of As at all distances from the poles exceeded the acceptable allowable limit, and the As concentration in water was 8 to 42 times the drinking water guideline limits. The study concluded that the use of CCA is cause for concern, as As could leach from treated timber, migrate to groundwater, and reach wells or ponds. These findings demonstrate that there is a possibility of leaching and groundwater contamination from other wood preservatives as well, such as penta and creosote.

Recognition of the hazards of wood preservatives has led to some reduction of use, but not enough. In the U.S., EPA has classified CCA, penta and creosote as restricted use products, for use only by certified pesticide applicators, and has banned the residential use, with some exceptions. However, the U.S. lags behind other nations in its restrictions. The EU has banned CCA and creosote treated wood completely, and twenty six countries, including Canada, currently ban penta completely.

Meanwhile, as the Stockholm Convention delegates met last week and affirmed  the United Nation’s call for a global elimination of penta, the U.S. continues to allow the use of toxic wood preservatives with blatant disregard for human and environmental effects. The U.S., as mentioned above, is not a signatory to the Stockholm Convention, and is, in fact, the largest producer and user of penta in the world. U.S. government agencies such as the EPA have even sought to  oppose efforts to ban  the chemical. The U.S. has had a long struggle adhering to the guidelines put forth by the Stockholm Convention POPs committee. In 2009, the committee called for global action on a dangerous, DDT-era insecticide, and it took the EPA over three years to respond and finally begin phasing out the toxic chemical.

In absence of regulatory action at the federal level in the U.S., environmental groups and politicians have worked tirelessly to stop the use of these harmful chemicals. In early 2015, Beyond Pesticides submitted comments to EPA calling for the immediate ban of pentachlorophenol, and in 2014, a Long Island town began requiring warning labels on any poles treated with penta. Following that, state legislation was introduced to ban the use of penta in the future, and U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) called on EPA to investigate its specific use on utility poles.

For more extensive information about pesticide-treated wood for utility poles and railroad ties, see Beyond Pesticides  Wood Preservatives program page, and read  Beyond Poison Poles: Elected officials say no to toxic utility poles in their communities,  from the Fall 2014 issue of Pesticides and You.

Take Action:
Join Beyond Pesticides’  Poison Pole Campaign. Take a photo of the ugly pole in your neighborhood, on your street, at a bus stop, in a park, or even at your local playground. If people walk, live or play near the pole, show that in the photo, if possible. Include your name and the location of the photo and send it to  [email protected].

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

Source:  IPEN;  Leaching of Chromium, Copper, and Arsenic from CCA-Treated Utility Poles

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2015) ­ ­ ­In a response that took over five years, yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its long-awaited response to a Citizen Petition filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food & Water Watch, denying the request to cancel registered products that contain the antibacterial pesticide triclosan, often sold under the trade name microban. The decision allows this toxic substance to continue to be sold nationwide in common household products, from toys, cutting boards, hair brushes, sponges, computer keyboards to socks and undergarments. The agency did, however, grant one request, and will evaluate and conduct a biological assessment of the potential for effects on listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the ongoing triclosan registration review. The cosmetic uses of triclosan, such as toothpaste and liquid soaps, are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and subject to a separate petition for which there has been no response since its filing in 2005 and again in 2009.

“Numerous studies have shown that antibacterial soaps cause more harm than any of their perceived benefits,” said Nichelle Harriott, science and regulatory director  at Beyond Pesticides. “For the protection of human health and the environment, we are troubled that EPA has decided not to ban triclosan, but are glad that they will finally evaluate potential for effects on wildlife —something the agency should have done before allowing its widespread use.”

The petition, submitted in January 2010, requested EPA to cancel registered pesticide products that contain triclosan, as well as reassess the risks associated with the chemical under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act, and ESA.

“Given all the available science, EPA should ban this pesticide while it is conducting further review,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.

Research indicates that the toxic antibacterial can interfere with the action of hormones, potentially causing developmental problems in fetuses and newborns, among other health concerns. In December 2013,  FDA announced that the growing body of scientific evidence warranted requiring manufacturers to prove that their antibacterial soaps are safe and effective against bacteria, as product label claims stipulate, but no action has been taken by the agency.

Public pressure, led by Beyond Pesticides and other groups, has contributed to a 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. Furthermore, 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 the face of continued EPA inaction, Beyond Pesticides urges consumers, along with manufacturers, retailers, school districts, businesses and communities to wash their hands of triclosan and protect our water and health from this toxic pesticide. For additional information and resources on the human health and environmental effects of triclosan, join the  ban triclosan campaign  at http://bit.ly/BanTriclosanCampaign.

###

Click here for PDF version of the press release.

Click here to see the original petition.

For more information, contact:
Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides
202-543-5450, [email protected]
Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch
202-683-2465, [email protected]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2015) Why do you buy organic? Recent research by Mintel, a business research firm, reveals that Americans buy organic for different reasons. The perception that the products are healthier (72 percent) is the biggest draw, even more so than any environmental or ethical reason (69 percent). Only 29 percent of consumers recognize that organic products are highly regulated, while 51 percent believe that the organic label is an excuse to charge more. While sales of organic products are on the rise, actual consumer penetration has plateaued. With the barrage of attacks by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the organic label, it comes as no surprise that consumer skepticism remains high. Many consumer and farm organizations believe that public trust will continue to decline if USDA continues its attack on the procedures and public process that has built the organic industry to its $40 billion size.

A further look into why consumers choose organic reveals that female shoppers choose products to avoid certain characteristics — 43 percent do so because they do not contain unnecessary ingredients and chemicals, and the same percentage do so to avoid food grown with pesticides. Thirty-one percent of women and 29 percent of men purchase organic because they are less processed than their conventional, non-organic counterparts, and 20 percent of women and 16 percent of men purchase organic because animals are treated more ethically by organic companies. Generational differences also exist. Over half of Millennials (51 percent) indicate they feel better about themselves when they purchase organic products, a factor that declines notably among older generations, to less than a quarter of Baby Boomers (24 percent).

Older generations are especially distrustful of the organic label. While 42 percent of Millennials indicate they purchased an organic food or drink in the last three months, purchase rates drop dramatically among Baby Boomers and older consumers, who indicate different reasons for not choosing organic.  Fifty-one percent of Generation X (those born in the mid-1960s to early 1980s) and 57 percent of the Swing Generation (those 65 and older) regard the organic label as a premium price tag. Only 39 percent of Gen X trust that products labeled as organic are actually organic, and this number dips to 35 percent of Swing Generation consumers. Additionally, only 40 percent of Millennials, although they are the demographic that most supports organic, recognize that organic products are highly regulated. For all consumers, 38 percent view organic as simply a marketing term with no definition or real value.

The fight to maintain organic’s integrity is ongoing. USDA is threatening the future of organic with changes that will further weaken public trust in the organic label. In April, organic farm and certification, environmental, and food safety groups and organic producers challenged a major USDA change to the organic rule, maintaining that the agency violated the federal rulemaking process when it changed without public hearing and comment long standing  procedures for reviewing the potential hazards and need for allowed synthetic and prohibited natural substances used in producing organic food. Environmental and food safety groups also  sued the agency for failing to follow the law and not seeking public comment on the organic compost rule.

Beyond Pesticides promotes organic agriculture because organic food contributes to better health through reduced pesticide exposure for all and increased nutritional quality. In order to understand the importance of eating organic food from the perspective of toxic pesticide contamination, we need to look at the whole picture””from the farmworkers who do the valuable work of growing food, to the waterways from which we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. Organic food can feed us and keep us healthy without producing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture. Consumers can help maintain the integrity of the organic label, and thus protect the food we eat as well as the environment, by reading more about the issues at our Save Our Organic page. Consumers can also check out Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database, which documents the impacts on the environment and farmworkers of the toxic chemicals used in conventional agriculture.

Source: Mintel

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2015) For the first time on record, summer losses of managed honey bee colonies have exceeded winter losses, according to preliminary results of the annual survey released yesterday by the Bee Informed Partnership, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Apiary Inspectors of America. This is the second highest annual loss recorded to date: beekeepers lost a total of 42.1 percent of the number of colonies managed over the last year (total annual loss, between April 2014 and April 2015), which is up from 34.2 percent for the previous year. On the same day that this survey was released, the  U.S.  House Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture, Biotechnology and Research held a hearing on pollinator health, but failed to advance policy solutions that would protect pollinators from the unnecessary use of pesticides.

“What we’re seeing with this bee problem is just a loud signal that there’s some bad things happening with our agro-ecosystems,” Keith Delaplane, PhD at the University of Georgia and one of the co-authors of the study told Phys.Org. “We just happen to notice it with the honeybee because they are so easy to count.”

About two-thirds of the beekeepers responding to the survey report losses greater than the 18.7 percent level that beekeepers say  is economically acceptable. This underlines the seriousness of the health problems stressing honey bees in this country, according to Jeff Pettis, a survey co-author and a senior entomologist at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland. More than 6,100 beekeepers across the country who manage almost 400,000 colonies in during October 2014, representing nearly 15.5 percent of the country’s 2.74 million colonies, responded to the survey.

“We traditionally thought of winter losses as a more important indicator of health, because surviving the cold winter months is a crucial test for any bee colony,” said Dennis van Engelsdorp, Ph.D., an assistant professor of entomology at the University of Maryland and project director for the Bee Informed Partnership. “But we now know that summer loss rates are significant too. This is especially so for commercial beekeepers, who are now losing more colonies in the summertime compared to the winter. Years ago, this was unheard of.”

Federal Inaction
Yesterday’s  Congressional hearing was slated to focus on pollinator health, however it failed to address the impacts of systemic pesticides, like neonicotinoids (neonics), on bees, birds and other pollinators and the lack of a coordinated federal response to pollinator declines. Instead, the hearing questioned federal disagreement over the value of neonicotinoid-coated seeds for farmers, despite recent findings which demonstrate that neonic-coated seeds fail to increase yields or provide protection from target pests during critical times of plant activity.

“EPA has already found that neonic-treated soybean seeds are not providing our nation’s farmers any added benefit,” said Nichelle Harriott, science and regulatory director at Beyond Pesticides. “In light of safer alternative options, Congress should be directing USDA and EPA to encourage farmers to get off the toxic treadmill and return to more sustainable agricultural practices.”

Last week, Beyond Pesticides along with a diverse group of environmentalists, beekeepers, and advocates, sent a letter to the USDA Inspector General and the co-chairs of the White House Task Force on Pollinator Health this Tuesday, urging a thorough investigation into recent reports that USDA scientists are being harassed and censored. The letter expresses particular concern over the suppression of research related to bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides and glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, which has been linked to cancer. The White House Task Force on Pollinator Health, co-chaired by USDA, is expected to release a plan on bee protection in the near future; however the more than 25 groups, which include farmers, fisheries, and food safety advocates, are concerned that the plan will lack meaningful protections if USDA’s research has been compromised.

To date, USDA has released funds for pollinator habitat, the Council on Environmental Quality has released new guidelines for creating pollinator habitat around federal buildings and the Fish and Wildlife Service has banned the use of neonic pesticides on National Wildlife Refuges. On April 2, the EPA announced a moratorium on new or expanded uses of neonicotinoids while it evaluates the risks posed to pollinators. However, EPA has failed to take any action on the hundreds of approved neonicotinoid products already on the market. Advocates say a sensible response to the continuing decline of pollinators must address the use of neonic pesticides, and encourage the development of least-toxic and organic alternatives. In agriculture, for home pest control, landscape care, and in nurseries, there are effective and economic organic techniques can that be successfully employed.

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

A complete analysis of the survey data will be published later this year. The abstract for the analysis is at http://beeinformed.org/results-categories/winter-loss-2014-2015/.

Source: USDA ARS Press Release

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