(Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2022) The Colorado legislature last week passed SB23-266, a bill limiting the use of bee-toxic neonicotinoid pesticides in the state. The news comes as other states consider their own restrictions, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing details on exactly which endangered species are set to be harmed by the ongoing use of these harmful insecticides. This latest news shows that protecting pollinators is possible, and urgently needed given growing understanding of the dangers these chemicals pose to the most vulnerable wildlife in the country.  

The Colorado bill requires the state’s commissioner of agriculture to adopt rules designating neonicotinoid pesticides as ‘limited-use’ pesticides in the state. With this designation, only licensed pesticide dealers may sell products containing these chemicals. Per the state’s legal code, the “limited-use” designation means the same as a federal “restricted-use” pesticide, which permits sales and use only for certified applicators. Passage of this bill marks an important step forward for pollinator protection efforts in the state. It will help ensure that homeowners are not able to easily purchase this product at big box retailers, but will allow continued use in residential areas and in agriculture.

Colorado’s bill fulfills guidance that EPA itself has advised but is not actually proposing. In releasing the interim decisions to reregister bee-toxic pesticides for another 15 long years, EPA noted that it is proposing “language on the label that advises homeowners not to use neonicotinoid products.” That is correct – the agency is planning to approve chemicals it is advising individuals not to use. In this context, actions by state lawmakers represent the bare minimum in instituting protections that the federal government itself apparently believes that it should be implementing.

Colorado’s bill is similar to restrictions implemented in the states of Maryland, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. However, it falls short of the strongest state models that have been passed in New Jersey and Maine that eliminate all outdoor uses of these chemicals, even by certified applicators. This is a result of a recognition that, even if applied perfectly according to the label, there is no safe level of exposure to these pesticides for pollinators. Connecticut, Nevada, and New York are considering legislation that would enact broader restrictions.

All of these state level bans pale in comparison to the robust protections currently implemented in the European Union (EU). The EU has banned neonicotinoid pesticide use on all outdoor areas, allowing use only in enclosed greenhouses.  

It is evident from EPA’s own data that similar restrictions are urgently needed in the United States. According to a biological evaluation that EPA is required to perform (and yet did so only as a result of several legal challenges), neonicotinoid have been found to adversely effect a majority of nontarget endangered species. According to EPA, endangered species are likely to be harmed at the following percentages: for imidacloprid, 1,445 (79%); for clothianidin, 1,225 (67%); and, for thiamethoxam, 1,396 (77%).

New data released this month is focused on exactly the species and their habitats whose existence is threatened by ongoing use of these chemicals. This list includes species one may expect to be impacted, like the imperiled rusty-patched bumblebee and the Karner blue butterfly, but also includes the greater prairie-chicken, vernal pool fairy shrimp, American burying beetle, and even plants like the Western prairie fringed orchid.

Local and state level action indicates that many lawmakers are paying attention to the latest science and willing to act. However, it will take significant efforts from consumers and U.S. residents at all levels to get EPA and the U.S. Congress to take meaningful action to protect pollinators.

Join Beyond Pesticides today in urging President Biden and Congress to take actions to restore scientific integrity to EPA and eliminate pesticide industry corruption within the agency. These actions are critical for the agency to make unbiased decisions about the registration of well-known hazardous pesticides like the neonicotinoids. For more information on how you can get involved in protecting pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective webpage.

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

Source: Colorado General Assembly, EPA, Common Dreams

Image source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2023) The Farm Bill in Congress covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—and the pesticide industry would like to insert a provision that takes away (preempts) local authority to restrict pesticide use—which would undercut the local democratic process to protect public health and safety. Even if communities are not now regulating toxic pesticides, we do not want to close the door on future action, as communities take on petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use that is contributing to health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency.   

Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language. Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill. 

As Congress drafts the 2023 Farm Bill, there is an opportunity for many topics—good and bad—to be introduced. Dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, which addressed threats posed by the Great Depression and drought, the Farm Bill is an omnibus bill passed every five years. It is designed to secure a sufficient food supply, establish fair food prices for both farmers and consumers, and protect the soil and other natural resources on which farmers depend, but includes much more. In the 117th Congress, H.R. 7266 was introduced to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal rules. If such language were to be incorporated into the 2023 Farm Bill as the pesticide industry plans to do, it would overturn decades of precedent as well as prevent local governments from protecting their residents from hazardous chemicals in their environment.  

This is a direct assault on nearly 200 communities across the country that have passed their own policies to restrict the use of toxic pesticides. Communities must maintain the right to restrict pesticides linked to cancer, water-contamination, and the decline of pollinators to protect their residents’ health and unique local ecosystems. 

The provision hinges on the concept of preemption: a legal theory that allows larger jurisdictions (federal and state) to limit the authority of a jurisdiction within it to regulate a specific issue. In 1991, the Supreme Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier. The Court ruled that federal pesticide law does not prohibit or preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government throughout their jurisdiction. According to Mortier, however, states may retain authority to take away local control.  

Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language. Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.    

In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking, and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording. Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to prohibit localities from developing policies reflecting the unique needs and values of the people living there.  

If the pesticide industry is successful, the impacts for public health and ecological stability would be devastating. Only states and the federal government would be able to regulate pesticide use. With most state agencies allowing all uses on labels approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), local jurisdictions would be forced to follow the rulemaking of an agency that has been documented to be captured by industry interests.

Preemption would quash a growing national grassroots movement encouraging alternatives to toxic pesticides where people live, work, and play. Federal preemption would prevent local governments from instituting pesticide regulations that are stricter than federal regulations, taking away communities’ basic right to secure their own safety and interrupting a burgeoning movement of local pesticide restrictions. Such preemption provisions will likely prevent states from giving localities the right to regulate pesticides.  

Many pesticides targeted by local city residents, including neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and atrazine, have been banned or restricted in other countries due to health or environmental concerns. However, in the U.S. the Environmental Protection Agency has not taken similar action on these pesticides. Given federal inaction and the previous administration’s failure to follow sound science, it is imperative that local governments retain the ability to tailor laws so localities can respond to federal actions that permit the use of toxic chemicals that residents do not want in their community.  

Having failed to curtail prohibitions against local restrictions into the 2018 Farm Bill after massive pushback from health advocates, local officials, and Congressional allies, the chemical industry is renewing its attack. The industry continues to flex its muscle in Congress through attempts to add preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill as a growing number of communities are deciding to act.  

Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language. Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.   

The targets for this Action are the U.S. Congress and local elected officials across the United States.

Part I: Ask your local officials to sign on this letter opposing the preemption language.

Mayors, city council members, and county commissioners should make their voices heard in opposition to preemption, which prohibits local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal and state rules and overturns decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings. It could prevent local governments from tailoring laws to the specific needs of their communities.

Please send your mayor and other local officials a short note (see below) asking them to sign this letter! [Note: Only sign-ons of local officials can be accepted]

To find contact information for local elected officials, check out this tool from usa.gov: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials 

• Letter Link: bp-dc.org/official-local-letter-pesticide-preemption
• Link for a local elected official to sign: https://secure.everyaction.com/aMcVHaaV7ES6Qw6RhBOCbw2

Sample email to local elected officials (please cut-and-paste, as needed):

As a local elected official, please make your voice heard in opposition to federal preemption of local authority, which prohibits local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal and state rules and overturns decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings. It could prevent local governments from tailoring laws to the specific needs of our community. Please see the letter and a link to sign onto the letter below:

Letter: bp-dc.org/official-local-letter-pesticide-preemption
Link to sign on to the  letter: https://secure.everyaction.com/aMcVHaaV7ES6Qw6RhBOCbw2

While having differing views on pesticides, local leaders take very seriously a duty to protect constituents. Federal pesticide preemption is a direct attack on this authority. This provision prohibits local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal rules. It overturns decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings and could prevent local governments from tailoring laws to the specific needs of their communities. 

As of 2023, nearly 200 communities across the country have passed policies to restrict the use of pesticides in response to emerging evidence about potential human and environmental impacts. The exact concerns differ by pesticide, but include links to cancer, developmental challenges, lower IQ, and delayed motor development. Many of these laws work to protect the most vulnerable among us, such as children, who take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults and have developing organ systems. Others focus on safeguarding precious water resources, or the protection of wildlife like declining pollinator species critical to our environment and food supply.   

While not every city has taken these actions, it is important to support the right to do so and you should oppose forfeiting this right for the indefinite future. In fact, federal pesticide preemption undermines the key role that local governments play across the country. 

Please sign this letter in opposition to including preemption in the Farm Bill. 

Thank you. 

Part II: Tell Congress to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill

Letter to Congress
I am writing to urge you to oppose adding language in the 2023 Farm Bill that seeks to deny local communities the power to protect themselves from chemical exposure when state and federal regulation is inadequate. If incorporated into the upcoming 2023 Farm bill, it would amend federal pesticide law to prohibit local governments from restricting pesticide use within their jurisdictions. However, the rights of local governmental jurisdictions under existing pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), have been left to the states since the law’s adoption. In fact, local laws protecting the environment and public health have historically emerged out of local governments, with laws related to recycling, smoking, pet waste, building codes, and zoning.

This is a direct assault on nearly 200 communities across the country that have passed their own policies to restrict the use of toxic pesticides. Communities must maintain the right to restrict pesticides linked to cancer, water contamination, and the decline of pollinators to protect their resident’s health and unique local ecosystems.

The rights of local governments to protect people and the environment were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. The Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law. In Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, the Court ruled that FIFRA does not prohibit, or preempt, local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government. According to Mortier, however, states may retain authority to take away local control.

This legislation would quash a growing national grassroots movement encouraging alternatives to toxic pesticides where people live, work, and play. It would prevent local governments from instituting pesticide regulations that are stricter than federal regulations, confiscating communities’ basic right to secure their own safety and interrupting a burgeoning movement of local pesticide restrictions. Many pesticides targeted by local city residents, including neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and atrazine, have been banned or restricted in other countries due to health or environmental concerns. However, in the U.S. the Environmental Protection Agency has not taken similar action on these pesticides. Given federal inaction and the previous administration’s failure to follow sound science, it is imperative that local governments retain the ability to tailor laws so localities can respond to federal actions that permit the use of toxic chemicals that residents do not want in their community.   

Please let me know your position on these preemption provisions.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 5, 2023) Low level exposure to pyrethroid insecticides found in common pesticide brands like RAID and ORTHO result in neurodevelopmental damage to laboratory animals, reinforcing evidence of harm found in epidemiological studies on human exposure to these chemicals. According to research published in PNAS Nexus, mice exposed to the pyrethroid deltamethrin displayed atypical behavior similar to humans with developmental disorders. “We are not saying these mice have autism or that they have ADHD. That’s not the goal here,” said James Burkett, PhD, study coauthor and assistant professor of neuroscience in the UToledo College of Medicine. “What we are saying is that something in their brain has been altered by this exposure and it’s resulting in the same kinds of behaviors that we see in children with autism.”

Scientists arrived at this determination by exposing a group of mouse mothers to consistent low levels of deltamethrin in their food during preconception, pregnancy, and lactation. The study notes that the amount of pesticide provided was “well below the benchmark dose for regulatory guidance.” A separate control group was given no pesticide in its food. Offspring from the female mice were then put through behavioral tests on social behavior, restrictive or repetitive behaviors, cognition and communication.

Results found that mouse pups whose mothers were exposed to deltamethrin increased their repetitive behaviors. In tests, they buried more marbles than control pups, and performed more self-grooming than the control group. Male pups exposed to deltamethrin also produced fewer vocalizations when being separated from their mothers. Pesticide exposure also impaired learning and memory; in a fear conditioning test, exposed mice were less likely to react to a fearful event they encountered before.

In addition to behavior, scientists observed physiological changes in pups whose mothers were pyrethroid-exposed. These mice exhibited significant changes in dopamine levels and transport around the body. For autistic individuals, the metabolite homovanillic acid (HVA) is considered the earliest biomarker for the condition, and exposed mice pups displayed increased levels of the substance.

“These are all similar to symptoms human patients with neurodevelopmental disorders might have,” Dr. Burkett said.

Synthetic pyrethroids are hazardous pesticides that have flown below even pesticide advocates radar for far too long, not receiving nearly as much attention as other dangerous and commonly used pesticides like glyphosate.

“If you have someone who comes and sprays in your house, this is likely what they’re spraying. It’s used in landscaping, it’s what they fog in the streets for mosquitos. It’s everywhere,” said Dr. Burkett. “Our study, however, adds to the evidence that these chemicals might not be as safe for children and pregnant women as we once believed.”

In fact, Beyond Pesticides has never believed these chemicals to be safe for children or pregnant women. The depth of historical reporting on these chemicals in the Daily News Blog bares this out. As far back as 2008, Beyond Pesticides was reporting on the risk these chemicals pose to children’s development.

The research on this class of chemicals has sounded a consistent drumbeat that of developmental harm to children. In 2011, research determined that children exposed to higher levels of synthetic pyrethroids are three times as likely to have mental delay compared to less exposed children. A study from 2014 associated proximity to pesticide treated agricultural fields in pregnancy to increased risk of autism to children of exposed mothers. Data published in 2015 find that deltamethrin increases risk of ADHD in children, with one study finding impacts specifically to boys. Studies published two years later determined that synthetic pyrethroid exposure increases risk of premature puberty in boys, and another associated the chemicals with externalizing and internalizing disorders. Another study found that aerial mosquito spraying, which is most frequently conducted with synthetic pyrethroids, is linked to elevated autism rates.

The impacts seen are not all developmental. A 2012 study associates pyrethroid exposure before, during, and after pregnancy with increased risk of infant leukemia. And a recent study published earlier this year finds that synthetic pyrethroid exposure during mosquito control operations increases risk of respiratory disease and certain allergies.

Rather than rein in use of these chemicals, EPA in 2019 stripped away protections that reduced children’s exposure to pyrethroids. In making its decision, the agency allowed a letter from the pesticide industry umbrella group Croplife America to dictate its approach to protecting children from hazardous, neurotoxic pyrethroids. The model proposed by Croplife eliminated safety factors for children. In a rare instance, EPA conducted an outside literature review to buttress its argument, but instead ignored those data and prioritized the unprotective model proposed by the pesticide industry.

After selling out children’s health, the agency then took directions from a group referring to themselves as the Pyrethroid Working Group (PWG), comprised of major pesticide manufacturers Bayer, FMC, Syngenta, BASF, AMVAC, and Valent. At the request of this working group, EPA reduced a proposal from EPA staff scientists to implement 66 foot buffer zones between agricultural fields and water bodies down to 10-25 feet. The agency also agreed that wind speeds up to 15 miles per hour were acceptable for pyrethroid applications, despite previous proposals setting the cut-off at 10 mph.

“We have reduced our exposures to many classes of dangerous pesticides over the past few decades through restrictions and regulations,” said study coauthor Gary Miller, PhD, vice dean for research strategy and innovation at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. “This study adds to a growing body of literature that the widely used pyrethroids are not without adverse effects and should be further evaluated for their safety.”

While further study is warranted, it should be conducted while this class of chemicals is suspended from public use. Rather than place the burden of proof on scientists to show harm, chemical manufacturers should be required to provide evidence that these chemicals will not harm children’s health. It is evident that they cannot, and with every new study there is growing awareness from the scientific community that these chemicals do not belong on the market.

Take action today by signing the ladybug pledge and urging your mayor to convert your community parks to land care practices that do not use synthetic pyrethroids or other toxic pesticides.

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

Source: MedicalXpress, PNAS Nexus

(Beyond Pesticides, May 4, 2023) One of the most widely used insecticides in California, Intrepid 2F, contains harmful levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” according to a report by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In fact, 40 percent of pesticide products in the report tested positive for high levels of PFAS. PFAS are common in non-stick cookware, cleaning/personal care products, food packaging, and other consumer products. However, these compounds are also in pesticide products. Despite evidence on the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies sat by the sidelines as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS has made its way into the environment and our bodies. PFAS are even present in remote environments like the Arctic, Antarctica, and Eastern European Tibetan Plateau. A study published in 2020 identified PFAS as common products to which Americans are exposed daily.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that 98% of Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream, with studies reporting PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. With health risks including developmental, metabolic, cardiovascular, and reproductive harm, cancer, damage to the liver, kidneys, and respiratory system, as well as the potential to increase the chance of disease infection and severity, PFAS presents a chronic danger to people that demands urgent regulatory action. CBD and PEER submitted the test results to the EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), advising the agencies to remove these pesticide products from the market until contaminants from supply lines can be removed.

CBD authorized independent, certified lab testing on seven agricultural pesticides with common uses in California to determine the part per trillion (ppt) of PFAS in pesticide products. The insecticide product Malathion 5EC (active ingredient: malathion) contains 510s ppt perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and 680 ppt perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS), with a PFOA level over 100,000 times higher than the level EPA considers safe in drinking water (0.004 ppt). The insecticide Oberon 2SC (active ingredient: spiromesifin) contains 1,500 ppt perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), and Intrepid 2F (active ingredient: methoxyfenozide) contains 50 ppt of perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS).

PFAS are a group of nearly 10,000 human-made chemicals in various consumer products that people use daily. Although some PFAS compound manufacturing has ceased, these chemicals last forever in the environment as their chemical structure makes them resistant to breakdown. Thus, PFAS contamination is significantly underrepresented and much more perverse that previously thought, polluting storage and transportation containers, food and water resources, and other chemical products. Not only is the public exposed to such chemicals, those who work in factories that create products that include PFAS, or workers who use them regularly, have higher cumulative exposures. Across multiple states, firefighters have begun to bring lawsuits against manufacturers of the foams, charging that the companies knowingly made and sold products with these forever chemicals that put the workers’ health at risk. Others at greater-than-average exposure risk include pregnant or lactating people and young children. Although some PFAS compound manufacturing has ceased, these chemicals last forever in the environment as their chemical structure makes them resistant to breakdown. Thus, PFAS contamination is significantly underrepresented and much more perverse than previously thought, polluting storage and transportation containers, food and water resources, and other chemical products. For instance, many reports address the high levels of PFAS contamination in the mosquito insecticide Anvil 10+10.

Although EPA does not regulate PFAS in pesticide formulas, the agency lists these substances in the inert ingredient database, and thus product labels do not require disclosure of contaminants fundamental to pesticide products as a result of the manufacturing or packaging process. Concerning the ecosystem, the ongoing detection of PFAS in various environments and soils also threatens the ability of growers, including organic growers, to produce food that does not harbor these compounds. PFAS do not break down in the environment and are detectable in more than 330 animal species globally, including species at extinction risk. PFAS chemical residues persist in food and drinking water, with over six million U.S. residents regularly encountering drinking water with PFAS levels above the EPA health advisory of 70 ng/L. Therefore, PFAS are detectable in almost all of the U.S. population—disproportionately afflicting people of color communities—and have implications for human health. 

Nathan Donley, Ph.D., environmental health science director at CBD, states, “I can’t imagine anything that could make these products any more dangerous than they already are, but apparently, my imagination isn’t big enough. […] The EPA has to take control of this situation and remove pesticide products that are contaminated with these extremely dangerous, persistent chemicals.”

Despite EPA considering the primary source of PFAS contamination in pesticides from leach from fluorinated containers, PFBS and PFHpS, like in Intrepid 2F and Malathion 5EC, respectively, are not known to leach. Thus, this report indicates that PFAS contamination of agricultural pesticide products comes from additional unknown sources. For instance, PFAS in rainwater, surface water, and soil exceeds the planetary boundary for chemical pollution, contaminating above EPA’s proposed guideline levels, and exceeding safe limits for humanity. Despite reductions in the global emissions for PFAS compounds, the environmental persistence and hydrological cycling of these toxic chemicals make them an ever-present source of contamination, especially as PFAS compounds do not break down in the environment. Studies from the past year highlight:

1. “Levels of PFOA and PFOS in rainwater often greatly exceed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisory levels, and the sum of the aforementioned four PFAAs (Σ4 PFAS) in rainwater is often above Danish drinking water limit values also based on Σ4 PFAS;
2. Levels of PFOS in rainwater are often above Environmental Quality Standard for Inland European Union Surface Water; and
3. Atmospheric deposition also leads to global soils being ubiquitously contaminated, and to be often above proposed Dutch guideline values.”

PEER’s science policy director Kyla Bennett, Ph.D., cautions, “While communities around the country are struggling to remove PFAS from their drinking-water supplies, we are spraying millions of acres of our land with the same toxic chemicals. […] It’s nonsensical; we can’t protect our drinking water unless and until we get PFAS out of all pesticides.”

Ubiquitous environmental contaminants, like PFAS, have severe consequences, especially on the health of vulnerable individuals. Various pesticide products act similarly to PFAS. Individuals can encounter these substances simultaneously, resulting in more severe health outcomes. Therefore, advocates urge that policies enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Many states are issuing regulatory limits on various PFAS in drinking water, groundwater, and soil. However, EPA must require complete product testing and disclosure of ingredients for proper PFAS regulation. Furthermore, the agency must identify the unreasonable of exposure to toxic pesticides by citing the productivity and profitability of organic and ecological pest management practices. Solutions like buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management and regenerative organic agriculture eliminate the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. Given the wide availability of nonpesticidal alternative strategies, families and industry workers can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on why organic is the healthy choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. Additionally, learn more about how the lack of adequate pesticide regulations can adversely affect human and environmental health by visiting the Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Regulatory Failures Mount, Threatening Health and Safety.”

Spring is here, so grow your spring garden the organic way by Springing Into Action, pledging to eliminate toxic pesticide use.

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

Source: Analytical Report, Center for Biological Diversity  

(Beyond Pesticides, May 3, 2023) New research is highlighting the best flowers to plant in order to attract syrphid flies (also known as hover flies, or flower flies), an important pollinator and, in its larval stage, a predator of many common farm and garden pests. With spring in full swing, the results of the study, published in the journal Environmental Entomology by researchers at the University of New Hampshire (UNH), provide a helpful guide for growers wishing to avoid pesticide use and leverage biological pest management techniques.

Study authors indicate that their research is partly a response to growers in the New England region moving away from planting brassicas due to the impact of the cabbage aphid. While there is considerable research on the benefits of syrphid flies for growers in other parts of the country, less is known about the species and flowers that support these insects in the Northeast. “This paper is the first report of the species composition of syrphids living and foraging in our local vegetable systems,” said study coauthor Anna Wallingford, PhD, of UNH. “We knew that syrphids as a group can provide important ecosystem services, and we knew plenty about the foraging behaviors of species in the western U.S. and Europe, but now we know which species are active here in New England.”

A field study was established whereby insectary plants, those attractive to beneficial insects like syrphid flies, were established in 3x6ft plots in the states of Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Insectary plants included sweet alyssum, ammi (‘white dill’), buckwheat, calendula, cilantro, dill, phacelia, and fennel. These plots were surrounded by various vegetable plantings that changed over the three years of the study. Intercropping included winter rye, cabbage, willow, sweet corn, cucumbers, lettuce, barley, broccoli, sunn hemp, winter rye, bok choy, grape, strawberry, and brussels sprouts.

Syrphid flies were regularly collected  (15-16 samples) in the summer and fall months in all plots, and analyzed for their relative abundance on different plants. All insectary plants were compared to sweet alyssum, as the plant has been well established as attractant to hover flies in other studies conducted around the world.

Results show that very few insectary plants are more attractive than sweet alyssum. Ammi, calendula, and phacelia generally hosted fewer flies than sweet alyssum, but cilantro and dill sometimes did reach parity. Buckwheat was a standout, at times attracting over 4 times more hover flies than sweet alyssum.

But while buckwheat is an incredibly effective attractant, its overall impact is reduced by its incredibly short bloom period, averaging just under 30 days. Sweet alyssum, with its average of nearly 90 days of bloom, remain the most effective year-round syrphid fly habitat.  

Overall, researchers collected 1,447 syrphid flies representing 21 different species. “Toxomerus marginatus, or the margined calligrapher, is the most abundant syrphid fly found in this study (about 70 percent of the total surveyed syrphids) and is known to be abundant across North America,” said coauthor Alina (Harris) Cypher ’19G. “In addition to eating aphids, their predatory larvae feed on a variety of other soft bodied insects (thrips, caterpillars, mealy bugs), which suggests our insectary plant research has implications of contributing pest management services in range of crops and pest complexes.”

The findings should help inform the annual plantings farmers and gardeners along the US East Coast may want to consider as they work to reduce pest pressure on their plots. “One drawback of using buckwheat, dill and cilantro over alyssum is that they bloom for shorter time periods, and they aren’t as cold hardy in the spring and fall,” said Cypher. “Sweet alyssum was the standout species, due to its season-long continuous bloom period that did not require multiple plantings throughout the year.”

Research consistently finds that adding diversity to a cropping system results in significant ongoing benefits for pest management and yield, while monocultures harm biodiversity and the capacity for biological pest management.

Take action today to urge elected officials to embrace organic approaches to pest management and crop production in the upcoming Farm Bill by supporting a national transition to organic farming.

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

Source: UNH Today, Environmental Entomology

Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2023) On April 20, the European Commission’s new rules on endocrine disrupting chemicals took effect. Called “Classification, Labelling & Packaging” (CLP), the rules create four new hazard categories for endocrine disruptors. The categories range from “suspected of causing” or “may cause” endocrine disruption in the environment to “suspected of causing” or “may cause” endocrine disruption in humans. After a transition period, users will have to indicate on labels and packaging if a substance falls into any of the hazard classes. All actors in the supply chain are obligated to provide the information to every downstream participant. The  new CLP rules, implementing a 2022 measure adopted by the European Commission and then the European Parliament, also specify a minimum font size for the hazard information and for the first time include standards for labeling in online commerce and in places where customers use refillable containers to transport, store, and use the chemicals.

According to the EU Directorate-General for the Environment: “The new hazard classes are the result of extensive scientific discussions and will provide easier access to information to all users of such chemicals, notably consumers, workers and businesses. They allow further action to address and mitigate the risks of substances and mixtures under other EU legislation such as REACH, while taking account of socio-economic impacts.”

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can replace or add to naturally occurring hormones whose delicate balance is essential for human and animal health. They can affect that balance at extremely low levels. The European Union (EU) has identified at least 50 pesticide active ingredients as endocrine disruptors. Their effects have been tied to obesity, endometriosis, declines in sperm counts and viability, thyroid malfunction, and many other endpoints.

Extending its Green Deal initiative, the EU adopted its “Farm to Fork” strategy in October 2021. As part of the program, in June 2022 it banned all pesticide use in sensitive areas, including urban greenspaces, parks, playgrounds, and areas set aside to protect pollinators. Further, Farm to Fork aims to halve “the use and risk of chemical pesticides” by 2030.

High Contrast with the U.S.

The EU action adds to the evidence that Europe is far ahead of the United States (U.S.) in protecting against endocrine disruptors. The EU has taken a markedly different approach than the U.S. to such chemicals. Political and economic pressure in the U.S. has kept the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) focus on risk (the likelihood of exposure) rather than hazard (the potential to cause harm), whereas the EU considers hazard first.

Focusing on risk has led the EPA to accept the industry’s suggestion that most people are unlikely to be exposed to dangerous chemicals, an approach belied by the mass of evidence demonstrating the ubiquity of many chemicals in humans and animals, such as the NHANES 2013-2014 data showing glyphosate is present in the urine of 81% of the US population over the age of six.

EPA is well known to have dragged its feet on regulating ED chemicals for decades. Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, amending federal pesticide and food safety policy and directing the EPA to implement its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program within three years. As Beyond Pesticides noted last January, two investigations by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in 2011 and 2021, observed that the EPA had made no “meaningful progress” in implementing the mandatory endocrine disruptor screening program. The 2021 OIG report stated that “some EPA staff were instructed to function as if the screening program had been eliminated from EPA’s budget” even though the program had a budget that year of $75 million.

The U.S. still uses 85 pesticides banned in other countries, according to an analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity. In 27 years the EPA has failed to test 96 percent of registered pesticides, according to a 2022 complaint against the EPA filed by the Center for Food Safety and four other environmental groups. The most recent action in that case has been to admit attorneys for CropLife America, an industry group, as intervenors for the defendant in the action. In its motion, CropLife claimed, both simultaneously disingenuously and candidly, that:

“its members are key stakeholders in ensuring EPA can meet its obligations under the Food Quality Protection Act (“FQPA”) to implement the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program…without imposing unnecessarily burdensome and time-consuming barriers to pesticide registration…CropLife’s members have invested tens of millions of dollars in research and testing of their pesticides to provide assurance of their safety, and the value of their EPA-issued licenses would be significantly diminished by a finding that EPA violated federal laws in issuing them or failed to consider the risks of endocrine effects during the review process…if Plaintiffs obtain the relief they seek, CropLife’s ability to protect its members’ interests would be impaired….”

This statement illustrates what Center for Biological Diversity environmental health director Nathan Donley, PhD, observed in a 2022 Brookings Institution essay: “The EPA pesticide office tends to view its relationship with the pesticide industry as a “partnership” and often asks permission instead of acting decisively.”

But, Dr. Donley writes, the U.S. is shooting itself in the foot economically by failing to implement pesticide safety policies. This is because many other countries have already banned pesticides the U.S. does not, and will not accept imports of agricultural products bearing those pesticides’ residues. For example, U.S. cherry growers use dimethoate, a neurotoxic pesticide. France refused U.S. cherries for four years and then the EU set the maximum allowable dimethoate residue on imports to the detection limit, making it functionally impossible for U.S. cherries to be accepted. This cost U.S. growers an estimated $5 million. Some estimates put U.S. fruit growers’ export losses at $17 million per year owing to the EU’s pesticide residue limits.

What Is to Be Done?

The EU’s relative speed in regulating endocrine disruptors puts the EPA’s glacial pace in an even worse light. Still, in addition to the various lawsuits, there are other U.S. efforts to reform pesticide policy. Senate Bill 3283, the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act, was introduced in 2021 by Senator Cory Booker (although it has been languishing in committee). Congress could also ratify the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions, which regulate persistent organic pollutants and international trade in hazardous chemicals, respectively. Additionally, the U.S. could establish dramatic transition goals to eliminate endocrine disruptors in land management, which is required under the USDA organic seal of the Organic Foods Production Act. While U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has announced increased support for organic, the funds behind the rhetoric fall far short of what is needed to meet the current health crisis (including the impact of endocrine disruptors), dramatic biodiversity decline, and the climate emergency.

Concrete actions at the personal, local and regional levels may make a more effective and less frustrating difference. An organic diet can rapidly reduce the body burden of many pesticides, especially for children. Beyond Pesticides has partnered with activists and organic producers to support pollinators and reduce pesticide use, such as cosponsoring the Ladybug Pledge. Many communities are now following the “No Mow May” movement to leave lawns and gardens alone while bumblebees and other native insects establish themselves in the early spring. Eliminating reliance on endocrine disruptors and all toxic pesticides and fertilizers is possible in communities through Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program, which helps towns/cities/counties transition their parks, playing fields, and open space to organic land management.

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

Source: Directorate-General for Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2023) The sheer number of different chemicals in the nation’s waterways and thus potential for toxic mixtures presents significant risks to health and the environment. However, the range of pesticides and the widespread contamination across the country would not be as fully uncovered without the work of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Research conducted by USGS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on urban runoff across the country in 2019 found 215 of 438 sampled toxic compounds present in the water.

The toxic soup in many U.S. waterways is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage. The data on water contamination has become one of the compelling reasons to abandon reliance on toxic chemicals in favor of organic land management to eliminate these threats.

Tell Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland to expand USGS mapping of pesticide use and monitoring of waterways. Tell EPA Administrator Michael Regan that pesticides shown to contaminate rivers and streams must be banned.

The USGS Water Resources Mission Area (WMA) researches pesticide use, trends in pesticide occurrence in streams, concentrations of pesticides in water of potential human health concern, pesticide toxicity to aquatic organisms, pesticides and stream ecology, and pesticides and lake sediment. While agricultural practices appear to correlate with peaking pesticide contamination during the growing season, urban runoff represents a larger overall proportion of the contamination flowing into waterways. With little to no natural soil to filter contamination, and impervious surfaces creating massive outflows of polluted water, this finding is unsurprising.

A recent USGS study shows that waterways that flow into the Great Lakes are experiencing year-round pesticide contamination that exceeds benchmarks meant to protect aquatic life. This is only one of many studies based on USGS monitoring of 110 stream and river sites, combined with mapping of annual agricultural chemical use. Other recent studies by USGS have found that dozens of pesticides are consistently found in midwestern streams; 88 percent of water samples in U.S. rivers and streams contain at least five or more different pesticides; 41% of public water supply wells are contaminated with pesticides or their degradates; and degradation of rivers from pesticide pollution continues unabated.

The studies relating pesticide use and contamination of waterways should be used by the EPA in pesticide registration decisions. “What you use makes it into the water,” Sam Oliver, PhD, coauthor of the most recent study, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As important as the existing monitoring network is, a joint study by USGS and EPA shows that it underestimates the problem—more frequent sampling detects twice as many pesticides, at higher concentrations.

Tell Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland to expand USGS mapping of pesticide use and monitoring of waterways. Tell EPA Administrator Michael Regan that pesticides shown to contaminate rivers and streams must be banned.

Letter to U.S. Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland

A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that waterways that flow into the Great Lakes are experiencing year-round pesticide contamination that exceeds benchmarks meant to protect aquatic life. This is only one of many studies based on USGS monitoring of 110 stream and river sites, combined with mapping of annual agricultural chemical use. Other recent studies by USGS have found that dozens of pesticides are consistently found in midwestern streams; 88 percent of water samples in U.S. rivers and streams contain at least five or more different pesticides; 41% of public water supply wells are contaminated with pesticides or their degradates; and degradation of rivers from pesticide pollution continues unabated.

The studies relating pesticide use and contamination of waterways should be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in pesticide registration decisions. “What you use makes it into the water,” Sam Oliver, PhD, coauthor of the most recent study, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As important as the existing monitoring network is, a joint study by USGS and EPA shows that it underestimates the problem—more frequent sampling detects twice as many pesticides, at higher concentrations.

The USGS Water Resources Mission Area (WMA) researches pesticide use, trends in pesticide occurrence in streams, concentrations of pesticides in water of potential human health concern, pesticide toxicity to aquatic organisms, pesticides and stream ecology, and pesticides and lake sediment. While agricultural practices appear to correlate with peaking pesticide contamination during the growing season, urban runoff represents a larger overall proportion of the contamination flowing into waterways. With little to no natural soil to filter contamination, and impervious surfaces creating massive outflows of polluted water, this finding is unsurprising. Research conducted by USGS and EPA on urban runoff across the country in 2019 found 215 of 438 sampled toxic compounds present in the water. The sheer number of different chemicals and thus potential for even more toxic mixtures presents significant risks to health and the environment.  

The toxic soup in many U.S. waterways is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage. The data on water contamination has become one of the compelling reasons to abandon reliance on toxic chemicals in favor of organic land management to eliminate these threats.

Scientific research by USGS is essential to evaluating the impacts of pesticides and must be included in EPA’s pesticide registration decisions. I urge you to increase USGS research into pesticide use and impacts.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Michael Regan

A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that waterways that flow into the Great Lakes are experiencing year-round pesticide contamination that exceeds benchmarks meant to protect aquatic life. This is only one of many studies based on USGS monitoring of 110 stream and river sites, combined with mapping of annual agricultural chemical use. Other recent studies by USGS have found that dozens of pesticides are consistently found in midwestern streams; 88 percent of water samples in U.S. rivers and streams contain at least five or more different pesticides; 41% of public water supply wells are contaminated with pesticides or their degradates; and degradation of rivers from pesticide pollution continues unabated.

The studies relating pesticide use and contamination of waterways should be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in pesticide registration decisions. “What you use makes it into the water,” Sam Oliver, PhD, coauthor of the most recent study, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As important as the existing monitoring network is, a joint study by USGS and EPA shows that it underestimates the problem—more frequent sampling detects twice as many pesticides, at higher concentrations.

The USGS Water Resources Mission Area (WMA) researches pesticide use, trends in pesticide occurrence in streams, concentrations of pesticides in water of potential human health concern, pesticide toxicity to aquatic organisms, pesticides and stream ecology, and pesticides and lake sediment. While agricultural practices appear to correlate with peaking pesticide contamination during the growing season, urban runoff represents a larger overall proportion of the contamination flowing into waterways. With little to no natural soil to filter contamination, and impervious surfaces creating massive outflows of polluted water, this finding is unsurprising. Research conducted by USGS and EPA on urban runoff across the country in 2019 found 215 of 438 sampled toxic compounds present in the water. The sheer number of different chemicals and thus potential for even more toxic mixtures presents significant risks to health and the environment.  

The toxic soup in many U.S. waterways is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage. The data on water contamination has become one of the compelling reasons to abandon reliance on toxic chemicals in favor of organic land management to eliminate these threats.

Scientific research by USGS is essential to evaluating the impacts of pesticides and must be included in EPA’s pesticide registration decisions. EPA must not register toxic chemicals that pollute waterways and groundwater. No contamination is reasonable under federal pesticide law, given the availability of cost-effective alternative practices and products certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators

A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that waterways that flow into the Great Lakes are experiencing year-round pesticide contamination that exceeds benchmarks meant to protect aquatic life. This is only one of many studies based on USGS monitoring of 110 stream and river sites, combined with mapping of annual agricultural chemical use. Other recent studies by USGS have found that dozens of pesticides are consistently found in midwestern streams; 88 percent of water samples in U.S. rivers and streams contain at least five or more different pesticides; 41% of public water supply wells are contaminated with pesticides or their degradates; and degradation of rivers from pesticide pollution continues unabated.

The studies relating pesticide use and contamination of waterways should be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in pesticide registration decisions. “What you use makes it into the water,” Sam Oliver, PhD, coauthor of the most recent study, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As important as the existing monitoring network is, a joint study by USGS and EPA shows that it underestimates the problem—more frequent sampling detects twice as many pesticides, at higher concentrations.

The USGS Water Resources Mission Area (WMA) researches pesticide use, trends in pesticide occurrence in streams, concentrations of pesticides in water of potential human health concern, pesticide toxicity to aquatic organisms, pesticides and stream ecology, and pesticides and lake sediment. While agricultural practices appear to correlate with peaking pesticide contamination during the growing season, urban runoff represents a larger overall proportion of the contamination flowing into waterways. With little to no natural soil to filter contamination, and impervious surfaces creating massive outflows of polluted water, this finding is unsurprising. Research conducted by USGS and EPA on urban runoff across the country in 2019 found 215 of 438 sampled toxic compounds present in the water. The sheer number of different chemicals and thus potential for even more toxic mixtures presents significant risks to health and the environment.  

The toxic soup in many U.S. waterways is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage. The data on water contamination has become one of the compelling reasons to abandon reliance on toxic chemicals in favor of organic land management to eliminate these threats.

Scientific research by USGS is essential to evaluating the impacts of pesticides and must be included in EPA’s pesticide registration decisions. USGS needs your continued support to elevate its role in uncovering and documenting the contamination caused by registered pesticide use. In addition, please urge EPA to cancel pesticides that pollute waterways and groundwater. No contamination is reasonable under federal pesticide law, given the availability of cost-effective alternative practices and products certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 28, 2023) A study published in Science of The Total Environment finds agricultural communities encounter chronic and measurable pesticide exposure regardless of seasonal pesticide applications. Several biomonitoring studies demonstrate people living adjacent to or within agricultural areas often experience elevated levels of organophosphate (OP) insecticides, even while not working directly with OPs. Six dialkyl phosphate (DAP) metabolites (breakdown products) of OPs persist in urine during the spraying and non-spraying seasons. Despite 75 percent of OPs metabolizing into one or more of the six DAPs and excreting within six to 24 hours after exposure, the consistent levels of DAPs in urine highlight continuous exposure beyond regular seasonal pesticide applications.

OP compounds have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. OPs are highly toxic and, as this study shows, residues are consistently present in human and animal urine, as well as blood, tissues, and milk. Considering 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide compound in their body, primarily stemming from dietary exposure, including food and drinking water, advocates maintain that current restrictions on their use must adequately detect and assess total chemical contaminants. The study notes, “We suggest that among agricultural communities that experience chronic exposure to nearby pesticide applications, OPs may persist in indoor and outdoor environments. The results of the current analysis provide additional evidence to suggest that residents of agricultural communities experience OP exposure even when [a] recent application has not occurred.”

Researchers gathered data from agricultural community members in the Central Valley of California to determine important factors associated with urinary DAPs levels among these high-exposure communities. The cohort included 80 children and adults who lived within 61 m (200 ft) of agricultural fields in the Central Valley of California in January (pesticide non-spraying season) and June (pesticide spraying season) 2019. The researchers collected one urine sample per participant during each visit to measure DAP metabolites. Additionally, researchers gathered supplementary data with in-person surveys to identify health, household, sociodemographic, pesticide exposure, and occupational risk factors. Using a data-driven, best-subsets regression approach, researchers identified key factors that influence urinary DAP levels.

The results find those with seasonal employment, likely to be in agriculture, have higher DAPs concentration in urine than those who do not work seasonally. However, the subset regression identifies numerous individual- and household-level factors that influence total DAPs: “the number of years spent living at the current address, household use of chemical products to control mice/rodents, and seasonal employment status.” Among adults, those with education on pesticide exposure mitigation and age are significant factors associated with total DAPs in urine. Among adults only, the study identifies educational attainment (for total DAPs) and age category (for EDM) as significant factors.

Numerous occupational hazards are associated with chemical exposure, especially among individuals with occupations that involve regular exposure to xenobiotic (foreign substance) compounds. The agricultural sector has a long-standing history of synthetic chemical use, which disproportionally affects farmworkers‘ health. Furthermore, farmworkers’ children are at greater risk as their immune system response is immature and especially vulnerable to stressors from pesticide exposure. Synthetic chemicals in pesticides can accumulate in bodies, causing an amalgamation of health effects. These effects can range from heightened risks of various cancers (e.g., prostate, hepatic, liver, etc.) and endocrine disruption to mental health problems (e.g., depression), respiratory illnesses (asthma), and many other pesticide-induced diseases. However, pesticide exposure is ubiquitous and not confined to where it is applied. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals can enter homes from the workplace via clothes, shoes, and home-based personal protective equipment (PPE) and accumulate residues on laundry, on carpets, and in art/house dust. Some cases demonstrate that levels of chemicals transported into the house can be high enough to cause an adverse health effect in a resident child or spouse. Although pesticide exposure through the skin or inhalation is most prevalent among individuals working around these toxic chemicals, the general population also experiences pesticide exposure through residues in food and water resources. Many of these chemical compounds remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. The increasing ubiquity of pesticides concerns public health advocates as current measures safeguarding against pesticide use do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. Therefore, individuals will continuously encounter varying concentrations of pesticides and other toxic chemicals, adding to the body’s burden of current-use chemicals.

Organophosphate (OP) insecticide use is widespread, while the industry promotes the chemicals as having greater efficiency and lesser environmental persistence. However, OPs are a class of insecticides known to have adverse effects on the nervous system, having the same mode of action as nerve agents for chemical warfare. OPs originate from the same compounds as World War II nerve agents, adversely affecting the nervous system. Chemical exposure can cause a buildup of acetylcholine (a chemical neurotransmitter responsible for brain and muscle function) and lead to acute impacts, such as uncontrolled, rapid twitching of some muscles, paralyzed breathing, convulsions, and, in extreme cases, death. The compromise of nerve impulse transmission can have broad systemic impacts on the function of multiple body systems. In addition to being highly toxic to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, human exposure to organophosphates can induce endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, fetal defects, neurotoxic damage, and kidney/liver damage. Exposure can increase vulnerability to deadly diseases, including COVID-19. Furthermore, OPs are one of the leading causes of intentional poisoning globally, as pesticide toxicity makes them potentially lethal substances.

Urinary OP biomarker levels did not vary, and the risk was the same throughout all seasons. OP metabolites are typically excreted in the urine within a 6- to 24-hour period, so the study concludes that participants who had detectable levels of urinary DAPs had a recent exposure to OPs, regardless of seasonal spraying. There are other more prominent sources of OP contamination. For instance, diet accounts for a considerable proportion of people’s exposures to pesticides in the U.S.; 2016 data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) show that 47% of domestically produced foods and 49% of imported foods had detectable pesticide residues. A number of studies point to organics as protective as studies confirm that urinary DAP levels reduce after a week-long shift to an organic diet; a 2015 study that found that adults who consumed organic produce had lower urinary levels of organophosphate residues (as detected via levels of DAPs); and another in 2015 that concluded that a switch to an organic diet reduced the body burden of pesticides in children, especially in low-income urban, marginalized, and agricultural communities. Considering this study finds urinary OP metabolites among children and household dust OP levels increase as residential distance to orchards decreases, the study identifies important factors that influence pesticide exposure among agricultural communities. Given proximity to applications, take-home exposure from occupational workers, and residual environmental exposures, a majority of pesticide exposure disproportionately burdens Hispanic/Latino(a) communities, which contain most of the population in the study area. However, the study suggests future research establishes exposure routes that put agricultural communities, and others at risk.

The study concludes, “We suggest that future research should explore more refined exposure assessment methods to evaluate unique routes of exposure (i.e., inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact). These efforts will support strong epidemiologic research to identify health impacts of OPs. Findings may also support community education about effective and personalized exposure mitigation strategies for agricultural community members to promote environmental justice.”

Although most OP uses in the U.S. are now agricultural, toxicity experts recommend banning all OPs for agricultural use. EPA and the World Health Organization (WHO) consider over 40 OPs that are moderately or highly hazardous to human health. EPA classifies as probable carcinogens some commonly used OPs like malathion, a popular mosquito control, and tetrachlorvinphos, a common flea and tick killer in pet collars and shampoos. States, including Hawaii, California, New York, and Maryland, had already adopted plans to phase out uses of the OP chlorpyrifos, to different degrees, in agriculture following evidence of neurotoxic effects on children. EPA announced the cancellation of all chlorpyrifos food production uses in the U.S., as chemical contamination among the general population remained considerable even after implementing residential use restrictions over two decades ago. However, even with the agency announcement of agricultural use cancellations, chlorpyrifos will still remain available for golf courses and as mosquito adulticide.

The pesticide marketplaces still contain many chemicals that cause similar endocrine-disrupting, cancer-causing, neurotoxic health effects. Additionally, imported goods can still contain chemical residues as chlorpyrifos residues do not disappear immediately after end-use and will persist in our environment for quite some time.

Therefore, policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the many harms of pesticides on health, see PIDD pages on body burdens (urine and other compartments), endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Learn more about how inadequate pesticide use regulations, including organophosphates, can adversely affect human and environmental health; see Beyond Pesticides,’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Spring is here, so grow your spring garden the organic way by Springing Into Action, pledging to eliminate toxic pesticide use.

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

Source: Science of The Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, April 27, 2023) The Nevada Assembly, by unanimous vote, took the state one step closer to banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides used on plants, with a waiver for commercial agricultural purposes. Despite dramatic declines in bee populations linked to neonicotinoid pesticides and other toxic pesticides, the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) and state regulatory authorities have for the most part ignored beekeepers and the independent scientific literature by allowing widespread toxic pesticide use—forcing elected officials to take protective action. Portions of the bill would take effect upon passage or no later than January 1, 2024. Maine and New Jersey have adopted similar legislation.

The failure to adequately regulate pesticides under federal law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and EPA inaction is viewed by environmentalists as the shocking disregard for the importance of biodiversity to sustaining life. The inadequate restriction of pesticides and slower than necessary transition to organic land management practices are viewed as major contributors to the “insect apocalypse.” The legislation (A.B. 162), led by Assemblywoman Michelle Gorelow and a group of nine other Assemblymembers, illustrates a growing trend of local and state legislative bodies asserting their authority to protect against health, biodiversity, and climate crises, linked to petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, that are escalating out-of-control to devastating levels—with the U.S. Congress and federal agencies standing silent.

“We applaud the Nevada Assembly’s initiative to protect pollinators and urge elected officials nationwide to see the pending biodiversity collapse as reason for broader action to eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers with organic systems that are effective and cost competitive,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

A systematic review of insect population studies worldwide in Biological Conservation magazine (2019) reports on “the dreadful state of insect biodiversity in the world, as almost half of the species are rapidly declining and a third are being threatened with extinction.” The study concludes with the dire prediction that insects as a whole will go extinct in the next few decades if patterns of pesticide use and other factors continue. Many systemic pesticides, like neonicotinoids are taken up by the vascular system of the plant and expressed through pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets, causing indiscriminate poisoning and death to pollinating and foraging insects, including bees, butterflies, and birds. The chemicals also move through soil, killing terrestrial and aquatic organisms.

The complexity of pesticide hazards is captured in a statement by biology professor Matthew Forister, PhD, University of Nevada (Reno), who told the Natural Resources Nevada Assembly Committee: “[T]he extreme and prolonged droughts of recent decades are reducing the densities of beneficial insects in . . .open lands. This new reality elevates the importance of all decisions that we make about managed lands, and chief among these decisions is the use of pesticides.”

As is typical, pesticides often cause a mixture of environmental and public health effects. According to Drew Toher, community resource and policy director, Beyond Pesticides, “Emerging data shows neonicotinoids can act as hormone disruptors, increasing the risk of breast cancer; they can readily transfer from mother to fetus through the placenta, increasing risk of birth defects; they are associated with liver damage, and neurological impacts like memory loss.”

The Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club said, “The good news is that there are many safe alternatives to using neonicotinoid pesticides. If we switch to these safer methods, we could save the pollinators, other animals, and improve human health.”

The New York State Assembly passed a similar bill (A03226), the Birds and Bees Protection Act. The Act bans neonicotinoid use on outdoor ornamental plants and turf, with a general exemption for agriculture except for treated seed. The bill, opposed by the New York Farm Bureau, contains a ban on seeds treated with neonicotinoids, but includes an “emergency” override by the State Commissioner of Agriculture, based on a written determination that (i) a valid environmental emergency exists; (ii) the pesticide would be effective in addressing the environmental emergency; and (iii) no other, less harmful pesticide or pest management practice would be effective in addressing the environmental emergency. The bill would immediately ban chlothianidin or dinotefuran, leaving the most widely used neonicotinoid imidachloprid, as well as thiamethoxam or acetamiprid, on the market until July 1, 2025.

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

Sources: A.B. 162; Beyond Pesticides’ Nevada testimony; statement of Dr. Forister; Statement of Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Cub; Birds and Bees Protection Act..

(Beyond Pesticides, April 26, 2023) Organic methods of honey bee management are just as or more effective than conventional, chemical-intensive management systems, according to research published this month in the journal Scientific Reports by a team of Penn State scientists. This finding is important as managed pollinators continue to be under stress primarily from pesticide exposure, but also other factors, such as disease, pests, climate change, and habitat loss. In this context, beekeeping management practices can mean the difference between a colony thriving, surviving, or declining.

“Beekeeping management is a key aspect of honey bee health because it can help mitigate some of the negative effects caused by these stressors,” said study co-author Robyn Underwood, PhD, of Penn State Extension. “For example, supplemental feeding can mitigate a lack of flowering plants nearby for foraging, and beekeepers can manage pests such as Varroa mites with cultural, mechanical and chemical control practices.”

Scientists developed protocols to test different beekeeping management systems through participatory science. Thirty beekeepers were invited to work with scientists using protocols on experimental design, applying three different management approaches: i) conventional chemical; ii) organic; and iii) management without inputs. “We wanted to replicate what beekeepers were doing in their bee yards,” study coauthor Margarita López-Uribe, PhD, said. “It wasn’t scientists just telling beekeepers how to do things—it was beekeepers telling us how they do things, and then we collected data over multiple years comparing the different systems.”

The experiment worked with eight certified organic farms in the Pennsylvania and West Virginia region, establishing 288 different colonies, with each farm housing 36 colonies. All colonies were established from packaged bees. Scientists worked to homogenize the genetic background of the colonies by requeening all colonies with grafted sister queens from a colony located near Utica, NY that had not received varroa treatments for seven years or more.

Management approaches differed based on the approach. Conventionally managed colonies had screened bottom boards, and were treated each fall with the miticide Apivar, containing the conventional chemical amitraz. They were given candy boards over winter in January.

Organic colonies contained solid bottom boards, and were treated with a rotation of organic-approved materials. Combs designed specifically to rear drones (and subsequently be removed to address Varroa) were employed, and over winter rations included granulated sucrose provided in January.

Colonies without inputs utilized a smaller cell foundation than the other two colonies (4.9mm vs 5.4 mm), used solid bottom boards, a cotton cloth inner cover, and were not treated for mites or given over winter food unless there was evidence of hive starvation.

Colonies were inspected every two weeks in 2018 and 2019, and every three weeks in 2020 due to the pandemic. Pests and pathogens were counted in October of each year, screening for a range of honey bee diseases. Scientists also looked at gene biomarkers corresponding to honey bee health.

Beekeeping methods without inputs were unable to maintain strong colonies over the course of the experiment. Out of the 96 colonies assigned to each management system, only 1 single colony remained by the end of the study. While conventional chemically managed colonies had 29 survive, the organic system enabled the greatest survival, with 38 colonies at the end of the experiment.

In addition to survival, organic and conventional methods provided for more total honey production than the no-input system. Both organic and conventional systems also adequately addressed pests and diseases. Mites were found in 92% of hives, and organic was able to effectively match chemical management in reductions – by 72% in organic to 78% in conventional, relative to the chemical-free system. Chemical-free colonies consistently had the highest level of varroa, averaging 4.5 mites per 100 bees. This trend held with other diseases, such as deformed wing virus and Nosema. Despite the overall success of systems that treated bees, input-free management did result in higher gene expressions corresponding to honey bee health.  

In sum, given the similarities in outcomes between conventional chemical and organic approaches to beekeeping, the authors conclude that organic represents an effective, sustainable method that improves colony health. “Taken altogether, these results suggest that not only is the organic system suitable for a sustainable beekeeping industry but that the use of threshold-based criteria for the application of organic miticides can have positive effects on colony health,” the study reads.

The failure of input-free system appears to be a result of heavy pest pressure experienced with beekeeping in the modern era, and it is evident that more research and development is needed to adequately manage the scourge of varroa with completely non-pesticidal interventions.  

Despite the success of organic methods, beekeepers utilizing these techniques are unable to label their honey as organic certified. Organic certified honey, under current USDA regulations, must be able to maintain a guaranteed 3km (1.8 mile) radius around colonies where no pesticide spray is used. Currently, this is only possible in remote locations, and why many organic consumers can only find certified organic honey from foreign countries like Brazil. “Our future research about the landscape and foraging should help us to inform changes in the standards for certification to decrease the required radius of ‘clean’ forage, assuming our hypotheses are supported,” said Dr. Underwood. For more information on organic beekeeping methods, see Penn State’s publication “An Organic Management System for Honey Bees.”

With honey bees and other pollinators under constant stress from pesticides, parasites, pathogens, climate change, and habitat destruction, it is critical that we all take what actions we can to protect these critical species. See Beyond Pesticides recent Earth Day 2023 post for activities you can take to proactively benefit pollinators and other wildlife.

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

Source:Penn State, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, April 25, 2023) Today, Beyond Pesticides released a special issue, Transformative Change: Informed by Science, Policy, and Action of its journal, Pesticides and You, with a compendium of “shocking scientific findings that compel us to act in our communities, states, and as a nation and world community.” The 168-page issue documents the last year of scientific, peer-reviewed articles, policy deficiencies, and action for change that intersect not only with petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, but with existential health crises, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency.

Included in the issue of reviews of published articles spanning three categories—health, biodiversity, and climate. They include:

Human Health Threats: Children’s health—Motor skill deficiency; Respiratory disease; Prenatal exposure and ear infections; Oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cancer; Pediatric cancer; Childhood diabetes; Developmental delays; Biomonitoring of pregnant women; Kidney cancer; Early onset puberty; Autism; Gut microbiome—Disinfectant/antimicrobial and inflammatory bowel disease; Metabolic distress; General—Parkinson’s disease; Farm exposure and effects; Multigenerational effects and cancer; Environmental injustice: Disproportionate exposure and impacts; Post-hurricane water contamination; Global pesticide hazard footprint; Military exposure hazard: Gulf War illness; Male infertility; Alzheimer’s/Neurodegenerative disease; Thyroid cancer; Endocrine disruption; Hazardous inert ingredients underregulated; Covid: Elevated disinfectant hazards.

Biodiversity: Insect decline; Biodiversity collapse; Bee gut microbiome; Honey bee susceptibility to pathogens; Pollination disturbed; International warning; Ecosystem services; Benefits of nature; Inerts harm pollinators; Multigenerational effects to birds; Aquatic ecosystem threatened; Contaminated sediment; Weed killer destroys soil life; Tree spraying destroys biological control; Antibiotic/Antifungal resistance; Glyphosate induces antibiotic resistance; Monarchs threatened by store-bought plants; Greenhouse gas from house fumigation; Chemical no-till contributes to climate crisis; Soil management, carbon sequestration, organic.

Climate: Greenhouse gas from house fumigation; Chemical no-till contributes to climate crisis; Sulfuryl fluoride ban petitioned; Soil management carbon sequestration, and organic. [The pieces cited in this issue are supplemented by the Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.]

Failed policies reviewed in this publication include: widespread PFAS contamination; subsidies drive environmental collapse; continued use of neurotoxic organophosphate insecticides and deadly wood preservatives; and efforts in Congress to further weaken federal pesticide law and codify a prohibition of local authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than state and federal law.

In addition, this issue cites current actions in communities that chart a course for a livable future, including: local ordinances that ban toxic pesticides and fertilizers; European Union (EU) bans park pesticides; compost outperforms fertilizers; organic food in schools; and state laws that increase protections for pollinators.                  

Beyond Pesticides cites this collection of pieces in Transformative Change as foundational in demonstrating the vital need for a transformation to land and building management systems that align with nature and, at the same time, are more effective and efficient at producing food while contributing to quality of life.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, writes in the publication’s introduction, “The transformative solution is a partnership with nature, practices that have been adopted in organic systems. With this approach, we honor all organisms who play a role in ecological systems on which life depends and we seek the rapid adoption of those practices and materials that are already available to us or can be incentivized to become widely available quickly.”

An electronic version of the issue with links to citations can be found at bp-dc.org/transformativechange.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2023) It is well-known that trees and other plants help fight climate change by sequestering carbon in their wood and roots—especially when they are allowed to grow continuously. However, plants help in other ways as well. 

Plants—especially trees—also moderate the climate through their participation in the water cycle. And when the weather is hot and dry, they hold the soil, preventing dust bowl conditions. In the 1930’s, the U.S. Forest Service, Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Works Progress Administration, together with local farmers, planted more than 220 million trees, developing 18,000 miles of windbreaks on the Great Plains. Unfortunately, those windbreaks are now endangered by the same economic impetus that helped create the Dust Bowl—making more room for economically valuable crops. 

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to address climate change in the Farm Bill by incorporating a large-scale, national transition to certified organic agriculture and restoration and resilience strategies that prohibit the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. Tell Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack to implement the NOSB recommendation to remove incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic farms.   

Organic farming helps resist climate change in several ways. Regenerative organic farming sequesters carbon in the soil. Organic farming does not rely on synthetic fertilizers that release nitrous oxide, which is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Finally, organic producers are required to conserve biodiversity, which involves preserving elements of natural ecosystems. Unfortunately, however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has yet to implement the recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to remove incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic farms. 

Dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, which addressed threats posed by the Great Depression and drought, the Farm Bill is an omnibus bill passed every five years. It is designed to secure a sufficient food supply, establish fair food prices for both farmers and consumers, and protect the soil and other natural resources on which farmers depend. Although the Farm Bill now covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—over its history, conservation has been a major concern addressed in the bill. This year, incorporating climate-friendly provisions is more urgent than ever. 

Moving forward: 

• Congress must incorporate into the Farm Bill support for a national transition to organic farming, incentives to build soil health and eliminate dependence on petrochemical inputs, disincentives for removing trees and native vegetation, and incentives to plant hedgerows and shelterbelts.
• USDA must implement the NOSB recommendation to remove incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic farms. Currently, organic farmers transitioning from nonorganic practices must wait three years before selling products as organic, while farmers who bulldoze forests can sell organic products immediately. 

U.S. Representatives and Senators are developing bills for incorporation in the Farm Bill. So far, the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA) includes the provisions and investments to ensure the long-term viability of our farms and food system, and the Protect the West Act calls for a $60 billion investment in the region’s forests, grasslands, and watersheds, with the aim of preventing another Dust Bowl. These bills are not perfect—the ARA avoids mentioning organic agriculture, and the Protect the West Act advances “restoration and resilience,” but contains unqualified support for control of invasive species without mandating restrictions on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.

Needless to say, without these critical restrictions, we will see ongoing and increasing dependency on toxic chemicals that contribute to health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency. We must advocate with those ready to consider a Farm Bill that addresses climate change clear stipulations to eliminate use of fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers.

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to address climate change in the Farm Bill by incorporating a large-scale, national transition to certified organic agriculture and restoration and resilience strategies that prohibit the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. Tell Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack to implement the NOSB recommendation to remove incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic farms. 

Action targets are the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

Agriculture both contributes to climate change and suffers from its impacts. As the 2023 Farm Bill is developed, it is important that it contain provisions to mitigate climate change and adopt restoration and resilience strategies prohibiting the use of petrochemicals—with dramatically increased support for conversion to organic land management and strict protection of native ecosystems.

Although trees and other plants help fight climate change by sequestering carbon in their tissues, they help in other ways as well.

Plants—especially trees—also moderate the climate through their participation in the water cycle. And when the weather is hot and dry, they hold the soil, preventing dust bowl conditions. In the 1930’s, 18,000 miles of windbreaks were planted on the Great Plains. Unfortunately, those windbreaks are now endangered by the same economic impetus that helped create the Dust Bowl—making more room for economically valuable crops.

Organic farming helps resist climate change by sequestering carbon in the soil;, eliminating reliance on synthetic fertilizers that release nitrous oxide (300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas); and conserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems. Unfortunately, however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has yet to implement the recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to remove incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic farms. Currently, organic farmers transitioning from nonorganic practices must wait three years before selling products as organic, while farmers who bulldoze forests can sell organic products immediately.

Dating back to the New Deal of the 1930s, which addressed threats posed by the Great Depression and drought, the Farm Bill is an omnibus bill passed every five years. It now covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—but conservation has always been a of major importance in the bill. This year, incorporating climate-friendly provisions is more urgent than ever.

Congress must incorporate into the Farm Bill support for a national transition to organic farming, incentives to build soil health and reduce farm use of petrochemical inputs, disincentives for removing trees and native vegetation, and incentives to plant hedgerows and shelterbelts.

Some bills developed for incorporation in the Farm Bill address issues affecting climate. The Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA) includes provisions and investments to ensure the long-term viability of our farms and food system; the Protect the West Act calls for a $60 billion investment in the region’s forests, grasslands, and watersheds, with the aim of preventing another Dust Bowl. These bills are not perfect—the ARA avoids mentioning organic agriculture, and the Protect the West Act advances “restoration and resilience,” but contains unqualified support for control of invasive species without mandating restrictions on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that are critical to reduce dependency on toxic chemicals that contribute to health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency.

As you consider a Farm Bill that addresses climate change, please establish clear requirements to eliminate use of fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers in any provisions advancing important restoration and resilience practices.

Please advocate for a Farm Bill that promotes a large-scale, national transition to certified organic farming (which contains incentives to build soil health and eliminates dependence on petrochemical inputs) and includes disincentives for removing trees and native vegetation and incentives to plant hedgerows and shelterbelts.

Please tell USDA to implement the NOSB recommendation to remove incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic farms.

Thank you.

Letter to Secretary Vilsack:

In 2018, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted nearly unanimously to protect native ecosystems. It sought to change the current perverse regulation that incentivizes the immediate destruction of native ecosystems and conversion to organic production as a cheaper and faster option than transitioning existing conventional farmland over a three-year period. It is now time for the National Organic Program (NOP) to take action to protect the integrity of the seal and help reverse the biodiversity crisis and reduce global warming.

Protecting native ecosystems slows climate change, something the Biden Administration and organic consumers care deeply about, but NOP regulations will continue to contribute to the problem until the NOP makes this regulatory change. Native ecosystems store carbon in woody plants, in the soil’s duff layer and its deeper horizons. Native grassland and forest soils contain 20 to 50 tons of organic carbon per acre in about the top three feet of soil. When land is converted from a natural ecosystem to cropland, 30 to 50 percent of soil carbon is lost to the atmosphere over a 50-year period. Conversion of forests causes larger losses of carbon from woody biomass, especially if the land is burned before being cropped—up to 75 percent of organic carbon is lost in 25 years when a tropical forest is cleared. It also causes disruption of the water cycle that exacerbates climate change.

Destroying native ecosystems is more than a national issue; it is international. We are in the middle of a 6^th mass extinction. In the last 50 years, animal populations worldwide have declined by almost 70%. With this proposed regulation, the NOP can address biodiversity loss and climate change, while maximizing co-benefits. Ecosystems help regulate floods, enhance water quality, reduce soil erosion, and ensure pollination and pest control. Overexploitation of natural resources has led to changes in climate and the biodiversity crisis, and the NOP needs to now be part of the solution.

The NOSB recommended that the National Organic Program (NOP) add the following definition to §205.200:

Native Ecosystems: Native ecosystems can be recognized in the field as retaining both dominant and characteristic plant species as described by established classifications of natural vegetation. These will tend to be on lands that have not been previously cultivated, cleared, drained or otherwise irrevocably altered. However, they could include areas that have recovered expected plant species and structure.

It also recommended that the NOP add the following language to §205.200 General:

(a) A site supporting a native ecosystem cannot be certified for organic production as provided for under this regulation for a period of 10 years from the date of conversion.

The recommended regulations allow native ecosystems to be used in organic production, including low-impact grazing, mushrooms, maple syrup production, and other kinds of wild crop harvesting.

Organic consumers are distressed to learn that the NOP rules incentivize native ecosystem destruction. Organic farmers do not think it is fair that this loophole allows immediate certification, when many have complied with a three-year requirement to transition conventional land. 

The Organic Farming Production Act (OFPA) states that the NOP must ensure standards are consistent throughout. NOP claims that it “conserve(s) biodiversity” and “ecological balance” over 300 different times on its website, while it incentivizes the conversion of native ecosystems to organic production. The NOP is charged with making sure the organic market stays strong, but it is undermining consumer confidence with its inaction.

Please immediately initiate rulemaking to remove the incentive to convert native ecosystems to organic farms.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 21, 2023) Into the annals of “entropic methods of agricultural pest control” arrives recent research showing that pests are, unsurprisingly, developing resistance to a genetically engineered (GE) biopesticide used for more than 90% of U.S. corn, cotton, and soybeans. Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is a naturally occurring bacterium; the versions deployed in conventional agriculture are engineered into Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) — GE ingredients “inserted” into seeds for multiple kinds of crop plants. These PIPs target multiple crop-destructive insect species, including (in larval form) the corn rootworm and cotton bollworm, in particular. Beyond Pesticides continues to warn that “controls,” whether synthetic chemical pesticides or GE “biological” agents (such as GE Bt) that target living things (e.g., pests and weeds) are not sustainable over time because — in addition to the harms they cause — the issue of resistance will ultimately thwart their efficacy.

There are two basic categories of genetic engineering employed in conventional agriculture. One technology transfers genetic material into seed to make plants tolerant of specific herbicide compounds that will be applied after planting (for example, the infamous “Roundup Ready,” glyphosate-tolerant seeds and plants). The other comprises plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs), in which the genetic material introduced causes endogenous production of proteins harmful to particular insect pests. (See much more on Bt through the Beyond Pesticides Bt archive.)

As U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) explains in its coverage of a 2016 independent research study on the subject, “Crops engineered with Bt genes express specific proteins (known as Cry proteins) that make the crops toxic to specific insects — the plants effectively provide their own insecticide — [theoretically] reducing the need for chemical applications. . . . Th[is] research adds to evidence that after 20 years of use of crops engineered to tolerate herbicides and resist certain harmful insects, both technologies are losing effectiveness.”

Corn seed engineered with Bt was developed in 2003 by Monsanto and deployed to deal with the Western corn rootworm. EPA stepped in early on to require that producers using Bt products create so-called “refuge” areas — fields of specific size and proximity (to the Bt fields) that are planted without PIPs. These “refuge” areas aimed to ensure that breeding would occur between nonresistant rootworms from the untreated corn and resistant individuals that would emerge from the areas planted with Bt varieties. The theory is that such breeding would dilute the frequency of the genes that encode resistance and inhibit their inheritance in subsequent generations of rootworms.

This refuge tweak has largely failed, in part because of noncompliance. PIP manufacturers responded to that issue by creating a farmer-friendlier “refuge in a bag” system that allowed farmers to avoid setting aside some of their field areas as free of the Bt trait. How? By encouraging the spreading of uneven low doses of the Bt toxin to feeding insects throughout all their fields. Monsanto “‘touted refuge-in-a-bag’ as fast and convenient for farmers, allowing them to plant the specialized seed ‘fence row to fence row.’” In reality, the tactic catalyzed resistance in the insects over time. Progressive Farmer warned of this in 2012.

In addition, critics of EPA’s introduction of the “refuge” tactic noted that to be at all effective, the refuge areas needed to be much bigger than EPA required. In 2012, a study concluded that, “EPA should more than double the percentage of corn acres planted to mandated refuges to delay insect resistance.” (One investigator and co-author of that study was the same Bruce Tabashnik, PhD who was lead author on the subject study cited above.)

The increasing recognition of developing resistance to GE-Bt-as-PIP underscores several problems:

(1) all pesticides are ultimately doomed to fail because of the all-but-inevitable development of resistance in organisms (including weeds)

(2) the response of industry and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to resistance continues to be, respectively, doubling down on chemical approaches, and/or tweaking use parameters to try to rein in problematic impacts

(3) there are many Bt strains, some of which are permitted for pest management purposes in organic agriculture (in addition to the many GE insecticide versions); the increasing use of Bt in GE-plus-chemical agriculture — and the resulting uptick in resistance — represent a real threat to this useful tool for the organic sector

EPA acknowledges the resistance issue: “Like [with] most pesticides, insects are capable of developing resistance to Bt proteins. In Bt PIPs, this risk may be heightened by the fact that: 

• Bt proteins are expressed at high levels in most or all plant tissues
• the proteins are produced by the plant continually during the growing season (i.e., throughout the lifespan of the plant)
• some of the major target pests, such as European corn borer, corn rootworm, and pink bollworm, feed almost exclusively on corn or cotton

These factors can increase insect exposure to the controlling toxins (Bt protein) and hence, increase selection pressure for resistance. That means that if the toxin kills susceptible insects, those that survive and reproduce are more likely to be resistant to the toxin.”

The issue of resistance to Bt began to be noticed in 2008 in cotton bollworms — a mere five years after initial deployment of Bt products. The industry claim that genetic manipulation of plants would result in reduced pesticide use began to be exposed as false a decade ago. In 2013, The Wall Street Journal noted that, as resistance to Bt products began to ratchet up and corn rootworm damage surged, farmers returned with a vengeance to chemical insecticides — unraveling a central argument for the GE Bt strategy. (Beyond Pesticides wrote about typical industry response to resistance in 2019: “Manufacturer response is often either to find a new chemical, or to “double down” with combined-ingredient products that may be effective until the next wave of resistance develops.”)

A 2013 study published in PNAS (the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) concluded that, “The widespread planting of crops genetically engineered to produce insecticidal toxins derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) places intense selective pressure on pest populations to evolve resistance. . . . These [early] cases of resistance by western corn rootworm highlight the vulnerability of Bt maize to further evolution of resistance from this pest and, more broadly, point to the potential of insects to develop resistance rapidly.”

In 2020, EPA issued a draft proposal for ways to “improve” the problem of pest resistance for Bt PIPs in corn and cotton crops. The agency’s goal was to “prolong the durability of Bt PIPs from pests.” Zeroing in on the lack of meaningful changes in the proposal, Beyond Pesticides, led a group of nine other advocate organizations, commented on it: “The agency is proposing changes to three aspects of . . . insect resistance management that consist of new resistance definitions, increased resistance monitoring and mitigation efforts, and modified annual reporting to the agency. These changes do not address or impact the biology of pest populations developing resistance, but only the recognition and identification of such resistance [emphasis by Beyond Pesticides]. In addition to the above proposed framework changes, the agency is considering options to . . . increase percent of refuge in seed blend products, and change . . . refuge compliance measures. These options at best will only delay the development of more prevalent pest resistance to Bt toxins. . . . [W]e find that the proposed new resistance management framework . . . will do little to curb the trajectory in the increasing resistance.” (See draft comment here.)

In that same year, EPA also began considering a proposal to reduce, gradually, the use of some Bt corn and cotton products in an attempt to combat pest resistance. One tactic was a three-year “phasedown” to some unspecified “minimal acreage cap” of Bt products for corn. The agency also considered (again) increasing the ratio of non-Bt corn seeds in blends used in “refuge” areas, the aim being to slow resistance by allowing nonresistant insects to mate with resistant insects. The proposal received significant pushback from grower groups and the crop protection industry. The former is very accustomed to use of Bt PIPs and considers them still useful despite evidence that efficacy is time limited, given galloping resistance. The latter is looking to Hoover up profits from this technology for as long as it can.

The very human, and very unwise, tendency to think short term is on full display throughout the agrochemical and agro-biotech sectors, as well as at EPA. In 2020, Beyond Pesticides wrote: “Resistance to pesticides is nearly inevitable. Development of resistance is an entirely normal, adaptive phenomenon: organisms evolve, ‘exploiting’ beneficial genetic mutations that give them survival advantage. For nearly a century, human response to this has been primarily a chemical ‘chasing’ of such evolutionary changes — developing a compound that kills the offending organism (whether pest or weed or bacterium or fungus) for a while. Organisms nearly inevitably change to become resistant to that particular chemical assault, whereupon people — the chemical industry, researchers, applicators, farmers, public health workers, clinicians, et al. — have typically moved on to the next chemical ‘solution.’” To the “chemical” critique, “biotechnical” approaches can now readily be added.

Last year, Beyond Pesticides coverage of a study on emerging Crispr technology quoted Ethan Bier, PhD on that new technology. His comment is equally relevant in this Bt context, and underscores Beyond Pesticides’ perspective: “This is no silver bullet. You never win when you try to play the evolutionary game with insects.” We would add, “or with other living organisms.” Industry focus on, and EPA collusion with, the search for “silver bullets” without precautionary forethought to the issue of resistance is the Achilles heel of pesticide — and now biotech — dependence in conventional agriculture. These are eventually doomed to failure, and meanwhile, EPA continues to power the pesticide and GE treadmills.

Beyond Pesticides believes that consideration of (1) the incorporation into food crops of genes from a natural bacterium, such as Bt, (2) the development of herbicide-tolerant crops and their paired use with herbicides, such as Roundup Ready soybeans and glyphosate, and (3) the ongoing planetary assault by thousands of synthetic pesticide compounds leads to the conclusion that these GE and chemical approaches to agriculture and pest management are short sighted and dangerous, and as noted above, entropic by their very nature. At broad scale, they generate adverse environmental, human health, biodiversity, climate, and economic consequences; they also are undermining the use of Bt as a biological pest management tool in organic production. Regenerative organic approaches are the only genuinely sustainable practices, and are the linchpin of a thoughtful, future-conscious route forward for humankind.

Source: https://entomologytoday.org/2023/04/18/insect-resistance-transgenic-bt-crops-bacillus-thuringiensis/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 20, 2023) This Earth Day (Saturday, April 22, 2023), Beyond Pesticides urges individuals to spread awareness of the toxic pesticides that poison people and the environment and the safe alternatives that are available to safeguard communities and the surrounding environment. On Earth Day, reflecting on the beauty and wonder of the natural world highlights the importance of restoration and preservation to maintain the planet’s intricate web of life. However, the natural world on which life depends is under dire threat as the dependence on toxic chemicals (e.g., pesticides) enables ongoing environmental contamination.

Mechanized and industrial human activity perpetuates ongoing toxic chemical contamination, resulting in massive die-offs of beneficial organisms, increased rates of autoimmune diseases, endocrine disrupting and transgenerational chemical effects, and widespread pollution of our air and waterways. Beyond Pesticides, has the tools needed to increase environmental awareness in your community. Therefore, this Earth Day, Beyond Pesticides continues to advocate for the adoption of organic practices and policies that alleviate threats to ecosystems and enhance biodiversity. Michigan State University professor Thomas Dietz, Ph.D. highlights, “Continuing the successes of environmentalism—an integration of science, a concern with human well-being and justice, and a recognition of the need to consider facts, values, and uncertainty—is crucial for dealing with climate and other global environmental challenges.”

Share information about the chemicals entering our communities in the United States and around the world. Pesticides are pervasive in all ecosystems, soils, water (solid and liquid), and air, frequently at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. However, many people do not know what pesticides they encounter and the associated negative effects. It is critically important to make people aware of both the hazards associated with cosmetic lawn care pesticides and the availability of alternative practices and products. Of the 40 most commonly used lawn pesticides, 26 are possible and/or known carcinogens, 24 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system, 29 are linked to reproductive effects and sexual dysfunction, 21 have been linked to birth defects, 24 are neurotoxic, 32 can cause kidney or liver damage, and 33 are sensitizers and/or irritants. Of those same 40 lawn pesticides, 21 are detected in groundwater, 24 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 39 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 33 are toxic to bees, 18 are toxic to mammals, and 28 are toxic to birds. [Check out the Beyond Pesticides Infographic!]

Importantly, Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management provides information on the health and environmental effects of nearly 400 registered pesticide active ingredients. It is searchable by chemical name, product name, or health and environmental effects. The database is designed to provide decision and policymakers, practitioners, and activists with easier access to current and historical information on pesticide hazards and safe pest management, drawing on and linking to numerous sources and organizations that include information related to pesticide science, policy, and activism. As decision-makers and the community become educated, let us know of chemicals you think should be added to the Gateway to [email protected]  or the Story Submission page.

Discover how environmental exposure impacts human health. Ninty percent of Americans have at least one pesticide biomarker (including parent compound and breakdown products) in their body. The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse human health effects (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth abnormalities, neurotoxicity) and effects. Beyond Pesticides capture the scientific literature through the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, documenting elevated rates of chronic diseases among people exposed to pesticides, with increased numbers of studies associated with both specific illnesses and a range of diseases. Currently, the database is searchable for 1,300 scientific references relating to brain and nervous system disorders (e.g., Alzheimer’s, ALS, Parkinson’s), birth defects, cancer, endocrine dysfunction, learning and developmental disabilities, and sexual reproductive dysfunction, among others. With consistent updating, the database is a vital resource for individuals, organizations, and other institutions can refer to when discussing pesticide’s impact on human health. As you become educated, consider sending studies you think should be added to the database to [email protected] or the Story Submission page.

How Pesticides Impact Crucial Pollinator Species and Other Wildlife. The globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk. The impacts of pesticides on wildlife are extensive and expose animals in urban, suburban, and rural areas to unnecessary risks. Pesticides can affect animals through direct application or indirectly through drift, secondary poisoning, and runoff. Some animals could encounter direct spraying, while others may consume plants or prey contaminated with pesticides. However, the climate crisis adds another level of concern, especially regarding passive pesticide and microbial exposure from snowmelt. With the increasing rate of biodiversity loss, it is essential for government agencies around the globe to research how previous and ongoing use of pesticides can impact present-day species. Therefore, animals can act as sentinel species for chemical contamination, detecting risk to humans by exhibiting signs of environmental threat sooner than humans in the same environment. Unless more is done to address chemical pollution, humans will also continue to see similar declines in general health, fitness, and well-being. Learn more about how pesticides threaten wildlife and what you can do through Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife program page.

Exposure to pesticides can alter an organism’s behavior, impacting its ability to survive, reproduce, and provide necessary ecosystem services (e.g., pollination, soil fertility, population control, etc.). For instance, the United Nations states that 80 percent of the 115 top global food crops depend on insect pollination, with one-third of all U.S. crops depending on pollinators, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, research finds that many insect populations are in decline, including managed and wild pollinators. Monarchs are near extinction, and commercial beekeepers continue to experience declines that are putting them out of business. The continued loss of mayflies and fireflies disrupts the foundation of many food chains. Additionally, the decline in many bird species has links to insect declines. Since the 1970s, three billion birds have vanished.

However, a decade ago, Earth Day 2013 saw the launch of the BEE Protective campaign spearheaded by Beyond Pesticides and our friends at Center for Food Safety. This campaign continuously generates a tremendous outpouring of support through local action, social media, and information requests to Beyond Pesticides. New backyard beekeepers and gardeners are fostering local pollinator resilience and creating bee-friendly habitat that brings communities together and fuels the campaign to BEE Protective of pollinators. Pesticides pose an imminent threat to all aspects of biodiversity, including pollinators and numerous other beneficial species.

As we appreciate the Earth and all it provides on this Earth Day, we hope you will use our resources, take action, and educate others on the ways toxic chemicals jeopardize the complex natural processes on which we rely. Through the promotion and adoption of alternative systems like organic, we can work with the Earth’s natural systems to produce a safer, healthier world for all living species.

• Least-Toxic Control of Pests in and Around the Home and Garden.
  • ManageSafe
• Learn how to:
  • Maintain landscapes without toxic pesticides, 
  • Protect honeybees, and other pollinators from neonicotinoids and other insecticides, 
  • Protect aquatic species from pesticide run off, including endocrine disrupting chemicals,
  • Protect streams, lakes, and rivers we all depend on from the widespread use of harmful synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

Consider a food system that enhances, not harms, human and environmental health. Multiple studies have found that eating a conventional (nonorganic) diet will increase the presence of pesticides and their metabolites in an individual’s urine, including higher pesticide body burden from eating conventional foods. Additionally, children carry higher levels of the weed killer glyphosate and other toxic pesticides in their body. Many studies show that many common pesticides result in developmental problems in children, such as higher rates of ADHD. There is also strong evidence that organophosphate insecticides, still widely used on fruits and vegetables in the United States, are dropping children’s IQs on a national and global scale, costing billions to the economy in the form of lost brain power.

That’s why switching from a conventional to organic diet will drastically reduce the levels of pesticide in one’s body, with one week on organic food showing a 70% reduction in glyphosate in the body, according to one study. Socioeconomic factors play a large role in access to heathy organic foods, and the ability to provide the sort of environment that allows a child’s brain to flourish. But eating organic should not be a choice to make – all food should be grown with high quality standards that reject the use of brain-damaging pesticides and protect the wider environment. 

Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database is designed to help explain the urgent need for a major shift to organic food consumption. Those foods that are often referenced as “clean” commodities may be grown with hazardous pesticides that get into waterways and groundwater, contaminate nearby communities, poison farmworkers, and kill wildlife, while not all showing up at detectable or elevated levels on our food. Database users select an individual crop that will bring up a page that lists all of the pesticides that have registered tolerance (legal residue) allowances on that specific crop, from which we extrapolate use patterns. The database lists the human health (acute, and chronic effects) and environmental (surface water contaminant, ground water contaminant, wildlife poison, bee poison, long-range transport) effects linked to each pesticide.

• Affordable Organic: Buying and Growing Organic Produce.
  • Beyond Pesticides article on The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food.

Join Beyond Pesticides as the organization continues to push for that reality. See Beyond Pesticides’ Resources and sign up for our Action of the Week and Weekly News Update.

With Earth Day coming up, get ready to grow your spring garden the organic way by Springing Into Action, pledge to eliminate toxic pesticide use by signing the Ladybug Love Pledge and follow up with other actions that will make a difference.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2023) Crop diversification is effective at reducing pest abundance in growing climates across the globe, according to a meta-analysis published this month in the Journal of Applied Ecology. The meta-analysis, which includes a review 44 field studies from six continents, provides greater weight to approaches that work with natural processes, rather than those focused on human-made chemical sprays for pest management.

Within the studies reviewed, researchers aimed to understand the associational effects that resulted in either associational resistance (a decrease) or associational susceptibility (an increase) in insect herbivores on the primary crop being grown. Researchers reviewed a range of variables, comparing pest numbers in monocultures vs bicultures, evaluating whether the pest is a generalist or specialist, how it feeds (checking or piercing/sucking), its origin (native/non-native), as well as climate, crop type (only onions, brassicas, cotton, and cucurbits were evaluated), plot size, and the experimental design within each particular study.  

In sum, the review represents one of the most comprehensive evaluations of intercropping to date. And the results confirm the benefits many farmers and gardeners across the world have found anecdotally in their own plots. “Overall, intercropping proved to be very effective against pests, but it did vary based on the pest and their feed preferences,” said study coauthor Philip Hahn, PhD of University of Florida. “It also depended on crop type, with cabbage and squashes showing the strongest resistance, while resistance was less strong for onions and cotton.”

Bicultures are provide a significant reduction in pest pressure. But this approach is most effective in protecting crops from generalist predators. “In the studies we examined, we found intercropping was more effective for generalist pests that feed on a variety of crops,” Dr. Hahn said. “Specialist pests that target one type of crop were less affected.” This makes sense, as pest predators that evolved a close relationship with a crop are much less likely to be enticed to feed on a crop it did not specialize in consuming.

The effect of intercropping did appear to wane as latitudes increased, but only for certain crops and certain insect pests – specifically specialist, piercing, and native pests. “We did find a stronger benefit for pest suppression at lower latitudes—so, in tropical systems versus northern temperate systems,” Dr, Hahn said. “There are lots of reasons we could have found that pattern, of course; the tropics are places where there tend to be more species of insects year-round. It was surprising that the pattern was not as strong as I would have expected.”

The meta-analysis and studies previously reported on by Beyond Pesticides show the benefits of increasing crop diversity on farms. A 2020 study found that crop diversity in agriculture is just as important as plant diversity in non-commercial landscapes, and that less diversity leads to more pesticide use. A 2021 study reported on found that multi-crop farmlands produced higher biomass and seed yields than single crop monocultures. While intercropping and multi-cropping provide numerous benefits, monocropping contributes to the loss of biodiversity, including pollinator populations, according to a 2019 study.

It is incredibly important to continue research like the present study, so scientists can aide farmers in determining the best natural strategies to take as part of their production practices. But it is apparent from the data collected that one generally can’t go too wrong with such an approach. “There are a few combinations that seem to be particularly effective at reducing pest abundance,” Dr. Hahn indicates. “Overall, for growers interested in organic methods, intercropping seems to be a very effective tool.”

For more information on the benefits associated with organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides webpage on Why Organic is the right choice for the future of farming.

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

Source: Journal of Applied Ecology, University of Florida press release

Image Source: PXfuel

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2023) Health officials in France are alerting the public that a majority of drinking water samples tested by the government contain the presence of the highly toxic fungicide chlorothalonil. The findings highlight a stark divide between regulations and public health management in the European Union and United States. While EU member states have banned this chemical and are working to understand and address lingering effects, tens of millions of pounds of chlorothalonil continue to be sprayed throughout the U.S. annually.

French officials say they conducted this research after researchers in Switzerland found evidence of the fungicide in drinking water. A few years ago, Swiss scientists released a report showing Evian bottled water, touted for its claims of purity, was found to contain measurable levels of chlorthalonil.  “The fact that even the Evian springs in the French Alps, which are hardly affected by humans, contain pesticide residues is alarming and shows the far too careless handling of these substances,” Roman Wiget, president of the international drinking water association AWBR told the German-language Swiss weekly at the time.

The EU banned uses of chlorothalonil in 2019, due to concerns over water contamination, the effects of such contamination on fish and amphibians, and an elevated cancer risk. EU officials designated chlorothalonil as a 1B carcinogen, meaning it “may cause cancer,” with the most significant risk found for kidney cancer based on laboratory animal studies. Enough data was presented to conclude that the breakdown metabolites of the chemical have genotoxic potential, able to damage DNA and result in the development of cancer. EPA has classified chlorothalonil as a likely human carcinogen.

The fungicide presents an acute risk to amphibians, and chronic risks to fish living in contaminated water.  In addition to these aquatic impacts, other research finds the chemical can harm pollinators by altering honey bee microbiomes, reducing bumblebee colony size, contributing to  ongoing pollinator declines.  

Chlorothalonil was found in over half of drinking water samples tested, and at amounts higher than allowable levels in one out of three tests.

“These results show that, depending on their properties, some pesticide metabolites can remain present in the environment for several years after the ban on the active substance from which they were derived,” a report on the contamination by French health officials concluded.

A rapid transition away from hazardous, industrial pesticides like chlorothalonil is urgently needed to address ongoing health, biodiversity, and climate crises. While the EU is trending in the right direction and seeking to phase out 50% of all pesticide use by 2035 as part of its Farm to Fork Strategy, a recent citizen petition recommending larger restrictions was recently rejected.

While European member states are conducting follow up studies on this EU-banned chemical, regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have done little to address chlorothalonil, the 10^th most commonly used pesticide in the country. In fact, EPA is several years late on a workplan it set for itself on the fungicide. The agency estimated it would open a review document for the chemical in 2016, but the most recent action taken, according to the agency’s docket folder on regulations.gov, was a meeting with the chemical’s primary registrant Syngenta/ChemChina.

With complete lack of action, there is reason to be concerned about health and environmental impacts of chlorothalonil in the U.S. The chemical was identified as a priority contaminant in the Great Lakes by the U.S. Geological Survey, and is increasingly detected in streams near golf courses. Not only has the U.S. done nothing on this chemical, it still permits the product for use on turf by the general public in formulated products like Daconil.  

U.S. regulatory agencies like EPA are consistently failing to meet the modest health protective standards of their peers in Europe. According to advocates, it can be said that U.S. pesticide policy is under the control of a toxic industry regime that has spanned multiple administrations – of both political parties – with strong evidence of corruption at the highest levels of government.  

Join Beyond Pesticides in fighting for the restoration of scientific integrity and the elimination of corruption at EPA. Only through strong engagement from concerned residents can we make progress in fighting back against powerful, deeply embedded industry forces that result in the ongoing poisoning of people, pets, and the wider environment.  

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

Source: France24, Euractiv

Image Source: Andrea Piacquadio

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2023) In celebration of Earth Day and its sixth annual Ladybug Love^SM  campaign throughout the month of April, Natural Grocers is supporting Beyond Pesticides. The campaign celebrates insects that play a crucial role in food supply stability, and regenerative farming practices that use ladybugs and other beneficial insects instead of harmful synthetic pesticides to control pests. Natural Grocers will donate $1 to Beyond Pesticides for each person who pledges (including renewals, so do it again even if you pledged last year) “not use chemicals that harm ladybugs and other beneficial insects on their lawn or garden, and to support 100% organic produce.” Even if you have signed the pledge in previous years, please take moment to sign!

You do not need to shop at Natural Grocers to sign, but it’s a great store to shop at, if there’s one in your area! 

Sign the Ladybug Pledge and support Beyond Pesticides.

In partnership with major retailers like Natural Grocers and Stonyfield Organic, the Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program provides in-depth training to assist community land managers in transitioning two public green spaces to organic landscape management, while aiming to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these safer practices. Through this program, Beyond Pesticides has assisted local leaders in converting dozens of parks and recreational areas to organic practices and to eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. [Contact Beyond Pesticides ([email protected]) about converting two parks, as demonstration sites, to organic in your town.] 

Regarding the program, Natural Grocers says,” We have an exciting, long-term partnership with Beyond Pesticides. Part of that partnership includes fundraising campaigns throughout the year, specifically for Earth Day in April and Organic Month in September. Natural Grocers is a longtime leader of the organic movement through its national advocacy efforts. We are proud to partner with Beyond Pesticides to further the critical mission of converting local parks and playing fields to pesticide-free management practices to make them safer for kids and pets to play in.” 

Ask your mayor and local officials to convert to organic landcare in town/city/county parks and other public places.  

The targets for this Action are local executives and mayors across U.S cities and townships

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2023) In March, scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a draft Biological Opinion (BiOp) stating that carbaryl and methomyl — two commonly used carbamate insecticides — cause significant harm to dozens of already-endangered fish species in the Pacific Northwest’s Columbia, Willamette, and Snake rivers. The BiOp indicates that these toxic compounds, in wide use on orchards and field vegetables throughout the Willamette Valley, the Columbia River Gorge, and southeastern Washington, will likely threaten scores of species on the Endangered Species list: 37 species at risk from carbaryl and 30 from methomyl. In addition, the BiOp says, “both are likely to harm or destroy many areas designated as critical habitat for endangered species.” The mitigation measures proposed by NMFS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in light of this BiOp, are likely to be inadequate to the problem, given that both compounds can drift through air and/or migrate into groundwater and generate toxic runoff.

These two neurotoxic insecticides, carbaryl and methomyl, are very toxic to bees, birds, fish, and other aquatic organisms. In addition, carbaryl is a likely human carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor, and has harmful impacts on multiple bodily systems. Methomyl is also an endocrine disruptor, and can cause renal and hepatic damage.

NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are the lead federal agencies tasked with implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the law’s requirements, EPA must evaluate any pesticide it registers to make sure it is not likely to result in jeopardy to the “continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species.”

When EPA makes a determination that a pesticide product may so affect such species or habitats, the agency must initiate formal consultation with NMFS, the FWS, or both. Those agencies may then develop and issue their own BiOps on the jeopardy a pesticide presents to listed species and/or critical habitats. The new NMFS draft BiOp is open to public comment until May 15; at some point after that date, EPA will provide official comments to NMFS for consideration in developing its final opinion.

Beyond Pesticides has noted — in its 2020 comments on the draft ESA Biological Evaluations for carbaryl and methomyl — that the ESA embodies a more precautionary approach than does the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), federal pesticide law. The consultation requirement means that scientists at FWS and/or NMFS, who have greater expertise in evaluating harms to species and their habitats than do EPA scientists, have the chance to influence EPA pesticide regulation.

The draft BiOp suggests measures to “avoid jeopardy, including a flexible list of chemical-specific measures to reduce loading of pesticides into aquatic habitats to protect them from adverse effects of pesticide exposure. It also includes measures to minimize take and impacts to critical habitats, such as the development of ESA educational materials, reporting of label compliance monitoring, and inclusion of label information about ecological incident reporting.” (Under ESA, “take” means unintentional harm or killing of an individual of a protected species.) According to Oregon Public Broadcasting, FWS “recommends either prohibiting the chemicals within 300 meters (about 325 yards) of species’ habitat or implementing mitigation practices, like expanding vegetation ditches as buffers or using tools that reduce runoff.”

The EPA website indicates that it and NMFS are particularly interested in public comments relating to (1) additional risk reduction options beyond those described in the biological opinion; (2) the general feasibility of drift reduction measures based on wind direction; and (3) runoff and/or spray drift reduction technologies. Clearly, EPA is aware that drift and runoff represent ongoing vectors for listed species’ exposures to these two compounds; a between-the-lines read might reasonably conclude that EPA understands that current measures do not adequately protect the Northwest species at risk from carbaryl and methomyl.

As background: According to the EPA website, in March 2021, the agency completed its final biological evaluations for carbaryl and methomyl — resulting in determinations of “likely to adversely affect” (LAA) for 1,640 listed species and 736 designated critical habitats for carbaryl, and 1,098 listed species and 736 designated critical habitats for methomyl. Carbaryl continues to undergo the every-15-years registration review required by FIFRA, the federal statute governing all things “pesticide”). In October 2022, EPA announced revisions to the proposed interim registration decision on methomyl.

In late December 2022, EPA proposed new mitigations to attempt to curb some of the harms of carbaryl’s use, including:

• some use cancellations for residential dust formulations, residential granular formulations on turf, use on rice, and backpack applications to control tree boring beetles
• additional personal protective equipment for some uses
• longer restricted entry intervals for some uses
• mandatory spray drift language that prohibits application within 25 feet of aquatic habitats for ground applications and 150 feet for aerial applications
• mitigation to reduce runoff through protection statements and application restrictions during rain
• measures to protect pollinators from carbaryl exposure, including restrictions on applications during bloom

EPA also proposed at the time a “pilot” set of measures for protection of four endangered species, one of which was — notably — steelhead trout in the upper Columbia River. It also offered a number of “reasonable alternative measures” intended to protect listed salmon and steelhead species in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California; those included vegetated filter strips, retention ponds, water control structures, no-till/reduced tillage practices, riparian hedgerow, and no-spray buffers. As of publication, no evidence of the enactment of these measures was publicly and readily available.

As for methomyl, EPA issued (in 2022) Proposed Revisions to the Methomyl Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision — on the heels of a successful lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network. EPA had made LAA determinations for 1,098 species and 281 designated critical habitats in its BiOp on the compound’s impacts. In response, the agency proffered another set of mitigation measures (roughly analogous to those for carbaryl), including a three-species pilot. Remarkably, EPA concluded that the proposed FIFRA mitigation largely addresses the potential effects, on Pacific salmon and steelhead species, of the use of methomyl.

In February 2023, Beyond Pesticides reported on other chemical pesticide assaults on Northwest salmonid species (which include steelhead trout); previously, we covered the harms of three organophosphate pesticides (chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon) on these same species. (The organophosphate insecticide malathion and methomyl have a similar mode of action — acetylcholinesterase inhibition.) These fish species are economically, culturally, and ecologically critical to the region. The multiplicity of pesticides to which they are exposed, given intensive agricultural pesticide use in the region, contributes significantly to the well-documented decline of salmonid species. Subject simultaneously to impacts of pesticides, habitat loss, and climate change, these species are in trouble.

EPA has a history of continuing to allow use of pesticides that are demonstrably harmful, and taking relatively anemic measures to amend the compounds’ use, in an attempt to reduce harms; examples fairly abound. In the current biodiversity crisis, for which pesticides bear some responsibility, the agency’s lack of robust protective action is unacceptable.

In March 2022, EPA — succumbing to industry pressure — continued the registration of the organophosphate insecticide malathion, despite the agency’s own findings that this class of insecticides has negative impacts on more than 1,000 endangered and threatened species, and that malathion, specifically, threatens 1,284 species. In 2021, EPA reregistered paraquat, the most acutely dangerous herbicide on the market, with some additional constraints on its use. (It subsequently went to a federal court in October 2022 to request permission to return and reconsider its decision to reapprove paraquat.)

In 2016, EPA registered sulfoxaflor, a so-called “novel,” systemic, neurotoxic insecticide that, like neonicotinoids, acts on nACh (nicotinic acetylcholine) receptors, and is very toxic to bees. Beyond Pesticides wrote at the time, “This decision is the final result of a long-fought legal battle over the chemical’s registration, spearheaded by beekeepers and public health organizations concerned with what has been identified as EPA’s inadequate and flawed pesticide review processes. The agency claims that amendments made to the original registration . . . will protect pollinators. However, scientific studies have shown that there is no way to fully limit exposure to bees, especially native species that exist naturally in the environment, given that the chemical, being systemic, is found in pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets.”

Sulfoxaflor is used to kill aphids and another sucking/piercing insects on many crops, including vegetables, fruits and tree fruits, and nuts. In 2019, EPA granted approvals for sulfoxaflor to be used extremely widely on crops that are highly attractive to pollinators — an astonishing move, given the toxicity to bees. Research suggests that beneficial insects are exposed to sulfoxaflor at relatively high concentrations in agricultural environments. In a late 2021 win for bees, a California Superior Court ruled that this “field legal but bee lethal” pesticide could no longer be used in the state.

In its comment to EPA on registration of sulfoxaflor, Beyond Pesticides wrote, “EPA is proposing to repeat missteps of the past by registering a pesticide known to be toxic to nontarget organisms without all required data to ensure its safety. As already seen with the neonicotinoid clothianidin, and the herbicide aminocyclopyrachlor, conditional registration without relevant ecological data can be detrimental to non-target species.” Indeed, according to The Chicago Tribune, attorneys general from Illinois and 12 other states have now called on EPA to restrict use of sufloxaflor because of its toxic impacts on bees and other pollinators.

Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman notes that, “EPA is consistently unrealistic and downright misleading about the real effects of the pesticide risk mitigation measures it enacts. They do not meet the agency’s statutory mandate to protect health and the environment; what result are agency decisions that allow harm to those people and ecosystems EPA is charged with protecting.”

Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly critiqued EPA for its abject lack of appropriate protective action on toxic pesticides — especially in the face of species on the brink of extinction, the unfolding pollinator and insect collapse, endemic human health impacts, and widespread contamination of natural resources and ecosystems. Many health and environmental advocates see EPA as an irresponsible federal agency falling far short of meeting its mission, as the nation (and world) face those extreme challenges.

“EPA is proposing risk mitigation measure that the agency knows do not work. It’s shameful,” said Mr. Feldman. He continued, “EPA knows that nothing short of cancellation is adequately protective, and the agency should know that we no longer need these toxic chemicals to produce food and manage landscapes.”

Conventional, chemical-intensive U.S. agriculture — and the huge network of businesses, trade groups, and government agencies and programs that inform, support, and help fund it — is incredibly “dug in” to pesticide use as the way to do business. This grave and recklessness addiction to chemical pesticides in agriculture can be genuinely solved through a solution that is known, demonstrable, executable, and scalable: the transition to organic, regenerative agricultural practices. Organic agriculture can not only maintain productivity and profitability, but also, increase societal resiliency, sustain living beings and Nature’s functional integrity, and liberate everyone and everything from the toxic impacts of pesticides.

Source: https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/22/portland-oregon-pesticides-endangered-fish-species-carbaryl-methomyl-chinook-coho-salmon/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2023) Representatives of the 1.2 million-strong “Save bees and farmers! Towards a bee-friendly agriculture for a healthy environment,” European Citizens Initiative (ECI) called on the European Commission in a public hearing “to propose legal acts to phase out synthetic pesticides in EU (European Union) agriculture by 80% by 2030, starting with the most hazardous, and to become free of synthetic by 2035.” Advocates outlined the scientific consensus that biodiversity loss is endangering both the environment and food security and urged the executive branch to take immediate action. [See Previous Article]

The timing is opportune as the Commission recently announced a revised EU Pollinators Initiative (PI), aimed at reversing the decline in wild pollinators by 2030. Noted as “the key instrument to reduce the risk and use of pesticides” by Environment and Oceans Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius, the PI focuses on mitigating pesticides’ impact on pollinators as vital components to food security alongside conservation and restoration efforts of species and habitats in agricultural landscapes, or in other words, “pollinator-friendly farming.”

According to Martin Dermine, the executive director of PAN Europe, the hearing was a “strong democratic signal to EU and national decision-makers to listen to citizens and move away from toxic pesticides.”

It is clear that their voices were heard, as an organic farmer and lawmaker Sarah Wiener of Austria shifted the conversation by authoring a European Parliament report proposing the 80% increase with stricter baselines measuring the member states’ reductions. The baseline years referenced for measuring a state’s pesticide use are more recent (2018-2020 versus 2015-2017), thereby requiring countries that have reduced pesticide usage to nationally phase out a greater percentage of toxic agents within seven years.

Additionally, Ms. Wiener’s language breaks normative barriers; in the first amendment, the phrase “on the sustainable use of plant production products” is replaced with the phrase “on the use of pesticides.” According to the justification, the former phrase “trivializ[es] the nature of these products” and challenges the notion that chemical pesticides can be used sustainably, “especially as alternatives exist.”  Beyond semantics, the amendment’s text reflects a foundational shift as the direct use of the word “pesticides” makes greenwashing less likely and zeroes in on the reality of these noxious chemicals’ impact.

Negative public perception of pesticides has recently transformed the European zeitgeist. From 1.7 million citizens (about twice the population of Delaware) signing an initiative protecting bees in Bavaria to the “Stop pesticides” protests in Italy, grassroots movements are publicly voicing opposition to destructive environmental, agricultural, and pesticide policies. However, in contrast with citizens’ concerns, member states are opposing proposals perceived as ‘penalizing’ states that have more recently begun to reduce their pesticide use and removing exceptions, or “emergency derogations,” for pesticide use on a case-by-case emergency basis.  

Positive responses resonated from Parliament’s environment committee (ENVI) and among the center-left, Left and green policymakers, including the European Commission’s Claire Bury, the Deputy Director-General of Food and Health Safety. According to Commissioner Bury, European citizens clearly “want healthy food without pesticides” and stressed a progressive, but ambitious action accelerating access to biological alternatives. However, Parliament’s center-right and proponents of the flagship “Farm to Fork” strategy sharply rebuked the effort with false narratives stoking fears of food safety.

According to Food Safety Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, a majority of member states advocated for a further impact assessment on the European Commission’s proposal before negotiations with the European Parliament, a delay tactic decried by green groups.  

However, on April 5, 2023 the Commission ultimately rejected the initiative signed by more than one million people, which requested EU-binding targets to reduce synthetic pesticides by 80% in 2030 and a total ban by 2035.

What comes next?

In alignment with organic advocates in agriculture, Beyond Pesticides champions widespread adoption of organic, regenerative systems and practices. Such systems may include mechanical and biological controls, trap crops, natural barriers, organic compatible inputs, and practices such as eliminating monocultures, adopting crop rotation, introducing beneficial predator insects, and a focus on building healthy, “living” soils.

Over 90 years after pesticides were first introduced in the United States, agricultural communities around the globe are still dependent on them, with 44% of farmers estimated to be poisoned by pesticides annually. According to advocates, what is necessary, in Europe, the United States, and around the world, is education around viable alternatives to harmful pesticides and grassroots support for a feasible transition economically to a holistic organic solution.

Ending toxic, petrochemical pesticides and fertilizer use in organic systems will alleviate the harmful impacts of these chemicals on species and ecosystem health. Beyond Pesticides captured the bigger picture in its introduction to its 2017 National Pesticide Forum, Healthy Hives, Healthy Lives, Healthy Land: “Complex biological communities support life.” Learn more about the science and resources behind pesticides’ impact on pollinators, including bee pollinator decline, and take action against the use of pesticides. To find out more about what you can do to protect bees and other pollinators, check out information on the BEE Protective Campaign, pollinator-friendly landscapes, pollinator-friendly seeds, pesticide-free zones, bee-friendly habitats, and what you, or your state representative, can do to protect our pollinators. For more information on the insect apocalypse, see Beyond Pesticides’ article in the Pesticides and You journal, “Tracking Biodiversity: Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse.”

Visit the Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage to learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure. Buying, growing, and supporting organic agriculture eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment, protecting vulnerable pollinators. Organic land management eliminates the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

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

Source: Euractiv

(Beyond Pesticides, April 12, 2023) Spring represents a period of increased water, soil, and general ecosystem pollution, correlated with increased pesticide use and increased rainfall. Thus, April showers bring May flowers, and often pesticides. We offer this overview to share with friends, family, and your community in an effort to elevate the urgent need to eliminate pesticides and make the shift to organic land management.

Pesticides are pervasive in the environment, affecting all ecosystems, including air, water, and soil. Like clean air and water, healthy soils are integral to ecosystem function, interacting between Earth’s four main spheres (i.e., hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere) to support life. Pesticide use results in pervasive contamination of treated and nontarget sites. Even organic farmers and gardeners globally suffer from the widespread movement of pesticides through the air, water, and runoff from land. Attempts to protect property and ecosystems from pesticide use are a difficult, some say impossible, challenge. Efforts to prevent contamination become a large burden, with attempts to curtail pesticide drift with buffer zone areas and eliminate fertilizers or soil supplements with pesticide residues (e.g., manure and compost). Furthermore, the effects of climate change only exacerbate threats to ecosystem health, as studies show a link between the global climate emergency and the adverse impacts of pesticide exposure.

However, organic land management in agriculture and parks, playing fields, and landscapes offer the only real alternative for meaningful protection of those who work the land (farmworkers, farmers, landscapers, and gardeners) and all who eat food, drink water and breathe air. Additionally, the adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and to cope with the effects climate change has had and will have on agriculture. Research from the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial® (FST) has revealed that organic, regenerative agriculture actually has the potential to lessen the impacts of climate change. This occurs through the drastic reduction in petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer usage to produce the crops (approximately 75% less fertilizer use overall than chemical-intensive agriculture) and a significant increase in carbon sequestration in the soil. Most importantly, no-till organic methods produce comparable yields to conventional systems on average, and higher yields in drought years because of the greater water-holding capacity of the organic soils. Therefore, organic land management is not only necessary to eliminate the use of toxic chemicals but also to ensure the long-term sustainability of our land and ecosystems.

Prepare Your Spring Gardens without Synthetics.

Growing your own food can be a transformative experience. Whether you live in the city and only have room for a few window pots of herbs, or you have enough space to set up a backyard garden to provide nearly all your produce needs, growing your own food organically is worth a try. Planting organic seeds and plants can ensure a pesticide-free garden, since plants in garden centers are often grown from seeds coated with toxic fungicides, bee-harming insecticides like neonicotinoids (neonics), or drenched with them.

Eliminate Synthetic Chemicals.

Synthetic petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides lead to undesirable conditions that restrict water and air movement in the soil. High-nitrogen fertilizers can disrupt the nutrient balance, accelerate turf growth and increase the need for mowing, while contributing to thatch buildup.

Petroleum-based synthetic pesticides harm health and the environment with both immediate and long-term effects. To know what chemicals to avoid, the “40 Most Commonly Used Lawn and Landscape Pesticides” factsheets (on health and environmental effects) simplify the science on pesticides hazardous to people, pets, and the environment. Additionally, our herbicide analysis is an extensive document of over 100 nonorganic (conventional) and organic products with specified health and environmental effects. The chemicals in the analysis include:  

• 2,4-D 
• Carbaryl 
• Dicamba 
• Fipronil 
• Glyphosate
• Malathion 
• Mecoprop 
• Neonicotinoids 
• Pyrethroids 
• Sulfoxaflor

Why Avoid These Synthetic Chemicals?

To Protect Yourself, Your Family, and Your Pets

• *Pesticides have many uses in homes and communities without comprehensive public knowledge about the harm that they cause. A growing body of evidence in the scientific literature (documented in Beyond Pesticides Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database) shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine systems in humans, even at low levels.
• *Children are especially sensitive to pesticide exposure because they (1) take up more pesticides (relative to their body weight) than do adults, and (2) have developing organ systems that are more vulnerable to pesticide impacts and less able to detoxify harmful chemicals.
• *Furthermore, pets encounter pesticides by digging, sniffing, licking, and eating unknown objects. Toxic chemicals in insect sprays and baits, rodent poison, flea collars, weed killers, disinfectants, and more are also hazardous to our companion animals.

To Protect the Bees, Butterflies, and Other Pollinators

As bees, butterflies, bats, and other pollinators suffer serious declines in their populations, we urge people and communities to plant a pesticide-free habitat that supports pollinator populations. We provide information to facilitate this in our BEE Protective Habitat Guide. Become a beekeeper in your own backyard: Backyard Beekeeping: Providing pollinator habitat one yard at a time! 

Urban Areas

• Pollinators: Significantly more pesticide residues are present in urban bumblebees that forage in nonorganic landscapes during April. However, honey bees kept on organic urban farms are less stressed from pesticide exposure. 

Suburban/Exurban/Rural Areas

• Pollinators: Bees in suburban environments remain at risk of pesticide exposure from contamination of areas in which they forage and breed due to toxic weed control, pesticide use on crops, and animal pest treatments on farms. Garden pesticide products and contaminated ornamental plants sold in garden centers play a key role in spreading pesticides through suburban areas. A study from the University of Sussex reveals that 70% of bee-attracting plants sold at a range of garden centers have traces of neonicotinoids. Researchers urge suburban farmers and gardeners to, in addition to adopting soil health practices, swap synthetic pesticides with natural predators, like ladybirds or lacewings, and the use of physical methods, such as hand-removal of pests, and netting or sticky traps.

To Protect Birds, Especially Song and Migrating Birds

Neonicotinoids are a class of highly toxic insecticides that are systemic and move through the vascular system of the treated plant, contaminating pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets and indiscriminately poisoning insects, birds, and soil and aquatic organisms. Seeds are often coated with neonicotinoids and plants are drenched with the chemical. However, birds can eat the poisoned seeds as a food source, causing many adverse effects, including effects on reproductive function and egg formation, and even death. For more information on the dangers of neonicotinoid-coated seeds, see Beyond Pesticides’ short video Seeds That Poison.

To Protect Beneficial Organisms and Microorganisms In and Around the Soil

Wildflowers, native shrubs, and trees, as well as urban green spaces, provide important habitats for beneficial organisms (e.g., worms, ants, beetles, etc.) and microorganisms (e.g., bacteria and fungi). Synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides threaten their survivability, reproduction, and distribution of essential nutrients. Additionally, plants grown in chemically-treated areas are more vulnerable to parasites and pathogens. The adoption of organic land management practices, like planting pollinator-friendly plants and cover crops, and using organic mulch for weed suppression, create healthier plants that are less vulnerable to disease and infestation, and more resilient.

Urban Areas

• Many insects are the victims of the global insect apocalypse or population decline. Much research attributes the recent decline to several factors, including pesticide exposure. Broad-spectrum pesticides indiscriminately kill pests and nontarget organisms alike, as their ubiquitous use contaminates soils, even in untreated areas.
  • In addition to insects, the soil microbiome is essential for the proper functioning of the soil ecosystem. The microbiome is home to ecological communities of microorganisms living and working together. Toxic chemicals damage the soil microbiota by decreasing and altering biomass and microbiome composition (diversity). Pesticide use contaminates soil and results in a bacteria-dominant ecosystem, as these chemicals cause “vacant ecological niches, so organisms that were rare become abundant and vice versa.”  

Suburban (Rural) Areas

• One of the most concerning consequences of soil pesticide contamination is the impact on organisms, including beneficial insects and microbes. Conventional farming technologies promote the use of pesticides that directly and indirectly affect soil organisms.
  • Soil biology can change due to the presence of synthetic chemical pollutants like pesticides. Studies find some current-use pesticides induce changes in soil properties that re-release soil-bound chemicals into the ecosystem, contributing to contamination. Long-term or legacy contamination has resulted from the failure to regulate so-called stable chemicals that would bind to soil and remain immobile—thus beginning the continuing multigenerational poisoning from now-banned chemicals, like organochlorines, including DDT(its breakdown contaminant DDE) and chlordecone. Various studies find that glyphosate use stimulates soil erosion responsible for soil-based chemical emergence, harms the gut microbiota of honey bees, and destroys habitats for organisms like the monarch butterfly.

Spring Cleaning without Harmful Disinfectants

With spring cleaning upon us, many household disinfectants pose a risk to human, animal, and ecosystem health. To mitigate this hazard, advocates, including Beyond Pesticides, promote practices that eliminate toxic, synthetic chemical use by switching to organic and least-toxic pesticides to mitigate further risk.

Avoid Indoor Toxins

Exposure to disinfectant products containing toxic chemicals, such as chlorine bleach, peroxyacetic acid, quaternary ammonium compounds (quats), phenolic chemical compounds (i.e., cresols, hexachlorobenzene, and chlorophenols), sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione, and hydrochloric acid, are associated with a long list of adverse effects, from asthma to cancer. All of these chemicals can harm the respiratory system, with some quats shown to cause mutations, lower fertility, and increased antibiotic resistance. Many of these toxic disinfectants are harmful via more than one exposure route, as ingestion and inhalation also trigger potentially more harmful effects. Although chemical disinfectants kill viruses, bacteria, and other microbes via cell wall and protein destruction, they can also irritate and destroy the mucous membranes in animal and human respiratory and digestive tracts upon ingestion or inhalation. This exposure can lead to death in extreme cases.

People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system, are more vulnerable to the effects of the Covid-19 virus. Many of the products approved as disinfectants have negative impacts on the respiratory or immune system, thus reducing resistance to the disease. When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern. The Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) report on an increase in poison control calls due to disinfectant misuse notes that a majority pertained to bleach products, a 62% increase in 2020, with a total disinfectant-related call increase of 108.8% between 2019 and 2020. We urge people to recognize that it is important during public health emergencies involving infectious diseases to scrutinize practices and products very carefully so that hazards presented by the crisis are not elevated because of the unnecessary threat introduced by toxic chemical use.

For more information on safe disinfectants, visit Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disinfectants and Sanitizers.

The Year(s) of Organic Solutions: The Safer, ORGANIC Choice

Following the organic/Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) label helps guide individuals to the organic-compatible, least-toxic products, safer choice products. There are two established lists of organic materials and products in “Products Compatible with Organic Landscape Management:”

* The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), and

* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s list of exempt pesticides, Section 25(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Residential

Some of the products you may need for your garden include seeds, potting soil, mulch, tools, fertilizer/soil supplements, and compost. For most small-scale gardeners, pest problems can be contained with simple removal (scout the insects and remove them). If you decide to use a product to manage pests, do not be fooled by products labeled as “safe” or “natural” (these products may contain nonorganic “inert” ingredients that may be toxic). In general, organic-compatible products will display an OMRI Listed® seal on their labels, but not all products that meet organic standards have this seal. This same caution applies to fertilizers and potting soil as well. One of the great things about gardening at home on a small scale is the potential to create all the material needed for soil health through simple composting of kitchen scraps and yard waste. 

When planting an organic garden, Beyond Pesticides offers a guide on how to “Grow Your Own Organic Food,” including a resource page on steps to take before planting Grow Your Own Organic Food — Beyond Pesticides. Companies and Nurseries that Grow and Distribute Organic Seeds and Plants can be found in our Seed and Plant Directory Brochure.

If there is a problem with weeds taking over yards and gardens, Beyond Pesticides offers a guide on how to “Read Your Weeds,” which identifies weeds in your lawn and suggests nontoxic, least-toxic, solutions. You can always check Beyond Pesticides’ suggestion for managing lawns and buildings at ManageSafe: Least-Toxic Control of Pests in the Home and Garden. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on the Ecological Management of Invasive Species is a great resource for broad weed management. Know your soil chemistry and biology with simple tests from land grant universities. For instance, clover is considered a typical turf weed (although more people are seeding microclover into lawns to provide nitrogen) that thrives in soil with low nitrogen levels, compaction issues, and drought stress. Many plants that are considered weeds have beneficial qualities (e.g., dandelions for bees). Try to develop a tolerance for some “weeds.”

Organic does not mean expensive, whether related to food or land management. As land management practices result in increased soil health, the microbial life in the soil cycles nutrients naturally and reduces the need for expensive fertilizers. Regarding organic food, Beyond Pesticides offers a guide on how to buy organic on a budget, “The Real Affordability of Organic Food.” Buying organic produce whenever possible is always an option. On how to find and purchase organic products and why organic is about more than eliminating pesticide residues in the food and includes the protection of farmworkers and the environment in its production practices, visit the Beyond Pesticides webpage “Buying Organic” and “Eating with a Conscience.”

Community

Many urban areas have community gardens where one can get an individual plot for gardening. Community gardens in some urban environments have transformed the landscape and the community itself. Our Parks for a Sustainable Future program provides in-depth support for community land managers in transitioning public green spaces to organic landscape management. Contact Beyond Pesticides and we will collaborate with you to start two organic demonstration sites in your community at no charge, with the goal of providing the training and experience necessary for your parks department staff to transition all public areas in your community to these organic practices. Dozens of communities in all regions of the country already have organic communities where local parks, playing fields, and greenways are managed without unnecessary toxic pesticides and fertilizers. This is an opportunity for your community to address the three existential crises (to which petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers contribute) that we must all work to resolve—health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency.

Read about some successful community gardens in New York City from Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You journal. If you want to get your hands dirty but do not have the space or the desire to start a garden, see if there are any community-supported farms near you that could use your helping hands-on weeding or other projects.

Check Out Beyond Pesticides’ Spring into Action page to further educate yourself on safer gardening practices around your home and community.

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

Source: Beyond Pesticides                           

(Beyond Pesticides, April 11, 2023) Natural areas are often considered more pristine than urbanized locations, but a new study published in Nature Communications shows that the soils in natural lands can be just as polluted as those in more densely populated cities. The findings underscore the broad impacts that human activity is having on the health and stability of natural systems around the globe. In order to address widespread contamination, advocates urge government regulators to consider the full cradle to grave life cycle of toxic materials before releasing them into the environment.

An international contingent of scientists came together to conduct this research on a global scale, looking at soils on every continent. Soil samples were collected from urban greenspaces and nearby natural areas and paired together. Sampling was conducted in 56 cities in 17 countries, representing six continents. These data were also compared to soil samples taken from remote ecosystems in Antarctica. Scientists tested soils for eight heavy metals, 46 pesticide residues, microplastics, and antibiotic resistance genes.

Results reveal a wide distribution of tested contaminants in all samples taken. “Although the level of individual contaminants varied greatly across locations, we detected significant correlations among each type of soil contaminants studied,” the article explains. 

For metals, urban greenspaces had slightly higher levels than natural areas, a variation scientists attribute to anthropogenic factors. For instance, in 42% of urban sites and 36% of natural areas, arsenic contamination exceeds soil contamination levels set under regulations by the Finnish government.

Pesticides were widely detected, including in 63% of natural areas tested. Surprisingly, there was no significant difference between these detections and those found in urban greenspaces. However, researchers indicate these data are likely an underestimate, as per the study’s supporting information, they did not measure some of the most widely used pesticides like glyphosate, 2,4-D, and paraquat. Scientists reason that atmospheric transport is likely playing a role, as well as potential deposition from agricultural sites (farm soils were not tested in the study).

Similar to other results, microplastics were widespread in every soil tested. This was also reasoned a result of atmospheric transport, with small fibers from plastic-based fabrics, ropes, nets, and other materials the likely source.

Antibiotic resistance genes were ubiquitous in both natural and urban soils, though the type of genes varied by soil. Urban greenspaces contained more diversity of these genes than natural areas. But the close similarity to the contamination is likely a result of physical movement of bacterial cells from urban to natural areas.

Despite its remote location, Antarctic soils did exhibit some of these major contaminants. In particular, microplastics were found to be just as widespread in Antarctic soils as those in all other locations. Pesticides were detected, but with less frequency, while levels of heavy metals fell below regulatory concern, and antibiotic resistance genes were below the level of detection.

Looking deeper into the findings, researchers determined that population density is the largest factor associated with the presence of microplastics. The less wealthy a city is, the more likely there would be microplastic and heavy metal contamination. For pesticides and antibiotic resistance genes, soil fertilizer applications is the greatest factor, indicating a significant human role in the global spread of these hazards. “Together, our work demonstrates that soils in nearby natural areas are as contaminated as our urban greenspaces at a large-spatial scale,” the authors write.

This is not the first study to find toxic contaminants in areas traditionally considered pristine or untouched. A 2020 study found that arctic glaciers are trapping pesticides and other atmospheric pollutants, and subsequently releasing them as they melt.

The release of any toxic material can have long term effects that are not limited merely to the location where such material was applied. Pesticides and other hazardous substances drift from direct application, volatilize, or become stirred up by dust, and can be taken into the atmosphere and deposited in locations hundreds of miles away.

Beyond Pesticides has long fought for a precautionary approach to the regulation of toxic pesticides and other materials. In order to safeguard health and the environment now and for future generations, it is critical pass laws that consider the full life-cycle of a material, and forgo production if hazards are too high. Take action today by telling the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Congress that all impacts from toxic pesticides- cradle to grave- must be considered before allowing use.

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

Source:  Nature Communications

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2023) Congress has entrusted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the responsibility to protect the health and environment of the United States. As yet another report of EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)—this one relating to risk assessment for a PFAS chemical—finds that EPA has failed to abide by its own scientific integrity policy, thereby leaving “the public vulnerable to potential negative impacts on human health,” it becomes urgently necessary to insist on accountability for scientific integrity failures at the agency. 

Tell Congress and the President to hold accountable political appointees at EPA who fail to uphold scientific integrity.      

OIG is an independent branch of EPA that can receive complaints of mismanagement, misconduct, abuse of authority, or censorship, including those related to scientific or research misconduct, without fear of improper influence. Through its statutory mandate, OIG investigates these allegations. It makes recommendations based on findings, which it reports to Congress, but it cannot ensure the personal accountability of those responsible for misconduct. In this case, OIG made recommendations relating to strengthening policies and procedures for dealing with scientific data, disagreements, and integrity, and one recommendation “to strengthen the EPA’s culture of scientific integrity, transparency, and accountability of political leadership actions.” EPA disagreed with all five recommendations. If left unresolved, it will be included in OIG’s semiannual report to Congress.  

Corruption and lack of scientific integrity are not new issues for EPA. (Other OIG reports also deal with failures of scientific integrity.) Regarding the pesticide program, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Senior Counsel Peter Jenkins stated, “EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has bent so far over backwards to accommodate industry desires that it is now beyond chiropractic help – major surgery is required,” noting that while problems within OPP worsened under Trump, they preexisted his term and continue today. “Inside OPP, marginalization of science remains cause for celebration and the result has been repeated ecological and public health disasters,” Mr. Jenkins said. 

As indicated in the most recent OIG report, problems often arise when scientific professionals are overruled by political appointees. Political appointees—starting with the EPA Administrator—should be held accountable for actions that disregard scientific findings, putting at risk people and the environment. EPA’s failures to take actions recommended by OIG should create a presumption of misconduct of the Administrator and program directors, which should result in initiation of dismissal actions. Congress receives OIG’s annual report, which documents such failures and should trigger oversight hearings if those responsible are not held accountable.

Tell Congress and the President to hold accountable political appointees at EPA who fail to uphold scientific integrity.   

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

Congress has entrusted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the responsibility to protect the health and environment of the United States. As yet another report of EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)—this one relating to risk assessment for a PFAS chemical—finds that EPA has failed to abide by its own scientific integrity policy, thereby leaving “the public vulnerable to potential negative impacts on human health,” it becomes urgently necessary to insist on accountability for scientific integrity failures at the agency.

OIG is an independent branch of EPA that can receive complaints of mismanagement, misconduct, abuse of authority, or censorship, including those related to scientific or research misconduct, without fear of improper influence. Through its statutory mandate, OIG investigates these allegations. It makes recommendations based on findings, which it reports to Congress, but it cannot ensure the personal accountability of those responsible for misconduct. In this case, OIG made recommendations relating to strengthening policies and procedures for dealing with scientific data, disagreements, and integrity, and one recommendation “to strengthen the EPA’s culture of scientific integrity, transparency, and accountability of political leadership actions.” EPA disagreed with all five recommendations. If left unresolved, it will be included in OIG’s semiannual report to Congress.

Corruption and lack of scientific integrity are not new issues for EPA. (Other OIG reports also deal with failures of scientific integrity.) Regarding the pesticide program, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Senior Counsel Peter Jenkins stated, “EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has bent so far over backwards to accommodate industry desires that it is now beyond chiropractic help – major surgery is required,” noting that while problems within OPP worsened under Trump, they preexisted his term and continue today. “Inside OPP, marginalization of science remains cause for celebration and the result has been repeated ecological and public health disasters,” Mr. Jenkins said.

As indicated in the most recent OIG report, problems often arise when scientific professionals are overruled by political appointees. Political appointees—starting with the EPA Administrator—should be held accountable for actions that disregard scientific findings, putting at risk people and the environment. EPA’s failures to take actions recommended by OIG should create a presumption of misconduct of the Administrator and program directors, which should result in initiation of dismissal actions. Congress receives OIG’s annual report, which documents such failures and should trigger oversight hearings if those responsible are not held accountable.

Thank you.

Letter to President Biden (This will require people to go to the White House website and copy and paste into the webform. There is a limit of 2000 characters in the form. People may use suggested language (below) from Beyond Pesticides, which is just under the character limit.):

Congress entrusted EPA with the responsibility to protect the health and environment of the U.S. As yet another report of EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)—this one relating to risk assessment for a PFAS chemical—finds that EPA has failed to abide by its own scientific integrity policy, thereby leaving “the public vulnerable to potential negative impacts on human health,” We must insist on accountability for scientific integrity failures at the agency.

OIG, an independent branch of EPA, can receive complaints of mismanagement, misconduct, abuse of authority, or censorship, including those related to scientific or research misconduct. Through its statutory mandate, OIG investigates these allegations. It makes recommendations based on findings, which it reports to Congress, but it cannot ensure the personal accountability of those responsible for misconduct. In this case, OIG made recommendations relating to strengthening policies and procedures for dealing with scientific data, disagreements, and integrity, and one recommendation “to strengthen the EPA’s culture of scientific integrity, transparency, and accountability of political leadership actions.” EPA disagreed with all five recommendations. If left unresolved, it will be included in OIG’s semiannual report to Congress.

Corruption and lack of scientific integrity are not new issues for EPA. Other OIG reports also deal with failures of scientific integrity.

As indicated in the most recent OIG report, problems often arise when scientific professionals are overruled by political appointees. Political appointees—starting with the EPA Administrator—should be held accountable for actions that disregard scientific findings, putting at risk people and the environment. EPA’s failures to take actions recommended by OIG should create a presumption of misconduct of the Administrator and program directors, which should result in initiation of dismissal actions.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2023) A  petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implores the agency to halt the practice of allowing pesticides banned in the U.S. to be exported to other countries without any consent from relevant governmental authorities in those nations. The two petitioners—the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)—are focusing on a longstanding practice of U.S. pesticide manufacturers and brokers, who sell toxic pesticide products that fail to qualify for EPA registration domestically to entities nearly anywhere in the world (except where the products are specifically prohibited). As Beyond Pesticides has noted, this is a dangerous and environmentally unjust practice and has for decades urged Congress and EPA to forbid it.

According to the CIEL press release on the matter, the petition was motivated by the reality that banned or voluntarily withdrawn pesticides “are routinely exported to countries that often have limited resources or capacity to assess and regulate chemical risks,” and that the “practice has directly fueled the influx of extremely hazardous pesticides to countries in the Global South, where they disproportionately harm Indigenous peoples and vulnerable and marginalized communities.” The organizations emphasize that, for example, more than four-fifths of countries that import neurotoxic pesticide compounds that are banned in the U.S. are egarded as developing or low-to-middle income, and that in more than three-fourths of those, roughly 30% (or more) of their agricultural workers suffer pesticide poisoning annually.

The petitioners argue that what they are urging EPA to do — “initiate rulemaking procedures to require prior informed consent for the export of pesticides unregistered in the United States” — would help less-well-resourced nations make informed decisions about whether (or under what conditions) to allow such hazardous products into their countries.

The petition notes, “Current EPA regulations and practice on the export of unregistered pesticides are incompatible with the legislative text and purpose of the FIFRA provisions. This becomes even more apparent in light of accepted understandings of ‘notice’ that have developed since 1978, and the fundamental change in pesticide trade since that time. The regulatory, scientific, and public health context with respect to pesticides and hazardous substances has shifted profoundly in the 65 years since FIFRA’s original adoption, and in the more than four decades since the statutory language of FIFRA §17 was amended to its current form.” (FIFRA is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the statute that governs the registration, regulation, sale, and use of pesticides.)

The petition also calls out the environmental injustice of current practice, and endorses the 2019 conclusions of United Nations Special Rapporteur on Toxics Baskut Tuncak, JD. He then said that all countries — in order to “meet their obligations to respect, protect, and promote fundamental human rights,” must “adopt laws and policies consistent with their duty under international human rights law to prevent exposure to hazardous substances, protect the most vulnerable and susceptible and prevent discrimination; prohibit the export of chemicals and production processes that are prohibited from use domestically; and prevent the import of chemicals and production processes that are prohibited in the country from which they are exported.”

The petition cites three central arguments underlying its request for new rulemaking:

• The U.S. has binding obligations to provide prior informed consent regarding exports of delisted or unregistered pesticides under treaties which it has signed or ratified.
• The U.S. has a duty to ensure prior informed consent as a matter of customary international law.
• Prior informed consent is a legal tradition rooted in U.S. domestic law.

Absent prior informed consent (PIC), these unregistered pesticides are able to cross national borders and are often deployed “on the ground” with minimal oversight or enforcement of regulations that may exist. CBD and CIEL further argue that PIC is a “widely accepted legal concept that has been defined by many U.S. statutes, including FIFRA, U.S. multi-lateral agreements, and other international treaties and agreements.”

Commenting in 2020 on the global dynamics of this exportation of banned/unregistered pesticides, Mr. Tuncak said, in a statement endorsed by 35 other experts on the UN Human Rights Council, “Wealthier nations often create ‘double standards’ that allow the trade and use of banned chemicals in parts of the world where regulations are less strict. [The] ‘racialised nature of these standards cannot be ignored’ as the dangers [are] externalised to communities of African descent and other people of colour. These loopholes are a political concession to industry, allowing their chemical manufacturers to profit from inevitably poisoned workers and communities abroad, all the while importing cheaper products through global supply chains and fueling unsustainable consumption and production patterns. It is long-overdue that states stop this exploitation.”

The petitioners also maintain that the production of these banned pesticides — which is ongoing in the U.S. —disproportionately harms domestic fenceline communities that are more often (than those of other demographic groups) located nearby to pesticide (and other chemical) manufacturing facilities. Further, the residents of these “environmental justice” communities, often low-income and/or people of color, may well comprise much of the workforce for production of these compounds, putting them at additional, heightened health risk.

Spokespeople for both organizations offered their takes on the petition’s goals. CBD Environmental Health Science Director Nathan Donnelly commented, “The Biden EPA must end the horrifically immoral U.S. legacy of squeezing profits out of dangerous pesticides we refuse to use ourselves by shipping them off to developing countries. Pesticide companies are exploiting weak laws to dump their most toxic poisons on countries with extremely limited regulatory resources. This system is built on deception and shrouded in secrecy. It’s time to make it more transparent.”

CIEL President Carol Muffett said, “In the half-century since FIFRA’s notice requirements were last updated, the U.S. has dramatically expanded its pesticide exports while falling ever farther out of step with global standards governing those exports. EPA has the opportunity, authority, and . . . obligation to narrow that gap and provide importing countries with the critical information they need to better protect their own people and the U.S. public.”

For its part, EPA notes that although pesticides intended only to be sold abroad need not be registered in the U.S., their sale by exporters must comply with specific requirements under FIFRA, and exporters must submit reports to EPA. Such requirements have mostly to do with exporters keeping track of how much of what is sold to whom and when, as well as a requirement that importers must certify their understanding that the products are not registered in the U.S. In addition, every pesticide, active pesticide ingredient, and any pesticide “device” that is exported must bear labeling that meets FIFRA requirements.

EPA has long used labels as a mechanism to attempt to tweak the parameters along which pesticides are used domestically — changing a labeling requirement as a “baby step” means of trying to limit damage from use. The agency calls the label “a key part of pesticide regulation,” and cites label contents as critical to “safe” handling and use in order to avoid harm to human health and the environment.

Pesticide front-side labels may include: a restricted use pesticide statement; a product name, brand, or trademark; an ingredient statement; a child hazard warning statement; a signal word (“danger,” “warning,” or “caution”); a first aid statement; a skull and cross bones symbol and the word “poison”; and net contents/net weight. The back side includes a precautionary statement, directions for use, storage and disposal instructions, and a warranty statement.

Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman notes that EPA’s label restrictions should not be regarded as adequate for the protection of human and environmental health, primarily because the agency does not exercise sufficient scientific scrutiny in its registration of pesticides. Mr. Feldman cites broader issues relating to the serious hazards associated with U.S. exportation of all pesticides to developing countries. He comments: “Clearly, EPA bans pesticides or negotiates their withdrawal from the market because it is determined that their use results in unacceptable risk factors. Their removal from the market in the U.S. should result in a concurrent ban on exportation. More broadly, the problem extends to all pesticides, since EPA knows that the exportation of registered pesticides to countries that do not have the infrastructure, regulation, training, and enforcement to ensure product label compliance will result in harm to health and the environment. In fact, all legal uses of pesticides in the U.S. are based on EPA risk assessments, however weak or deficient, that establish allowed uses based on risk mitigation measures. EPA then determines that the resulting restrictions necessary to meet its standard of pesticide safety (or allowable harm) are reliant on the enforceability of pesticide product labels. However, it is clear that we allow pesticide exportation to countries without the resources and capacity to ensure compliance, thus, resulting in unacceptable harm by any standard.”

In 2020 coverage of this issue, Beyond Pesticides reviewed a study showing that companies in the United Kingdom and the European Union are also exporting such products, and that the biggest importers were countries in the Global South — Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, and Ukraine. In August 2022, our reporting looked at a BBC investigative team’s discovery that, “Export data from U.S. ports found that over 27 million pounds of pesticides forbidden for use domestically were shipped at an average of 32 thousand pounds per day. In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that banned pesticides were being produced in 23 U.S. states.”

As if the export of banned pesticides to other countries were not sufficiently concerning, a 2019 Truthout article — “Export of Banned US Pesticides Creates a Deadly Circle of Poison,” by Elisabeth McLaughlin — reminded Americans that the chickens of unethical practices will inevitably come home to roost. To wit, some of the food grown in countries using these U.S.-banned pesticides ultimately returns to American dinner plates, replete with residues of those pesticides.

EPA’s established “tolerances”(maximum residue levels) for pesticide residues on food do not apply to imported foods U.S. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducts annual reviews of pesticide residue on both domestic and imported foods; in 2022, the review concluded that “samples of food imported to the U.S. from other countries appeared to pose a greater risk of containing pesticide residue. Countries documenting the highest number of import violations included Mexico, India, and Pakistan.”

Another reality in this scenario is that pesticides that have been effectively banned in the U.S. continue to contaminate the environment (and soils, in particular) and thus, continue to show up in food plants. Evidencing the persistence of some pesticides over time, the 2022 U.S. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary found that now-banned, “legacy” pesticides continue to show up as residue on food plants grown in the U.S., — including DDT, chlordane, dieldrin, and lindane.

In covering this issue in 2022, Beyond Pesticides wrote: “For banned pesticides . . . the fates of agricultural workers thousands of miles away . . . may seem (increasingly) remote. . . . But it is critical to remember that legacy chemicals are ‘gifts that keep on giving,’ whether DDT from the ‘40s and ‘50s, DBCP in the ‘70s, or PFAS chemicals used for the past 90 years (among others). But in addition, the creation and deployment of toxic legacy chemicals are not all in the past; this is a ‘rolling admissions’ situation because we continue to . . . export toxic chemicals whose impacts may show up now, or may show up in a decade or more.”

In her article, Ms. McLaughlin pithily wrote, “When the federal government bans a pesticide, pro-industry loopholes allow agrochemical companies to recoup lost profits by manufacturing the same pesticide for use abroad. . . . This disturbing practice creates a ‘circle of poison’ where we are unknowingly consuming U.S.-banned chemicals in food produced in conditions dangerous to agricultural workers and their families. How can ethical responsibility for hazardous chemicals end at our borders?” She added, “With no comprehensive global regulatory framework to guide policy for transport, storage and use, the U.S. consciously subjects vulnerable agricultural workers overseas to chemicals known to cause harm and death, and widens international dependence of agriculture on pesticides.”

This export by agrochemical entities of pesticide compounds whose use the U.S. will not permit within its borders is an ethical and health outrage, as well as an assault on environmental justice communities in countries around the world. The petitioners’ request of EPA for new rulemaking to prevent this is certainly a useful step, and the agency should comply with it.

Yet the ultimate solution lies in eliminating the use of synthetic pesticides — some of which are registered and toxic, some of which are banned and toxic, and some of which are registered and have not yet been determined by EPA to be toxic enough — in the U.S. and worldwide. Beyond Pesticides has called for the transition to organic agricultural (and other land) management in the next decade. The public can help advance the organic transition by talking about the importance of it to everyone: family, friends, local food purveyors/markets, and local, state, and federal officials (elected and otherwise), and by supporting Beyond Pesticides and other advocacy groups, whether national, local, or international. Find more on how to help with our Tools for Change webpage.

Sources: https://www.ciel.org/news/epa-petitioned-to-halt-export-of-us-banned-pesticides-to-developing-countries/ and https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/environmental_health/pdfs/FIFRA-Petition-Section-17-March-2023.pdf

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