(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2023) A new study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology adds to prior research indicating glyphosate promotes the occurrence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) through diet by causing liver inflammation and oxidative stress. More importantly, the predisposition for NAFLD occurred at levels within toxicological limits, which are doses of glyphosate classified as causing no adverse effects or No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). NAFLD is a condition that causes swelling of the liver and can eventually lead to cirrhosis, cancer, or liver failure. This study highlights the Westernized diet (WD), comprised of foods enriched in saturated fats, cholesterol, and simple carbohydrates (e.g., fructose, glucose, and sucrose), plays a role in the nearly 40 percent increased risk of NAFLD. Although glyphosate disrupts gut microbes and induces liver inflammation, oxidative stress, and fatty acid levels that promote NAFLD, the combination of WD and glyphosate reduces the threshold risk for NAFLD development.

NAFLD is a growing worldwide epidemic, becoming the most prevalent form of liver disease and impacting at least 25 percent of the globe. Therefore, studies like this shed light on how diet and chemical exposure can work synergistically (together) to exacerbate disease risk.

The study evaluates whether choric (long-term) glyphosate exposure at the NOAEL or lower promotes the occurrence of diet-induced NAFLD. Over six months, researchers fed mice a Westernized diet consisting of high-calorie, high-sugar, high-fat foods with a high-sugar liquid while the control mice ate a balanced diet. The researchers also exposed the mice to the lowest dose of glyphosate (under the acceptable daily intake representing the estimated human environmental exposure) and another amount below or within the NOAEL. Lastly, research collected blood samples and liver tissue to evaluate the morphological, biochemical, and transcriptomic changes. Although WD induces obesity, high cholesterol, and glucose intolerance (as seen in diabetes), glyphosate did not exacerbate these risks. However, glyphosate did increase the rate (upregulation) of 212 genes associated with oxidative stress and inflammation in the liver while downregulating 731 genes related to cell division.

Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, including Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup.® The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate over two decades ago. Glyphosate is often promoted by industry as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals, yet it has been shown to have detrimental impacts on humans and the environment. The toxic herbicide readily contaminates the ecosystem, with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, decades of accumulated scientific literature commonly associates glyphosate with human, biotic, and ecosystem harm. Thus, glyphosate has been the subject of extensive controversy about its safety for humans, nonhuman organisms, and ecosystems. For instance, the presence of glyphosate in human bodies has risen dramatically during the past three decades. Research at the University of California San Diego found that, between two data collection periods (1993–1996 and 2014–2016), the percentage of people testing positive for the presence of glyphosate (or its metabolites) in urine rose by an average of 500 percent, peaking at 1,208 percent. Today, four out of five U.S. individuals over six years old have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies, with adolescents having higher bodily concentrations of glyphosate than adults. Glyphosate exposure has implications for the development of various health anomalies, including the distortion of DNA function, leading to several chronic diseases like cancer, Parkinson’s disease, metabolic disorders, gut dysbiosis, nervous system disorders, and neurodevelopment disorders like autism. In recent years, numerous lawsuits have targeted Monsanto (now Bayer), which contains glyphosate, alleging that the herbicide contributes to the plaintiffs’ cancers. Therefore, advocates say that it is crucial to comprehend the full spectrum of glyphosate’s effects on human health, from its potential carcinogenicity to its neurological and emotional ramifications.

Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” stark evidence demonstrates links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. For instance, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the chemical as a probable carcinogen or cancer-causing chemical. EPA’s classification perpetuates adverse impacts, especially among vulnerable individuals, like pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly. Therefore, Beyond Pesticides has reported on EPA’s ongoing failures to protect people and the environment from glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) compounds. Additionally, glyphosate’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion, loss of services, and trophic cascades). Moreover, chemical use has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate. Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health and ecological effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. This increase in resistance is evident among herbicide-tolerant GE crops, including seeds genetically engineered to be glyphosate-tolerant.

Previous research confirms what this study finds, that low doses of glyphosate exposure have implications for fatty liver disease. A 2015 study found that chronically exposing rats to ultra-low amounts of glyphosate in drinking water results in tissue and organ damage, including changes to gene expression within the liver and kidneys. A 2017 study, which also fed minuscule doses of glyphosate weed killer to rats, found an increased likelihood that exposed animals would develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Roundup formulations can also induce a dose-dependent formation of DNA adducts (altered forms of DNA linked to chemical exposure, playing a pivotal role in chemical carcinogenesis) in the kidneys and liver of mice. While the study notes glyphosate did not influence obesity-induced NAFLD through high cholesterol, glucose intolerance, fat retention, and liver scarring, mechanisms that promote NAFLD still include oxidative stress and inflammation. This study suggests that glyphosate exposure upregulates oxidative metabolism, causing mitochondrial disruption and oxidative stress. Additionally, the study indicates lipid peroxidation (degradation of lipids) in the liver may play a role in upregulating proinflammatory proteins (cytokines) that play a role in inflammatory response. These two processes from glyphosate exposure can promote the risk of NAFLD in conjunction with WD.

Health officials estimate about 100 million individuals in the U.S. have NAFLD, with NAFLD being the most common liver disease among children. Cases of NAFLD have doubled over the past 20 years. Therefore, it is essential to mitigate preventable exposure to disease-inducing pesticides. For more information about pesticides’ effects on human and animal health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, including pages on immune system disorders (e.g., hepatitis [liver condition], cancer (including lymphoma), and more.

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies show that switching to an organic diet can rapidly and drastically reduce the levels of synthetic pesticides in one’s body. A 2020 study found a one-week switch to an organic diet reduced an individual’s glyphosate body burden by 70 percent. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, these methods can promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Moreover, Beyond Pesticides provides tools, information, and support to take local action: check out our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup and our report, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed. Contact us for help with local efforts and stay informed of developments through our Daily News Blog and our journal, Pesticides and You. Additionally, check out Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption involving glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum.

Please see the petition to remove glyphosate from the market submitted to EPA by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of Beyond Pesticides, Farmworker Association of Florida, Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, and the Rural Coalition.

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

Source: Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology

(Beyond Pesticides, December 20, 2023) A federal district court decision last week (December 13) found illegal the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to register the antibiotic streptomycin for use in Florida citrus to control Huanglongbing (HLB), also known as “citrus greening,” a plant disease spread by the Asian citrus psyllid. This decision comes just as EPA may allow yet another controversial pesticide, aldicarb, whose registration faces similar issues of agency malfeasance. The streptomycin lawsuit, filed in 2021 by a coalition of farmworker and public interest groups including Beyond Pesticides, raises critical issues of antibiotic resistance, public health protection, and impacts on bees.

The case was filed by: Natural Resources Defense Council and U.S. PIRG, represented by NRDC; Beyond Pesticides, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida (ECOSWF), Farmworker Association of Florida, Farmworker Justice, and Migrant Clinicians Network, represented by Earthjustice; and the Center for Biological Diversity, represented by in-house counsel.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took EPA to task for its failure to conduct required analyses and issue findings to support the use of streptomycin for citrus greening. The court is particularly concerned about the agency’s failure to reach findings on the impacts on bees and the agency’s responsibility for evaluation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ruling states, as a part of the agency’s analysis under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), “EPA was thus required to analyze whether the amended registration of streptomycin would have an unreasonable adverse effect on pollinators. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the EPA’s evaluation of streptomycin’s effects on bees does not pass muster.”

The court continues, “[EPA] admits it did not comply with the ESA. Indeed, the EPA acknowledged that in the thousands of pesticide registrations it has approved in the past decades under FIFRA, it has met its ESA obligations for less than 5% of those actions. The EPA attributes this “multifold” failure to the high volume of pesticide applications, “the unusual complexity” of ESA pesticide reviews, and the proliferation of lawsuits challenging pesticide products. ,. . Even under the new workplan, the EPA does not anticipate being able to complete the effects determination for streptomycin any sooner than fall 2026.”

“In stopping the use of streptomycin on citrus, this court decision holds EPA accountable at the same time that it exposes weaknesses in federal pesticide law and judicial rulings that accept EPA’s limited scientific analysis and unrealistic and unprotective mitigation measures,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. When the case was filed, Mr. Feldman said, “It is past time to take urgent action to transition away from practices in agriculture that are dependent on antibiotics, advance organic farm management, and avoid new deadly pandemics [associated with antibiotic resistance].”

Streptomycin has been banned for agricultural use on crops in many countries, but in the U.S. its use and the use of oxytetracycline in fruit and vegetable production has been permitted. Under the Trump administration, EPA permitted an emergency use authorization in 2017 to expand use of these antibiotics to Florida citrus crops to control citrus greening. That emergency authorization was to have run out in 2019, but, in January of that year, EPA moved to make the authorization permanent. The decision greenlighted the use of more than 650,000 pounds of streptomycin on citrus crops in Florida and California alone, and followed an approval two years prior of oxytetracycline for use on the same citrus crops.

The court also found that EPA failed to show that streptomycin would achieve benefits as a tool for preventing the target disease. The court found, “[W]e have now concluded that the EPA did not fully comply with FIFRA because it (1) failed to include additional data in its pollinator risk assessment or explain why such data was not necessary and (2) suggested that streptomycin could be used to prevent disease without providing evidentiary support for such a claim.

The court was not convinced that EPA failed to protect against the spread of antibiotic resistance and assumed that the restrictions that EPA required for personal protective equipment (PPE) and drift control would adequately mitigate risks, despite a history of noncompliance and uncontrollable movement of pesticides off the target site. The court said, “The EPA acknowledged that it did not account for noncompliance with PPE requirements in its risk assessment.” However, rather than focus on known limitations in enforcement and compliance with mitigation measures across the agricultural industry, the ruling states, “[T]here is no evidence that it is “difficult or impossible to comply with” the labels’ PPE requirements, which include such standard measures as wearing gloves, coveralls, and respirators. Petitioners cite surveys indicating that non-compliance with PPE requirements is common. But these surveys are not specific to the PPE requirements for streptomycin or citrus growers, nor do they involve use labels akin to the one here. Petitioners have not demonstrated material flaws in the EPA’s determination that mandatory PPE use will reduce direct contact between streptomycin and human bacteria.” The court accepts EPA’s conclusion that there would be no drift of the chemical, given restrictions on spray nozzles. The court notes, “The EPA’s registration label also requires applicators to spray the streptomycin pesticide directly into the orchard canopy and to “turn off outward pointing nozzles at row ends” “to help reduce off-target drift.””

Despite the scientific literature on horizontal gene transfer (movement of genes in bacteria from one bacterial species to another) through agricultural use of pesticides, the court found, ”EPA emphasized that “there is no data that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to the presence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria of human health concern,” and that “[a]t the present time, there is little evidence for or against the presence of microbes of human health concern in the plant agricultural environment.” And yet, on May 19, 2019, The New York Times reported, “The agency approved the expanded use despite strenuous objections from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which warn that the heavy use of antimicrobial drugs in agriculture could spur germs to mutate so they become resistant to the drugs, threatening the lives of millions of people.”

Citrus greening has been successfully managed organically in Florida, with a combination of biological controls and cultural practices. While citrus greening is causing significant disruptions for many growers, organic farms are finding nontoxic and less toxic measures of addressing the problem. Watch the talk given by Benny McLean of Uncle Matt’s Orange Juice at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum held in Orlando, Florida in 2015 for more information about innovative, organic methods to tackle problems in citrus production. see Beyond Pesticides Organic Agriculture page. 

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

Source: Federal Appeals Court Rules Use of Antibiotic as Citrus Pesticide Is Unlawful, Vacates EPA Approval

(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2023) Last week, farmworker organizations and Beyond Pesticides, represented by the Center for Food Safety, filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging that the weed killer glyphosate be removed from the market. The petition cites 200 studies, which represent a fraction of the independent scientific literature on the hazards of glyphosate and formulation ingredients of glyphosate products. This action follows previous litigation in 2022 in which a federal court of appeals struck down EPA’s human health assessment, finding that the agency wrongfully dismissed glyphosate’s cancer risk. The farmworker groups petitioning include Farmworker Association of Florida, Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, and the Rural Coalition.  

Meanwhile, verdicts against glyphosate’s manufacturer, Bayer, continue to pile up with a December jury verdict in Pennsylvania awarding $3.5 million and a November jury in Missouri ordering $1.56 billion to be paid to four plaintiffs. All link their cancer to use of the Roundup. Bayer has lost almost all of the cases filed against it for compensation and punitive damages associated with plaintiffs’ charge that its product (previously manufactured by Monsanto) caused them harm. 

The petition summarizes its purpose and justification as follows: 

“This Petition seeks to immediately suspend and cancel all glyphosate registrations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with regulating pesticides in the United States, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §136 et seq. In accordance with FIFRA, EPA can register a pesticide only upon determining that it will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice. Id. § 136a(c)(5)(A)-(D). To remain registered, a pesticide must continue to meet this FIFRA safety standard. To ensure this, EPA is required to periodically review pesticide registrations in light of new science and uses. Id. § 136a(g)(1)(A). EPA began this review process for glyphosate in 2009 and despite spending eleven years, produced a review decision that was vacated by the Ninth Circuit because it was deemed insufficient with regard to its human health assessment and cancer classification decision. EPA subsequently withdrew the remainder of glyphosate’s registration review decision, but has taken no further action. The result is that today, glyphosate remains registered despite no demonstration by EPA that it can meet the required FIFRA safety standard for this herbicide’s currently approved uses. In other words, glyphosate as it’s currently used has no legal safety assessment on record.” 

“The threat of glyphosate is way outside the bounds of any reasonable person’s definition of acceptable harm, surpasses allowable risk under federal pesticide law, and represents the poster child for what has gone dangerously wrong with EPA’s program to control toxic pesticides in our environment, homes, workplaces, and communities, with disproportionate injury to farmworkers and landscapers,” said Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides. “This petition attempts to hold EPA accountable to the rule of law, while recognizing that glyphosate, which causes adverse effects to biological systems—from soil microbiota to the gut microbiome, can be replaced by cost-effective organic food production and land management of parks, playing fields, or lawns.” 

In June 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a ruling that held EPA’s 2020 approval of glyphosate was  unlawful. In the Ninth Circuit decision, the court voided EPA’s “interim registration review” decision approving continued use of glyphosate, issued in early 2020. “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),” the court wrote in its opinion. 

The court held that EPA unlawfully concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk. Despite overwhelming evidence and Bayer’s high profile lawsuits, EPA came to “no conclusion” on glyphosate’s connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Notably, the agency did not assess how much glyphosate gets into a user’s bloodstream after skin contact with the herbicide, a major route of exposure for the chemical. Skin irritation was noted as one of the initial concerns for Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the school groundskeeper who won the first legal case against Bayer/Monsanto after contracting NHL.   

“This petition is a blueprint for the Biden administration to do what the law and science require and finally cancel glyphosate’s registration,” said Pegga Mosavi, an attorney at the Center for Food Safety and counsel for the petitioners. “There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that glyphosate endangers public health, and poses cancer risks to farmers and other Roundup users. Glyphosate formulations are also an environmental hazard and have driven an epidemic of resistant weeds that plague farmers. After last year’s court decision, EPA has no legal legs to stand on. EPA must take action now.” 

Glyphosate (N-phosphono-methyl glycine) is associated with a wide range of illnesses, including cancer—non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), genetic damage, liver and kidney damage, endocrine disruption, as well as environmental damage, including water contamination and harm to amphibians. Glyphosate has been associated with antibiotic resistance, adverse impacts on the gut biome, and damage to soil microbiota that is critical to soil cycling of nutrients. Researchers have also determined that the “inert” ingredients in glyphosate products, especially polyethoxylated tallow amine or POEA —a surfactant commonly used in glyphosate and other herbicidal products—are even more toxic than glyphosate itself. Monsanto, manufacturer of glyphosate, formulates many products such as Roundup™ and Rodeo™ and markets formulations exclusively used on genetically engineered (GE) crops.  

Glyphosate, cited as the most widely used herbicide in the world, is used in agriculture, most commonly in genetically engineered (GE) crop production, and throughout communities for weed control. In a statement of concern, “Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement,” the scientists writing find: “Genetically engineered crops with tolerance to glyphosate are widely grown, and their use has led to increased application of GBHs [glyphosate-based herbicides]. This increased use has contributed to widespread growth of glyphosate-resistant weeds. To combat the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds, GE plant varieties have been approved for commercial use that are resistant to multiple herbicides, including several older compounds that are possibly more toxic and environmentally disruptive than GBHs (for example, 2,4-D and dicamba).” 

Bayer announced in August 2021 that it would stop selling glyphosate in its formulation of home and garden products in 2023. However, it is widely known that other manufacturers/formulators may pick up active ingredients for its products that have been withdrawn from the market by the basic manufacturer. See DN on aldicarb.  

Given the issues associated with the ingredients in glyphosate (Roundup) formulations, advocates and scientists remain deeply concerned about EPA’s rejection in October 2023 (after six years), of a citizen petition requesting that the agency evaluate complete formulations of pesticide products, not just the ingredients the manufacturer claims attack the target pest (so-called “active” ingredients). Nowhere in EPA’s denial of the need for a more robust toxicological analysis is the problem more evident than in its refusal to require analyses of the so-called “inert ingredients” or “adjuvants” included in various formulations of pesticide products. The citizen petition [see more background] was followed by a lawsuit for the same purpose in 2022. Inerts and formulants are substances that enhance the distribution or adhesion of the active ingredient; adjuvants enhance the effectiveness of the active ingredient. These terms suggest that those chemicals have no effect on anything in the area where the pesticide is applied—a wildly inaccurate implication. At least as early as 1987, EPA had recognized that some inerts and adjuvants were “of toxicological concern,” yet it still requires very few toxicological tests of whole-formula pesticides or their purportedly inactive components. 

While the agrichemical industry continues argue that chemical-intensive farming is needed for higher yields, the data says that is not the case. See Research on organic agriculture shows it can  provide quadruple the performance, synergizing financial, human health, ecological, and socio-economic well-being. See Beyond Pesticides webpage on  Organic Agriculture for more information. Additionally, toxic herbicides are not needed for beautiful turf systems, whether playing fields, parks, school yards, or open space. Please see Parks for a Sustainable Future and join with Beyond Pesticides to convert community parks and playing fields to organic land management. 

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

Source: Farmworkers, Environmental Groups File Legal Action Demanding Roundup Ban 

(Beyond Pesticides, December 18, 2023) Since nearly three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California, new regulations being proposed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), governing public disclosure of pesticide use, concern all food eaters. Food consumers are increasingly concerned about not only the residues of pesticides and other toxic materials in their food, but the impact of the production practices to the workers, the communities, and the environment where their food is grown. While the precedent-setting DPR proposal is an important step in providing the public with information on the chemicals used in California food production, advocates are asking that the regulations include information on the exact location of planned pesticide applications so that people in the toxic chemical application area can take protective action.

Tell DPR to require exact field locations for dangerous pesticide applications and commit to improvements based on community input.

The DPR proposal, while precedent-setting in providing Californians with the basic right-to-know about planned use of toxic chemicals in their neighborhoods, will not provide the exact location of planned pesticide applications. Under the DPR proposal, the public would be provided with an application location of one square mile—even though the exact field location is known to county officials in advance.

The limitation of the one square mile approach to notification has been shown to be inadequate in four small pilot notification projects last year. In those pilots, DPR received unanimous feedback: Without exact location, these notifications do not provide the information people need to protect themselves. 

DPR has also repeatedly promised that the proposed notification program is just a starting point, and the regulation will be revised in future. However, the proposed notification does not provide any opportunity for communities to weigh in—just a report by DPR staff after three years with zero commitment to make any changes. 

Advocates are asking DPR to use this historic opportunity to ensure full transparency for communities where pesticides are being used with disclosure of the exact location of pesticide applications in California, and a commitment to listen to impacted residents and to make real changes if the regulation is not working.

Tell DPR to require exact field locations for dangerous pesticide applications and commit to improvements based on community input.

Letter to DPR Director

The state of California is often in the lead in regulating pesticides. The state’s protective actions provide a model for the nation. In addition, California supplies the nation with a third of the country’s vegetables and nearly three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts, so people throughout the country have a stake in California’s regulation of pesticides.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has proposed a new regulation to provide advance notification to all Californians of some of the most hazardous pesticides used in agriculture. This proposed regulation does not go far enough.

I applaud this precedent-setting proposal to provide Californians with the basic right to know about planned use of toxic chemicals in our neighborhoods. However, DPR’s proposal will not provide the exact location of planned pesticide applications, instead giving only the 1×1 square mile “section”—even though the exact field location is known to county officials in advance.

This has been shown to be inadequate in four small pilot notification projects last year. In those pilots, DPR received unanimous feedback: Without exact location, these notifications do not provide the information people need to protect themselves. 

DPR has also repeatedly promised that the proposed notification program is just a starting point, and the regulation will be revised in future. But the proposed notification doesn’t provide any opportunity for communities to weigh in – just a report by DPR staff after three years with zero commitment to make any changes. 

Please do not to waste this historic opportunity to protect Californians and provide a model for the nation. We want the exact location of pesticide applications in California, and a commitment to listen to impacted residents and to make real changes if the regulation is not working.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2023) Drawing on a recent gathering of international scientists, a group of 34 scientists published a call for much stricter scrutiny of researchers’ conflicts of interest by agencies that regulate and register chemicals, with recommendations for the newly formed Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel. Writing in Environmental Science & Technology, the authors, led by Andreas Schäffer of Aachen University in Germany and Martin Scheringer of Masaryk University in the Czech Republic, cite an abundance of examples of chemical companies and their trade associations manufacturing doubt via an array of techniques, resulting in agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dropping certain provisions from rulemaking, ignoring scientific consensus, and keeping chemicals on the market—and in the environment—that many scientists say should be entirely banned. The authors produced the article in response to this webinar to discuss how to ensure that U.N. panels dealing with global crises get the most sound scientific advice conducted by the International Panel on Chemical Pollution.

Over the last four decades or so, the notion that conflicts of interest affect the validity of scientific research and professional opinions has been steadily eroded. Regulators wallow in compromised research, hamstrung by political pressure and pinched funding even as they face some 350,000 chemicals registered for use globally, only a tiny fraction of which have been tested for safety. Arguments in favor of enforcing rigorous conflict of interest (COI) policies in evaluation and registration of pesticides and other industrial chemicals have been repeatedly emphasized in scientific journals and the press, yet almost nothing has reduced the amount of industry influence over that process. In 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly decided to create a new advisory group called the Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel to provide expert advice to the U.N.’s existing intergovernmental panels on climate change and biodiversity.

The problem of industry interference applies to almost every industrial chemical, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, flame retardants, and asbestos. The tactics remain the same across fields, and are derived from the campaigns waged by climate deniers, tobacco companies, and fossil fuel companies as detailed in 2010 in Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

One of the most obvious routes to affect policy, namely lobbying, cost chemical interests $65.9 million in 2022, according to an Open Secrets report. The American Chemistry Council’s pressure on legislators accounted for $19.8 million of that.

But more subtle industry influences also pervade the regulatory process. There are at least 24 strategies industry uses to disguise its conflicts of interest and further its economic goals, according to Rebecca Goldberg and Laura Vandenberg, researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. These include, the authors write, “‘revolving doors’ between a regulatory authority and the industry it is meant to regulate; reliance for safety data on unpublished industry documents while largely ignoring publications by independent scientists; and covert influence by the industry.” They also often threaten lawsuits against researchers whose work conflicts with their goals.

More types of industry manipulation were offered in 2019 by Xaver Baur, Colin Soskolne and Lisa Bero in Environmental Health:

Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting “causation” criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers’ access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas.

And yet another perspective on the problem was offered by University of Notre Dame biologist Jason Rohr in a 2021 article:

The first tool is shaping science, which is the art of creating research to produce a desired outcome, often referred to as outcome-oriented research. When efforts to shape science fail, advocates will often attempt to hide science associated with unwelcome information or attack this science by launching illegitimate critiques in an effort to turn reliable science into “junk” [references omitted]. To discourage future damaging research, advocates will also harass or bully scientists who produce damaging research. Packaging science is the art of assembling an expert group to advance a favored outcome, whereas spinning science is the art of manipulating public perception about credible science.

For a painful example of the personal toll such practices take on individual scientists, read Herbert Needleman’s 1992 story of persecution by fossil fuel interests when he published research showing that inner-city children’s teeth contained high levels of lead. This was 14 years after lead was banned in paint, but just the beginning of the fight to further reduce children’s lead exposure, which has seen considerable success, but the lead industry was still lobbying against regulation by 1996, and today there are still nearly half a million U.S. children with elevated levels.

Beyond Pesticides has covered many aspects of industry influence at EPA, FDA, USDA and other regulatory agencies. See our 2017 commentary for more details. That year we also critiqued the nomination of Michael L. Dourson to be assistant administrator for chemical safety on the grounds that he had spent years “helping companies resist constraints on their use of potentially toxic compounds in consumer products.” Dourson founded a consultancy whose clients included Dow Chemical Company, Koch Industries, Inc. and Chevron Corporation. His research funders included the American Chemistry Council, which endorsed his EPA nomination. However, vigorous resistance from Beyond Pesticides and many other activist groups and unflattering press coverage led Dourson to withdraw his nomination. Thus the revolving door did not operate as intended this time.

Pesticide regulation is a major target for industry influence. For example, the herbicide atrazine, which EPA acknowledges is an endocrine disrupter, is very common in U.S drinking water. The E.U. banned it in 2004, but it remains the second most-used herbicide in the U.S. Atrazine’s manufacturer, Syngenta, notoriously attacked University of California Berkeley researcher Tyrone Hayes when he published results of atrazine’s hormonal effects on frogs. The company went so far as to hire a public relations flack to gin up rumors about Hayes’s mental health in order to discredit his work.

One of industry’s most appalling successes has been keeping asbestos on the market despite reams of evidence that it is extremely damaging to humans, causing mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other respiratory diseases, and it has been associated with ovarian, colorectal, stomach and pharyngeal cancers. In an especially scurrilous turn of events, from 2012 to 2016 an international corporate intelligence firm called K2 hired a former television producer to misrepresent himself as a crusading filmmaker eager to document the tragic effects of asbestos in India. The firm was working for asbestos interests. The so-called filmmaker, Robert Moore, ingratiated himself with anti-asbestos activists, recording phone calls and meetings and reporting to K2. The World Health Organization hired him to make a film called “Victims of Chrysotile Asbestos.” The whole story unraveled in court in 2018, but even this outrage did not overcome industry influence. EPA tried to ban asbestos in the U.S. in 1989 but caved to political pressure from the George H.W. Bush administration. It remains importable and usable in the U.S.

Not all biases create conflicts of interest. The Schäffer group distinguishes three different conditions that affect scientific validity, namely conflicts of interest, bias and just plain interest. The latter two are unavoidable, as they arise from professional obligations or participation in the work of activist groups advocating for public health. The authors cite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s definition of bias as “a point of view or perspective” that “every expert holds” by virtue of his or her expertise. They support IPCC statement that “Holding a view that one believes to be correct, but that one does not stand to gain from personally, is not a conflict of interest.” In contrast, a true conflict derives from “a direct and material gain” in the form of money, political loyalties, or social connections. The conflicts that do the real damage are those associated with for-profit entities, their linked nonprofit trade groups, and the consultancies they hire. Money, prestige and power are tempting rewards.

Funding source has been identified numerous times as an indicator of industry influence. For example, a 2016 analysis of 39 studies of atrazine’s effects on reproduction found that only 9.1 percent of industry-funded studies showed evidence of harm, compared to 50 percent of non-industry sponsored studies.

In the late 1990s bisphenol A (BPA) was shown to disrupt prostate development in animals. After these results were successfully replicated, the American Plastics Council paid the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to produce an argument that the evidence of endocrine disruption was very weak. A subsequent analysis of the BPA literature by Frederick vom Saal and Claude Hughes revealed that the 19 studies considered by Harvard were a small and cherry-picked fraction of the full range of studies available. Further, vom Saal and Hughes showed that out of 115 in vivo studies conducted by academic scientists, 94 found evidence of significant effects at low doses, yet none of the industry studies did so.

Clearly there has not been widespread progress on eliminating corporate and industrial interests’ influence on chemical policies, including pesticides. But the body of evidence is large and eloquent. The newly-formed Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel proposes that its own membership be subject to rigorous conflict of interest disclosure and that experts who have such conflicts should participate only as observers. The panel should also be monitored by an independent audit team to ensure that the panel’s work is “transparent, impartial, credible and scientifically robust” as specified by the United Nations resolution establishing the panel. If scientists who are free of industry tentacles join with environmental groups and the global public to push back against manipulation and misinformation, progress can be achieved.

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

Sources:

Conflicts of Interest in the Assessment of Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution
Andreas Schäffer, et al.

Environmental Science & Technology 2023 57 (48), 19066-19077
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c04213, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c04213

Why the U.S. Is Losing the Fight to Ban Toxic Chemicals, by Neil Bedi, Sharon Lerner and Kathleen McGrory, Dec. 14, 2022, https://www.propublica.org/article/toxic-chemicals-epa-regulation-failures

Conflict of Interest Concerns Cloud Glyphosate Review
https://usrtk.org/pesticides/conflict-of-interest-concerns-cloud-meeting-as-international-experts-review-herbicide-risks/

IPCP. Webinar: Unwrapping Conflict of Interest in Chemicals and Waste Governance. 2023, January 26. https://www.ipcp.ch/activities/webinar-unwrapping-conflict-of-interest-in-chemicals-and-waste-governance

https://www.ipcp.ch/activities/webinar-unwrapping-conflict-of-interest-in-chemicals-and-waste-governance  RECORDING

Oreskes, N.; Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming; Bloomsbury Press, 2010.

https://books.google.de/books?id=fpMh3nh3JI0C&pg=PP4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Goldberg, R. F.; Vandenberg, L. N. The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health. Environ. Health 2021, 20 (1), 33 DOI: 10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0.

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0

UNEP. Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022 – Science-policy panel to contribute further to the sound management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution. 2022.

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39944/SCIENCE-POLICY%20PANEL%20TO%20CONTRIBUTE%20FURTHER%20TO%20THE%20SOUND%20MANAGEMENT%20OF%20CHEMICALS%20AND%20WASTE%20AND%20TO%20PREVENT%20POLLUTION.%20English.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

(Beyond Pesticides, December 14, 2023) It has been reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is again considering allowing the use of the highly neurotoxic, carbamate insecticide aldicarb for use in Florida citrus, 13 years after the agency and the chemical’s manufacturer, Bayer Crop Science, announced that it was being banned (technically voluntarily canceled). A version of the current EPA proposal and the resource-intensive review process in EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs—all being done at taxpayers’ expense—was rebuffed, first by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (April 2021), then by a U.S. Court of Appeals (June 2021). Internal EPA emails, as reported in The New Lede (November 21, 2023), expose the extent to which the agency’s science and political staff have tried to downplay aldicarb’s adverse health and environmental outcomes in order to meet the EPA’s broad, and often described as loose, risk parameters. 

This Daily News piece on aldicarb is part of an ongoing story of the politicization of science by political appointees to an agency that is charged with protecting public health and the environment. The degree to which agency scientific staff are complicit in advancing agency positions that are not supported by the scientific data continues to be an emerging story. The debacle of aldicarb, which would appear—given its history—to be an easy agency decision to reject any use, raises serious questions about dependency on an EPA that is beset by political and industry capture issues. And, this is still happening during a period in which there is an unprecedented escalation in threats of serious illness, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency—all intersecting in critical ways with pesticide use in agriculture and communities. (See Daily News.) Advocates argue that the now ongoing regulatory discussion of aldicarb use is a critical example of the urgent need to shift away from pesticide use to currently available, cost-effective, organic land management and agricultural practices. 

The chemical’s manufacturer is seeking aldicarb’s registration to control citrus greening, a disease transmitted by the Asian citrus psyllid. The bacterial disease has been successfully managed organically in Florida, with a combination of biological controls and cultural practices. While citrus greening is causing significant disruptions for many growers, organic farms are finding nontoxic and less toxic measures of addressing the problem. Watch the talk given by Benny McLean of Uncle Matt’s Orange Juice at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum held in Orlando, Florida in 2015 for more information about innovative, organic methods to tackle problems in citrus production. 

For those tracking the history of the Office of Pesticide Programs, this is yet another example of what advocates have called the manipulation of science by chemical manufacturers pressuring EPA to meet a predetermined outcome, which many have characterized as corruption of the regulatory process from external and internal pressure. A report by EPA’s Office of Inspector General in July 2022 on another deadly chemical, 1,3-Dichloropropane (1,3-D; brand name: Telone), concluded, “[D]epartures from established standards during the cancer assessment for 1,3-D undermine the EPA’s credibility, as well as public confidence in and the transparency of the Agency’s scientific approaches, in its efforts to prevent unreasonable impacts on human health.” Now, according to news reports, emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Center for Biological Diversity, for the period leading up to EPA’s failed attempt to approve aldicarb in Florida citrus uses in 2021, identify apparent data manipulation and scientific reversals based on no new scientific information.  

According to The New Lede, in a series of internal emails, in December 2019 the agency unequivocally states that aldicarb poses unacceptable exposure risks through food, drinking water and groundwater, in addition to threats to small and medium birds, mammals, most aquatic organisms, and honey bees. Then, nearly a year later, November 2020, an EPA staffer writes about a conversation with the chemical company lobbyist, saying, “I told her the team is working very hard and there is a chance that we may have found a path forward, but that there are still a lot of moving pieces needed to fall into place.” With pressure from the chemical company and the Florida citrus industry, this became a priority for the Trump administration before leaving office. However, the trajectory of aldicarb did not change with the Biden administration and was only stopped by a state regulatory decision by then-Agriculture Commission Nikki Fried (D) and litigation filed by the Farmworker Association of Florida, Center for Biological Diversity, and Environmental Working Group.    

The chemical company behind the effort to bring back aldicarb is AgLogic Chemical, LLC. According to its website, AgLogic, based in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, “is the only formulator of aldicarb pesticides, which is sold as AgLogic 15GG aldicarb across the United States.” The company indicates that the product is registered for use on cotton, peanuts, dry beans, soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet potatoes in 24 states to control thrips, aphids, leafhoppers, whiteflies, mites, and nematodes. It is not registered for use in California, the upper Midwest (with the exception of Michigan), the mid-Atlantic, and all of New England.  

While news reports in 2010 proclaimed the end of aldicarb, EPA’s actions at that time actually laid the groundwork for the chemical’s return. The voluntary cancellation allowed Bayer to continue to label aldicarb for use on certain crops, including cotton, peanuts, and beans during a “phase out” until August 2018. Despite the arrangement with Bayer, the agency allowed AgLogic to register in 2011 an aldicarb product for use on cotton and sweet potatoes. Now, EPA may be permitting AgLogic to do what it told Bayer over a decade ago was too risky for children’s health. 

In 2010, Beyond Pesticides reported the cancellation of aldicarb in Daily News: ”Behind closed doors this past Monday (August 16, 2010), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Bayer Crop Science reached an agreement on a set of measures to gradually reduce and ultimately ban fully the use of the insecticide aldicarb in the U.S. This decision arrives on the heels of a revised risk assessment in which EPA found that babies and children under the age of five can ingest levels of the insecticide through food and drinking water at levels that exceed limits that the agency finds safe and 25 years after 2,000 people fell ill after eating watermelons that were tainted with the pesticide. Though Beyond Pesticides applauds any decision to remove toxic chemicals from the environment, the problem with this cancellation, as with virtually all voluntary cancellations, is that the chemical can be legally used for years —eight years in this case — leaving open the opportunity for continued human and environmental exposure and harm.” In retrospect, it is now known that Bayer pulling out of the market still left the door open for others to keep this hazardous chemical on the market, another failure, advocates note, of EPA’s approach to negotiating pesticide restrictions that compromise public health and environmental protection. 

Problems with aldicarb are complex and intersect with one of the worst industrial accidents when a manufacturing facility in Bhopal, India in 1984 leaked methyl isocyanate (MIC), a precursor chemical used in the production of carbamate pesticides including aldicarb. The chemical leak and plant explosion killed an estimated 25,000 people in Bhopal and left more than 120,000 people with severe health problems throughout their lives. Continuing research released this year (June 2023) has found that fetuses in the womb during the disaster exhibited lower birth weights and remained more susceptible to respiratory problems, cognitive impairments, and other health issues later in life. Moreover, those born just after the gas leak were found to have lower educational attainment and reduced earning potential as adults. (For background on the Bhopal explosion and immediate and long-term effects, see Daily News.) 

Over 100 countries have banned aldicarb under the Rotterdam Convention, an international agreement on toxic chemicals that the United States has signed but not ratified.  

For more background information on EPA’s earlier attempt in 2021 to allow the use of aldicarb in citrus, see Beyond Pesticides’ action on the previous EPA proposal; and for more information on aldicarb, see Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Archives. For more information on the organic alternative to replace chemical-intensive practices that rely on hazardous options like aldicarb, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Agriculture page. 

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

Sources: The New Lede 

(Beyond Pesticides, December 13, 2023) A study published in Environmental Health finds occupational (work-related) exposure to pesticides increases the risk of endometrial (uterine) cancer development. Endometrial cancer is the most common cancer of the female reproductive system and the fourth most common cancer among women, primarily affecting the uterine lining rather than the uterus itself, like uterine sarcoma. Despite data predicting the disease rate to increase, few studies evaluate the connection environmental contaminants have on endometrial cancer occurrence. Like most cancers, non-genetic factors account for a majority of endometrial cancer risk, including diabetes, age, contraceptive (birth-control) use, and hormone (endocrine) disruption. However, three percent of all cases are hereditary, primarily from Lynch syndrome. The study notes, “Identifying other modifiable risk factors may help develop strategies to reduce the expected increasing incidence of these neoplasms.”

Many pesticides have a long history associated with endocrine-disrupting properties that induce various molecular changes, prompting disease development. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies many of these chemicals as potent carcinogens in animal studies. Cancer development also depends on genetic susceptibility, as impaired genes responsible for xenobiotic detoxification (elimination) increase disease risk sensitivity. Adding to the science, a review published in Environmental Exposure, Biomonitoring, and Exposure Assessment highlights how specific estrogen-mimicking pesticides increase the risk of disease, particularly hormone-related cancers among women (e.g., breast, ovarian, endometrial cancer) and men (e.g., testicular, prostate cancer). Endocrine disruptors, including many pesticides, are xenobiotic (i.e., chemical substances foreign to an organism or ecosystem). Many reports demonstrate that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely affect human, animal—and thus environmental—health by altering the natural bodily hormones responsible for conventional reproductive, physical, and mental development. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (e.g., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular, reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause cancer, among other health issues.

Using a questionnaire and job-exposure matrix (JEM) in the Screenwide case-control study, the study analyzed the association between occupational exposure to pesticides and endometrial cancer. The data includes 174 consecutive incidents of endometrial cancer cases and 216 controls of the individuals occupationally exposed to pesticides, whether fungicides, herbicides, or insecticides; there is a positive association with endometrial cancer. Although past exposure shows a higher occurrence of endometrial cancer, this can be explained through the latency (delayed) development of cancer, as the illness is primarily chronic. As for occupation, agricultural jobs have a higher association with cancer prognosis than custodial jobs (e.g., disinfectants).

The connection between pesticides and associated cancer risks is not a new finding. Many pesticides are “known or probable” carcinogens (cancer-causing agents), and widespread uses only amplify chemical hazards, adversely affecting human health. Several studies link pesticide use and residue to various cancers, from the more prevalent breast cancer to the rare kidney cancer, nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor). Sixty-six percent of all cancers have links to environmental factors, especially in occupations of high chemical use. At least 45 different cancers have associations with work-related chemical exposure. Although the link between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses is stark, over 63 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent of commonly used school pesticides have links to cancer. Many cancer-causing substances are endocrine disruptors, directly affecting traditional endocrine glands and their hormones and receptors (e.g., estrogens, anti-androgens, thyroid hormones) while greatly influencing hormone cancer incidents among humans (e.g., unrein, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers). Moreover, several studies and reports, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, identify hundreds of chemicals as influential factors associated with hormone-related cancer risk. 

This study is one of the first to evaluate the association between work-related exposure to pesticides and endometrial cancer, accounting for confounding factors like age, comorbidities (presence of multiple health conditions), and medication. Additionally, the study highlights potential mechanisms involved in disease development, including oxidative stress, disruption of enzymatic activity, and epigenetic changes from pesticide exposure. However, the specific molecular pathway needs further investigation. Similarly, external factors such as exposure rate, pesticide type, and pesticide (including breakdown product) persistence in the organism can play a role in carcinogenicity (cancer development).

There is a lack of understanding of the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developing chronic illnesses. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with over eight million people succumbing to the disease every year. Notably, IARC predicts an increase in new cancer cases from 19.3 million to 30.2 million per year by 2040. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and cancer will aid in understanding the underlying mechanisms that cause the disease. Consequently, it is essential to understand the health implications of pesticide use and exposure for humans, particularly when pesticides increase chronic disease risk. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent news and studies on pesticides and related topics through the Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). For more information on the adverse effects of pesticides on human health, see PIDD pages on cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases.

Moreover, proper prevention practices, like buying, growing, and supporting organics, can eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental, benefits, as it curtails the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Regenerative organic agriculture nurtures soil health through organic carbon sequestration, preventing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. For more information on why organic is the right choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Environmental Health

(Beyond Pesticides, December 12, 2023) A review published in Nature Reviews Microbiology finds pesticides can disrupt honeybee (Apis mellifera) microbiota (bacteria) in their gut, altering the immune system, metabolism, behavior, and development. Many studies emphasize chemical-driven agricultural systems dependent upon pollinators and products that harm or kill off these sensitive species. Previous studies have linked adverse impacts to bee microbiome to pesticide exposure. Toxic (manufactured poison) pesticides readily contaminate the ecosystem with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, the scientific literature commonly associates pesticides with human, biotic, and ecosystem harm, as a doubling of toxic effects on invertebrates, like pollinators, has been recorded since 2004. 

Pollinator declines directly affect the environment, society, and the economy. Many agricultural and nonagricultural plant species will decline or cease to exist without pollinators. In turn, the economy will take a hit, since much of the economy (65%) depends upon the strength of the agricultural sector. As the science shows, pesticides are one of the most significant stressors for pollinators. Additionally, pesticides have a devastating impact on bees and other pollinators and the larger context of what has been called by scientists as the “insect apocalypse.” In a world where habitat loss and fragmentation show no sign of abating, scientists have concluded that the globe cannot afford to subject its critically important wild insects to these combined threats. Therefore, studies like these emphasize the need for improved assessment of environmentally relevant chemical exposure levels to honey bees.

The review explores the relationship between microbiota in the gut of bees and the effects on bees’ health and biological function: microbial interactions within the stomach, processes in bee biology and health, impact of agricultural practices, and potential for probiotics in bees (which remains unclear). Since bacteria in the bees’ gut occupy differing niches, their interaction with the host and each other can vary. Gut microbiota protects against pathogens and parasites, processes dietary or bodily components, and interacts with species within the host. Decreased microbial abundance and diversity can negatively affect honey bee health and survival. Without these microbiota, gene expression (a gene relaying information to produce a function) can change, weakening immune response, metabolic process, and development. Additionally, antibiotic exposure is a concern among agricultural exposure as antibiotic treatments lessen microbial abundance in the gut, hampering the absorption of nutrients, weight gain, immunity, and development of bee larvae.

The intestines host a group of microorganisms (microbiota) that form the gut microbiome. Gut microbiota, including bacteria, archaea, viruses, and fungi, play a crucial role in regulating lifelong digestion, immune, and central nervous system. Ample evidence demonstrates environmental contaminants like pesticides negatively affect gut microbes. Through the gut microbiome, pesticide exposure can enhance or exacerbate the adverse effects of additional environmental toxicants on the body. Since the gut microbiome shapes metabolism, it can mediate some toxic effects of environmental chemicals. However, with prolonged exposure to various environmental contaminants, critical chemical-induced changes may occur in the gut microbes, influencing adverse health outcomes. However, honey bees are not the only insects facing harm from environmental contaminants like pesticides, as all pollinators are in peril from exposure to environmental pollutants.

Like gut microbes, soil microbes are essential for the standard functionality of the soil ecosystem. Toxic chemicals damage the soil microbiota by decreasing and altering microbial biomass and soil microbiome composition (diversity). Pesticide use contaminates soil and results in a bacteria-dominant ecosystem as these chemicals cause “vacant ecological niches, so rare organisms become abundant and vice versa.” The bacteria outcompete beneficial fungi, which improves soil productivity and increases carbon sequestration capacity. The resulting soil ecosystem is unhealthy and imbalanced, with a reduction in the natural cycling of nutrients and resilience. Thus, plants grown in such conditions are more vulnerable to parasites and pathogens. 

Like previous literature cited above, this review shows that pesticide use can disturb and shift the abundance of specific microbes in the bee gut microbiome. Pesticide-induced disturbances occur primarily in one of two ways—either directly harming microbes or indirectly harming the host’s (bee) health and subsequently shifting the microbiome. An unfavorable environment produced by the bee’s gut can create an environment less suitable for certain microbes. Moreover, regarding the impacts of exposure, the duration of pesticide exposure is more important than the amount of pesticide to which a bee is exposed. Longer exposure times result in more significant disturbances but likely vary by pesticide mode of action. A 2018 study found that it disrupts honey bee microbiota, and a 2015 study found that it results in sublethal effects on honey bee navigation and foraging success. However, studies suggest inerts may play a role in pollinator harm.

Three out of four food crops globally depend on pollinators, and honey bees account for a significant portion of pollination of some U.S. crops. To protect honey bees and other pollinators, check out what you can do by using pollinator-friendly landscapes and pollinator-friendly seeds, engaging in organic gardening and landscaping, and supporting organic agriculture through purchasing decisions. Learn more about the science and resources behind the adverse effects of pesticides on pollinators and take action against the use of pesticides. Buying, growing, and supporting organic will help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management and regenerative organic agriculture eliminate the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. For more information on the organic choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpages, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture, Lawns and Landscapes, and Parks for a Sustainable Future. 

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

Source: Nature Reviews Microbiology

Update: This Daily News is updated to address the organic status of the company cited in the piece, Merchant’s Garden. The article now indicates that the company is certified as organic under a different name (Merchant’s Garden Agrotech) than the name used in the USDA press release.  As a result, their name did not appear in USDA’s Organic Integrity Database (OID) at the time of the original Daily News and Action of the Week posting. USDA updated OID on December 8, 2023, the same day that it received a complaint on this matter from former National Organic Standard Board chair Jim Riddle. The critical focus of the piece remains the same: It is not disclosed to consumers on food products labeled “organic” when that food or ingredients are grown hydroponically. Beyond Pesticides, as indicated in the article, views hydroponic as a conventional growing practice that does not meet the spirit and intent of the organic system, as defined in the Organic Foods Production Act. 

(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2023) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack announced on November 27, 2023 funding that appears to be supporting the expansion of “organic” hydroponic, an approach to food production that has been criticized by the vast majority of the organic community as a process that violates foundational organic principles. The funding, under USDA’s Rural Business and Value-Added Producer Grants program, is intended to assist in financing an expansion of rural businesses, including 185 projects worth nearly $196 million. Organizations representing organic producers and consumers have told the USDA’s National Organic Program that hydroponic food production, as a form of conventional chemical-intensive agriculture, does not meet the standards of soil-based food production required for USDA organic labeling. Currently, federal law does not require that hydroponically produced food be labeled, leaving consumers unable to distinguish production practices at the point of sale. 

One of the projects highlighted in the USDA announcement states, “Merchant’s Garden LLC is a hydroponic and aquaponic farm in Tucson, Arizona. The company will use a $250,000 Value-Added Producer Grant to expand marketing and sales of prepackaged salad mixes to help them become a local supplier of organic leafy greens for southern Arizona.” However, Merchant’s Garden’s website does not make any organic claims for its produce, so advocates question why USDA is promoting this hydroponic/aquaponic producer as “organic.”

Tell Secretary Vilsack and your Congressional representatives to ensure that USDA ceases promotion of hydroponically-grown products as “organic.”

Beyond Pesticides has said: “Taxpayer dollars should not used to finance a hydroponic/aquaponic operation that does not comply with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). If products from this operation are to be sold as “organic,” it will cause harm to producers who comply with OFPA. It will also deceive consumers who purchase organic products believing that such products are produced in healthy, fertile soil, as required by the organic law and regulations. To the extent that hydoponic operations supplant soil-based (real) organic operations, these subsidies negate the climate and biodiversity benefits of organic agriculture.”

The Organic Foods Production Act, at 6513(b), requires that all organic crop production operations submit and follow organic plans that “shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” The same section of OFPA goes on to state, “An organic plan shall not include any production or handling practices that are inconsistent with this chapter.”

It is widely understood that organic farms support soil health, help sequester carbon dioxide, and avoid the use of materials like soluble nitrogen fertilizers that contribute many times as much warming potential as carbon dioxide. Beyond Pesticides advocates that USDA’s financial support should go to new and transitioning organic farms.

By decisive vote in 2010, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board determined that hydroponic and aquaponic operations are inconsistent with OFPA and do not qualify for organic certification. Under the law, the National Organic Program (NOP) is required to determine whether Merchant’s Garden LLC complies with section 6513(b) of the Organic Foods Production Act and whether the operation intends to sell their hydroponically-grown products as “organic.” If the operation does not comply, NOP is required to ensure that it is not certified organic.

Tell Secretary Vilsack and your Congressional representatives to ensure that USDA ceases promotion of hydroponically-grown products as “organic.”

Historically, perhaps the most important principle of organic production is the “Law of Return,” which, together with the rule “Feed the soil, not the plant” and the promotion of biodiversity, provide the ecological basis for organic production. (Sir Albert Howard. The Soil and Health: The Study of Organic Agriculture (1940), and An Agricultural Testament (1947).) Together, these three principles describe a production system that mimics natural systems. The Law of Return says that we must return to the soil what we take from the soil. Non-crop organic matter is returned directly or through composting plant materials or manures. To the extent that the cash crop removes nutrients, they must be replaced by cover crops, crop rotation, or additions of off-site materials when necessary.

The dictum to “Feed the soil, not the plant” reinforces the fact that soil is a living superorganism that supports plant life as part of an ecological community. Soil organisms are not fed to plants in isolation to have them process nutrients for crop plants. The soil is fed to support a healthy soil ecology, which is the basis of terrestrial life.

Finally, biological diversity is important to the health of natural ecosystems and agroecosystems. Biodiversity promotes balance, which protects farms from outbreaks of damaging insects and disease. It supports the health of the soil through the progression of the seasons and stresses associated with weather and farming. It supports our health by offering a diversity of foods.

A 2010 National Organic Standards Board report embraces these foundational principles but also contrasts organic production and “conventional” chemical-intensive agriculture. At the time of the passage of OFPA, the organic community’s characterization of soil as alive was viewed with amusement by the “conventional” agriculture experts, who saw soil as a structure for supporting plants, while farmers poured on synthetic nutrients—and the poisons that had become necessary to protect the plants growing without the protection of their ecological community. Interestingly, organic producers at that time compared conventional agriculture to hydroponics.

Conventional agriculture has now learned something about soil life—enough to promote some use of cover crops despite continued reliance on petrochemical nitrogen. On a parallel track, practitioners of hydroponics have learned the value of biology in their nutrient solutions. However, in both cases, the lessons have not been completely understood. This is made very clear from the hydroponics industry explanation that “bioponics” (non-sterile hydroponics) depends on biological activity.

It is the case that bioponics relies on biological activity in the nutrient solution to break down complex molecules and make them available to the plants. It is also true that the nutrient solution in bioponics has an ecology—as all biological systems do. However, the hydroponics industry repeatedly calls this a “soil ecology,” although it is merely an artificial mimic of soil ecology and a reductionist approach to manipulating nature.

A quote from the Omnivore’s Dilemma (2006) by Michael Pollan can provide some perspective on the importance of organic as envisioned by the early adopters of the practices and the drafters of OFPA:

To reduce such a vast biological complexity to NPK [nitrogen-phosphorous-potassium] represented the scientific method at its reductionist worst. Complex qualities are reduced to simple quantities; biology gives way to chemistry. As [Sir Albert] Howard was not the first to point out, that method can only deal with one or two variables at a time. The problem is that once science has reduced a complex phenomenon to a couple of variables, however important they may be, the natural tendency is to overlook everything else, to assume that what you can measure is all there is, or at least all that really matters. When we mistake what we can know for all there is to know, a healthy appreciation of one’s ignorance in the face of a mystery like soil fertility gives way to the hubris that we can treat nature as a machine.

The ecological system of a hydroponic nutrient system is described by the hydroponics industry to be more like a fermentation chamber—a means of processing plant nutrients—than the soil ecosystem of an organic farm. The three principles cited above are explained in further detail below:

The Law of Return. In a soil-based system, residues are returned to the soil by tillage, composting, or mulching. In a bioponics system, the residues may be composted; the residue is not returned to the bioponic system, closing the loop. The inputs that are typically identified in bioponics include many agricultural products—animal-based compost, soy protein, molasses, bone meal, alfalfa meal, plant-based compost, hydrolyzed plant and animal protein, composted poultry manure, dairy manure, blood meal, cottonseed meal, and neem seed meal—and these are produced off-site, with no return to their production system. While most organic growers depend on some off-site inputs, most of the fertility in a soil-based system comes from practices that recycle organic matter produced on-site. The cycling of organic matter and on-site production of nutrients—as from nitrogen-fixing bacteria and microorganisms that make nutrients in native mineral soil fractions available to plants—is essential to organic production. The Law of Return is not about feeding plants but about conserving the biodiversity of the soil-plant-animal ecological community.

Feed the soil, not the plant. The description of the bioponics system and case studies reveal how much bioponics relies on added plant nutrients. These nutrients may be made available through biological processes, but they are added to feed the plants, not the ecosystem. Here is an example of a case study of bioponic tomatoes:

After planting the seedlings in this growing media, it is necessary to add supplemental nutrition throughout the growing cycle (approximately one year). About once per week, solid and liquid nutrients are added to the growing media. Some fertilizers can be applied through the irrigation lines because they are soluble enough and will not clog the lines. The use of soluble nitrogen fertilizers is limited because of their high costs, for instance, for plant-based amino acids. [S]odium nitrate. . .will be used as a lower cost nitrogen source. Soluble organic-compliant inorganic minerals, such as potassium and magnesium sulfate, are also added through the irrigation system.

Biodiversity. The definition of “organic production” in the organic regulations requires the conservation of biodiversity. As stated in the National Organic Program Guidance on Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation (NOP 5020),

The preamble to the final rule establishing the NOP explained, “[t]he use of ‘conserve’ [in the definition of organic production] establishes that the producer must initiate practices to support biodiversity and avoid, to the extent practicable, any activities that would diminish it. Compliance with the requirement to conserve biodiversity requires that a producer incorporate practices in his or her organic system plan that are beneficial to biodiversity on his or her operation.” (76 FR 80563) [Emphasis added.]

Under this guidance, while the hydroponics industry may say it is not diminishing soil and plant biodiversity, certified organic operations must take active steps to support biodiversity. On a soil-based organic farm, many practices support—from crop rotations to interplanting to devoting space to hedgerows and other nonproductive uses. These practices are also used by organic farmers producing food in greenhouses. However, bioponics is a monocultural environment that does not support biodiversity.

Tell Secretary Vilsack and your Congressional representatives to ensure that USDA ceases promotion of hydroponically-grown products as “organic.”

Letter to Secretary Agriculture Tom Vilsack:

On November 27, you announced the release of funds from the USDA Rural Business Development and Value-Added Producer Grant Programs to assist in the financing or expansion of rural businesses. In total, 185 projects worth nearly $196 million are being funded to create new and better market opportunities for agricultural producers.

One of the projects highlighted in the USDA announcement is very troubling. The announcement states, “Merchant’s Garden LLC is a hydroponic and aquaponic farm in Tucson, Arizona. The company will use a $250,000 Value-Added Producer Grant to expand marketing and sales of prepackaged salad mixes to help them become a local supplier of organic leafy greens for southern Arizona.” However, Merchant’s Garden’s website does not make any organic claims for its produce, so it is curious that USDA is promoting this hydroponic/aquaponic producer as “organic.”

Taxpayer dollars should not be used to assist a hydroponic/aquaponic operation that does not comply with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to sell products as organic. If products from this operation are to be sold as organic, it will cause harm to producers who comply with OFPA. It will also deceive consumers who purchase organic products believing that such products are produced in healthy, fertile soil, as required by the OFPA and regulations. To the extent that hydroponic operations supplant soil-based (real) organic operations, these subsidies negate the climate and biodiversity benefits of organic agriculture.

The Organic Foods Production Act, at 6513(b), requires that all organic crop production operations submit and follow organic plans that, “shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” The same section of OFPA goes on to state, “An organic plan shall not include any production or handling practices that are inconsistent with this chapter.”

The Earth needs many more real organic farms that support soil life, help sequester carbon dioxide, and avoid the use of materials like soluble nitrogen fertilizers that contribute many times as much warming potential as carbon dioxide. USDA’s financial support should go to new and transitioning organic farms.

By decisive vote in 2010, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board determined that hydroponic and aquaponic operations are inconsistent with OFPA and do not qualify for organic certification. The National Organic Program (NOP) must use its accreditation system to determine whether Merchant’s Garden LLC’s certifier, Where Food Comes From Organic, complies with section 6513(b) of the Organic Foods Production Act. If the certification agency does not comply with OFPA, NOP should revoke their accreditation for certification of organic crops. 

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

On November 27, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the release of funds from the USDA Rural Business Development and Value-Added Producer Grant Programs to assist in the financing or expansion of rural businesses. In total, 185 projects worth nearly $196 million are being funded to create new and better market opportunities for agricultural producers.

One of the projects highlighted in the USDA announcement is very troubling. The announcement stated, “Merchant’s Garden LLC is a hydroponic and aquaponic farm in Tucson, Arizona. The company will use a $250,000 Value-Added Producer Grant to expand marketing and sales of prepackaged salad mixes to help them become a local supplier of organic leafy greens for southern Arizona.” However, Merchant’s Garden’s website does not make any organic claims for its produce, so it is curious that USDA is promoting this hydroponic/aquaponic producer as “organic.”

Taxpayer dollars should not used to assist a hydroponic/aquaponic operation that does not comply with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to sell products as organic. If products from this operation are to be sold as organic, it will cause harm to producers who comply with OFPA. It will also deceive consumers who purchase organic products believing that such products are produced in healthy, fertile soil, as required by the OFPA and regulations. To the extent that hydroponic operations supplant soil-based (real) organic operations, these subsidies negate the climate and biodiversity benefits of organic agriculture.

The Organic Foods Production Act, at 6513(b), requires that all organic crop production operations submit and follow organic plans that, “shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” The same section of OFPA goes on to state, “An organic plan shall not include any production or handling practices that are inconsistent with this chapter.”

The Earth needs many more real organic farms that support soil life, help sequester carbon dioxide, and avoid the use of materials like soluble nitrogen fertilizers that contribute many times as much warming potential as carbon dioxide. USDA’s financial support should go to new and transitioning organic farms.

By decisive vote in 2010, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board determined that hydroponic and aquaponic operations are inconsistent with OFPA and do not qualify for organic certification. The National Organic Program (NOP) must use its accreditation system to determine whether Merchant’s Garden LLC’s certifier, Where Food Comes From Organic, complies with section 6513(b) of the Organic Foods Production Act. If the certification agency does not comply with OFPA, NOP should revoke their accreditation for certification of organic crops. 

Please tell Secretary Vilsack to ensure that all certifiers are consistently preventing organic certification of operations that do not comply with section 6513(b) of the Organic Foods Production Act.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 8, 2023) Nine pesticides have been found in nearly 40% of nonorganic conventional baby foods tested, according to a study conducted by Environmental Working Group (EWG). The study found no residues of the pesticides studied in a sample of certified organic baby food. While the study finds no traces of the highly neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos, associated with brain damage in children, the chemical has been allowed back on the agricultural market after being removed in 2021—raising an alarm for parents who purchase baby food with ingredients grown in chemical-intensive (“conventional”) agriculture. In November 2023, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2021 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision to ban chlorpyrifos’ agricultural uses, which came after a 2021 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision found that the agency’s inaction violated federal pesticide law. Because of its neurotoxic effects on children, EPA had in 2000 negotiated Dow Chemical’s voluntary cancellation of most residential uses of the chemical, but left virtually all of the chemical’s agricultural uses in place.

While the EWG study focuses on pesticide residues in food and the hazards associated with ingestion of dangerous chemicals, raising alarms, purchasing baby food processed with nonorganic ingredients results in a cascade of adverse effects associated with the farmworker and farmworker children’s (bystander) exposure during agricultural production and adverse effects to the ecosystem where the crops are grown, including impacts on wildlife (including pollinators and threatened and endangered species), waterways and aquatic life, in addition to fenceline communities suffering from chemical drift. See Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database for a crop-by-crop (ingredient-by-ingredient) rundown of pesticides used in chemical-intensive agricultural production that may not show up as residues in baby food and the food supply.

News reports in the last several years have warned that baby foods may have dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, which prompted two Congressional Reports in 2021. Amidst parental worries about toxins, recent evidence indicates the presence of toxic pesticides in baby food, compounding the toxic load that disproportionately impacts underserved communities.

EWG examined 73 baby food products, including 58 conventional and 15 organic baby foods from Beech-Nut, Gerber, and Parent’s Choice. Among the conventional baby foods, EWG identified pesticide residues in 22 samples. The cohort of organic products tested, with a finding of no residues, includes 15 products.

Health risks of the identified pesticides include cancers, reproductive toxicity, nervous system damage, harm to the immune system, and possible harm to fetal development. See the links below for more information on the nine pesticides that were detected in the conventional baby food:

1. Captan:11 baby foods
2. Acetamiprid: 5 baby foods
3. Fludioxonil: 5 baby foods
4. Pyrimethanil: 4 baby foods
5. Imidacloprid : 3 baby foods
6. Methoxyfenozide: 2 baby foods
7. Propiconazole: 1 baby food
8. Chlorantraniliprole: 1 baby food
9. Dodine: 1 baby food

Children’s developing organs are especially vulnerable to toxic pesticides and infant exposure to pesticides can result in significant harm. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reports, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.” Kids are more at risk of pesticide exposure compared to adults due to factors such as the timing of organ development, their inclination to play close to the ground, the frequent hand-to-mouth behavior, and the higher intake of air and food relative to their body weight. Scientists use the term “critical windows of vulnerability,” to describe the periods in childhood development that are linked to increased likelihood of long-term effects like cancer.

Jay Feldman, the director of Beyond Pesticides said, “The juxtaposition between pesticides in conventional baby food and no pesticides in organic baby food underscores the importance of purchasing organic. In addition to the individual residues found, EPA’s risk assessment process does not account for dietary exposure to chemical mixtures from  pesticides in conventional foods. Consumers, through their purchasing decisions, have tremendous power in not only limiting their children’s exposure to pesticides, but also limiting exposure to those working and living in agricultural communities where pesticides are used, in addition to the ecosystems that support life. These constellation of factors is what makes purchasing organic products so important.”

Many argue that organic food comes with a higher price tag compared to “conventional” food produced through chemical-intensive farming. However, this assessment overlooks the significant externalities associated with the chemical-intensive system. In other words, these costs are not directly covered by the farmer or the consumer but are eventually borne by society as a whole including air, soil, and water contamination, health effects suffered by consumers, farmworkers, and the public. To learn more about eating organic on a budget, reference Beyond Pesticides articles on eating local on a budget and how to get access to organic food economically which includes advice on eating less-expensive home-prepared foods, eating seasonally and local produce from farmers markets, stocking up on food, and choosing simple recipes.

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

Source: Pesticides still found in baby food, but biggest toxic threats eliminated

(Beyond Pesticides, December 7, 2023) A new review published in Ecotoxicology reiterates what past studies have repeatedly stated: the herbicide paraquat (PQ) has profound adverse effects on wildlife at environmentally relevant concentrations. Moreover, these adverse effects span beyond the wilderness, as exposure to this highly toxic herbicide also impacts the health of people working with this chemical (e.g., pesticide applicators) or living adjacent to areas of chemical use.

Current data gaps regarding the effects of environmentally relevant concentrations and exposure times, population- or ecosystem-level effects, and biomagnification potential contribute to the uncertainty of predicting risk from environmental PQ exposure. Furthermore, Beyond Pesticides has previously pointed out deficiencies in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ecological risk assessments for paraquat, highlighting failures to perform complete evaluations of the impacts of pesticides on threatened and endangered species. All this occurs amid documented threats to biodiversity from the combined effects of pesticides and climate change. 

The review investigated paraquat in the environment, the chemical’s toxicity to nontarget species, and significant data gaps. Overall, the long-term risks of environmental PQ contamination for human and ecological communities can be challenging since the potential chronic effects from extended use are nearly unstudied. Most concerning is that PQ is immobile in soil and remarkably hydrophilic (remaining in water columns and sediment), thus having a long environmental half-life with nonselective toxicity. Although the review highlights that nontarget plants are most at risk from environmentally relevant concentrations of PQ, vertebrates, and invertebrates still receive nonselective toxicity mainly through oxidative stress, with the review noting that PQ has one of the highest acute toxicity values among all herbicides.

Paraquat is the most acutely dangerous herbicide on the market. As EPA readily admits, “One small sip [of paraquat] can be fatal, and there is no antidote.” Importantly, in addition to its high acute toxicity, it also presents a range of chronic concerns, including cancer, damage to the reproductive system and organs like the kidney and liver, and most notably, Parkinson’s disease (PD). Standing out among the wide range of impacts that makes clear that this chemical poses unreasonable risks are its neurotoxic effects. Inhalation of low doses can disrupt one’s sense of smell, and past research has found the chemical can cause damage to the lungs of farmers who apply it. Data is increasingly showing that cumulative exposures over one’s life increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, and other factors such as genetics and exposure to other chemicals further elevate the threat. Recent studies have even found that one’s zip code and proximity to paraquat’s use in farm fields is likely playing a role in an individual’s Parkinson’s Disease risk. Strong links to this chronic condition are incredibly concerning, given emerging evidence of a Parkinson’s pandemic, predicting that rates of the disease will double between now and 2040.

Agricultural land is subject to chemical-intensive farming that uses toxic pesticides to manage pests (e.g., weeds, insects, fungi) on animal feed crops. In the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD) report No Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) data demonstrate a 34 percent increase in the number of acres to which agricultural pesticides were applied to wildlife refuges from 2016-2018, encompassing 363,000 acres of refuge land treated with 350,000 pounds of pesticides. Furthermore, the data reveals an increase in the aerial spraying of pesticides by 35 percent. Lastly, wildlife refuges have experienced a 70 percent higher level of dangerous pesticide inputs, including a 100 percent increase in paraquat. The chemical poses hazards to birds and bees and is prone to leaching into groundwater, disrupting the stability of aquatic ecosystems. The impact of pesticides on wildlife—including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other marine organisms, birds, and the biota within the soil—is extensive. A plethora of studies document how exposure to toxic chemicals causes reproductive, neurological, renal, hepatic, endocrine disruptive, and developmental anomalies, as well as cancers, in a wide range of species. Despite statutory language in place to protect wildlife from harm, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, a 2013 report by the National Academy of Sciences detected shortcomings in EPA’s evaluation and analysis of pesticides on endangered species, with the agency regularly disregarding the ESA’s requirement to confer with federal wildlife agencies on how to take precaution to protect threatened and endangered species from pesticide harms. Therefore, EPA and other federal government agencies, including FWS, reformed the pesticide review process to meet the pesticide approval requirements for the ESA. 

This review notes that the high use of PQ over the years without proper research on environmental effects offers much uncertainty regarding the benefits and harm to ecosystem health and function. In addition to health and environmental risks from using paraquat, there are growing legal troubles for its primary manufacturer, Syngenta, a Switzerland-based company purchased by the Chinese National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) in 2016. Mounting lawsuits against Syngenta/ChemChina were consolidated and are set to begin jury trials next year for farmworkers and other individuals who worked with paraquat and are now suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Plaintiffs in the suit claim “that manufacturers and sellers of paraquat deliberately concealed the dangers of paraquat for at least four decades, hid evidence of its dangers from government safety agencies, and knowingly unleashed a product they knew caused Parkinson’s Disease on the public.” Therefore, advocates are uncertain how far the EPA will go in restricting paraquat and underline that more public pressure is needed for the EPA to act meaningfully.

This review concludes, “The discrepancy between the known and the unknown of PQ toxicity (i.e., effects on certain taxonomic groups, habitats, and ecosystem services; biomagnification potential; role in the development of Parkinson’s disease in humans, etc.) despite being commercially available for over 60 years should serve as a call for scientists and regulators to be more aware of novel chemicals that are being synthesized and then introduced into the environment, especially in light of accelerating trends of chemical production. It has been estimated that we have already far exceeded the safe planetary boundaries for novel chemicals and that we, therefore, have surpassed the planet’s threshold to be safely handle these new chemicals. It is clear there is an urgent need for enhanced regulation and testing of chemicals as well as better engineering and regulatory controls to limit the introduction of hazardous chemicals into the environment. This is particularly important for herbicides like PQ, which are purposefully applied to the land and then unintentionally introduced to the biosphere, including human populations.”

Comment from Beyond Pesticides. The use of pesticides should be phased out and ultimately eliminated to protect global wildlife and reduce the number of dangerous pesticides exposed to all species, whether residing in wildlife refuges or urban spaces. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides has long fought against pesticide use, advocating for federal regulations that consider all potential impacts of pesticides on ecosystems and organisms. Current regulations fail to consider the environment holistically, thus creating a blind spot that limits our ability to adopt widespread change that improves ecosystem health. It is vital to understand how pesticide use can increase biodiversity loss, especially since the globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk of extinction. However, advocating for local and state pesticide reform policies and the adoption of organic land management can protect wildlife from pesticide contamination. For more information on pesticide impacts on wildlife, visit Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife page. 

Furthermore, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the ecosystem. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which can eliminate the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. For more information on how organic is the right choice for all individuals, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.  

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

Source: Ecotoxicology

(Beyond Pesticides, December 6, 2023) A study published in Antioxidants finds prenatal and early life exposure, usually after birth (perinatal), to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) induce oxidative stress in the brain, causing damage and negatively affecting melatonin levels. Melatonin is a hormone responsible for regulating circadian rhythm to mitigate sleep disorders. Disruption of melatonin levels also has implications for the development of age-associated neurodegenerative diseases, as melatonin is a neuroprotector against neurodegenerative diseases associated with aging. Additionally, GBH can alter molecules in the pineal gland in the brain, resulting in neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD).

Levels of inadequate sleep patterns are rising among the global population. Reports find variability in sleep duration results in higher rates of depression, anxiety, and fatigue. Since sleep is an essential factor in normal brain development, disturbance in sleep patterns, such as sleeping too much or too little, can result in long-term associations with the brain’s white matter integrity (responsible for age-dependent cognitive function). The study warns, “Since decreased levels of the important antioxidant and neuroprotector melatonin have been associated with an increased risk of developing neurodegenerative disorders, this demonstrates the need to consider the melatonin hormone system as a central endocrine-related target of glyphosate and other environmental contaminants.”

The study’s researchers exposed pregnant and lactating rats to GBH via drinking water, explicitly exposing the test population from gestational day five to postnatal day 15. Researchers analyzed serum melatonin levels and changes in the striatum cells located in the brain among the offspring 90 days after their birth. The results find that serum melatonin levels decrease by 43 percent among adult offspring compared to control offspring. Exposure to GBH also induced oxidative stress in the brain, resulting in changes in the brain’s striatum, including a 45 percent increase in lipid peroxidation, a 39 percent increase in DNA/RNA oxidation, and an increase in protein levels of the antioxidant enzymes like superoxide dismutase, glutamate–cysteine ligase, and glutathione peroxidase.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. These pollutants have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. 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 burden of harmful chemicals currently in use.

This study adds to global research supporting the link between pesticide exposure and sleep disorders. Exposure to medium and high levels of pesticides results in shortened sleep duration, poorer sleep quality, and insomnia. Therefore, pesticides can interrupt normal non-rapid eye movement (NREM) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep patterns. REM sleep is active, meaning more brain activity occurs (e.g., dreaming) compared to NREM sleep, which can be the beginning of sleep, light sleep, or deep sleep. REM and NREM sleep is essential in childhood development, learning/memory, and immune system support. Thus, pesticide exposure interrupts these processes, leading to health issues. For example, REM sleep disorder can be a precursor to neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease and types of dementia. Studies have shown that more than 50 to 80 percent of people with REM sleep behavior disorder go on to develop a neurodegenerative disorder year later or even decades.

This study is one of the first to investigate the effects of glyphosate on melatonin production. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals, like melatonin, generally disrupt because their molecular structure closely resembles molecules part of normal endocrine processes. These endocrine-disrupting chemicals can bind to the receptor sites for hormones, disrupting normal endocrine function. For example, a University of Buffalo study has linked carbamate pesticides to diabetes. Researchers discovered that the insecticides carbaryl and carbofuran were structurally similar enough to melatonin that they “showed affinity for” melatonin receptors and could potentially affect glucose homeostasis and insulin secretion.

In addition to this study, several studies demonstrate that glyphosate directly affects the brain and is detectable in the brain tissue of animals. For instance, glyphosate can cross the blood-brain barrier, and the endocrine-disrupting properties noted in this study can cause neurotoxicity. Considering early-life GBH exposure can cause persistent neuroendocrine deficits that may promote long-term oxidative brain damage, it is essential to mitigate exposure to GBH, especially since the herbicide is the most commonly used globally.

Humans spend approximately one-third of their lives sleeping, and some animals even more so, signifying how important sleep is for normal bodily function, health, and well-being. Various pesticide products act similarly or in conjunction with other chemical substances, simultaneously resulting in more severe health outcomes. Moreover, pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Pesticides’ impact on the nervous system, including the brain, is hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals or during critical windows of vulnerability and development. Therefore, advocates urge that policies 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 the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms that pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Brain and Nervous System Disorders, Learning/Developmental Disorders, Endocrine Disruption, Body Burdens, and other diseases.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for 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. 

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

Source: Antioxidants

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2023) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a quiet reversal of a 2018 Trump administration decision, is resuming an evaluation of the health impacts of nitrates in water, reflecting the long-standing and mounting evidence of synthetic nitrogen’s adverse effects on human health and the environment, particularly in vulnerable communities. This review, which appears to be focused on what many scientists point to as outdated federal standards for allowable levels in water, brings together a confluence of issues related to the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer as a potent greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to the climate crisis. As reported by Circle of Blue in early November, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a research program of EPA, published a schedule on its website that it would release “Preliminary Assessment Materials/Systematic Review Protocol” in October of 2023 and then announce a schedule for public comment, external peer review, and post final assessment. EPA insiders say the review process will likely take years unless subject to intense public pressure. 

While synthetic nitrogen was understood to be of high priority for review and presumably improved restrictions even before the publication of EPA’s 2011 report of the agency’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) documenting high levels of concern associated with a range of pollution and adverse effects, the lack of action over the last 12 years has only elevated the seriousness and urgency of health and environmental implications. The SAB report, “Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An Analysis of Inputs, Flows, Consequence, and Management Options,” was delivered to the EPA Administrator in the Obama Administration with a sense of urgency.  

In a letter accompanying the report, the SAB stated, “Excess reactive nitrogen compounds in the environment are associated with many large-scale environmental concerns, including eutrophication of surface waters, toxic algae blooms, hypoxia, acid rain, nitrogen saturation in forests, and global warming. In addition, reactive nitrogen (referred to as Nr) is associated with harmful human health effects caused by air pollution and drinking water contamination.” The board pinpoints synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and the release of nitrous oxide as a major contributor to the problem and posits a “mitigation” strategy to control the chemicals “damages as it is introduced to and cycles repeatedly through the environment in different forms and media.” The report identifies, “The largest U.S. sources of new Nr entering the U.S. environment include: the creation and use of synthetic fertilizers, Nr created by legumes, and the combustion of fossil fuels,” but assumes ongoing dependency on synthetic nitrogen. In the last decade, however, alternatives to synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and fossil fuels in organic agriculture and renewable energy, respectively, have become increasingly mainstream.  

In a collaboration between the Nitrogen Initiative (INI) and the Global Carbon Project of Future Earth, the organizations point to an article in Nature, based on their estimates, that shows the increasing threat of nitrous oxide to the world’s climate crisis and stratospheric ozone depletion. INI concludes that “nitrous oxide is 300 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the long run,” with a 30% increase in emissions between 1980 and 2020. The Nature article finds that a failure to address the issue of synthetic nitrogen use risks derailing efforts to meet the 2°C warming limit set by the Paris Climate Agreement, underscoring the urgent need for a reevaluation of our agricultural practices. “This new analysis calls for a full-scale rethink in the ways we use and abuse nitrogen fertilizers globally and urges us to adopt more sustainable practices in the way we produce food, including the reduction of food waste,” said study coauthor Josep ‘Pep’ Canadell, PhD. Another research finding of note, a 2018 study, concluded that the state of California was woefully underestimating nitrogen oxide emissions from agricultural sources. 

In addition to synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, another source of nitrate and nitrous oxide pollution is untreated manure from large-scale, conventional livestock operations. Livestock farming produces 37% and 65% of global methane (another greenhouse gas) and nitrous oxide emissions, respectively.  

EPA assessment is expected to assess a broad range of nitrate health harms  

The restarted EPA IRIS assessment, last updated over three decades ago, is now expected to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of nitrate toxicity, as reported by Circle of Blue. This review may encompass a range of health concerns, including cancer risks and impacts on the reproductive system, metabolism, development, thyroid, and blood. The complexity of this assessment is heightened by the diverse sources of nitrate exposure, including food and the indirect pathways through which nitrate can cause harm.  The Iowa Environmental Council published a report, Nitrate in Drinking Water: A Public Health Concern for All Iowans, back in 2016, which captured this widespread problem across the U.S. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in addition to Iowa, has identified the following states as areas with high-risk clusters from nitrate contamination to groundwater: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. 

Beyond the long history of data, advocates say that EPA action on water contamination is critically needed because of emerging research linking nitrate exposure to various health issues. “There’s growing evidence of adverse effects in children exposed in utero and among adults,” Leslie Stayner, PhD, a professor emeritus of epidemiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Stayner’s studies in Denmark, which examined a million childbirths, find that exposure to nitrates during pregnancy correlates with an elevated likelihood of lower birth weights, premature births, and congenital anomalies in the eyes and central nervous system. Notably, these correlations were observed even at nitrate levels lower than the existing EPA standards. For instance, studies have indicated associations between nitrates in drinking water and increased rates of birth defects, pre-term births, and certain cancers, even at levels below the current EPA standard of 10 parts per million. This standard, primarily aimed at preventing blue baby syndrome in infants, fails to address the chronic effects of long-term exposure or prenatal impacts.  

Moving Forward 

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a fundamental shift away from synthetic, petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides toward organic food production and consumption. This approach not only addresses the immediate issue of nitrate pollution and dependency on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer but also tackles the broader environmental impacts associated with conventional agricultural practices. Organic systems, by recycling reactive nitrogen already present in the environment and sequestering carbon in the soil, present a viable and sustainable alternative. Additionally, climate-friendly organic systems are more profitable for farmers than chemical-intensive agriculture.  

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

Sources: EPA Restarts Assessment of Health Risks from Nitrate in Water;  

A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks, Nature, 10/7/2020;  

Nitrate in drinking water and risk of birth defects: Findings from a cohort study of over one million births in Denmark   

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2023) With a history of neglect of farmworker protection in the workplace, advocates are pointing to the need for ensuring stringent enforcement of regulations that are expected to take effect under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) this month. In addition to weak laws and protections that typically exempt farmworkers, enforcement for farmworker protections that do exist has been lacking. A report on enforcement of wage and hour law under Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has documented diminished capacity to detect and enforce against violations. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (2020) shows the dramatic failures of DOL, which is underfunded and understaffed to enforce the law. As the agency charged with operationalizing the new law to protect farmworkers, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will be up against a federal pesticide law enforcement system that is dependent by agreements with state agencies, mostly departments of agriculture, that have a history of failing to enforce the limited protections provided for farmworkers. The EEOC is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and operates 53 field offices in every part of the country.

Farmworkers have endured a long history of discrimination in the United States. The enforcement of pesticide law and protection of farmworkers has been criticized for decades. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed in 1970, it was given the responsibility for farmworker protection, instead of DOL. Enforcement authority was then delegated to the states under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). According to Exposed and At Risk, the current, “complex system of enforcement . . . lacks the capacity to effectively protect farmworkers. . . . [and] the cooperative agreement[s] between federal and state agencies makes it nearly impossible to ensure implementation of the federal Worker Protection Standard.”

With the passage of PWFA, new standards will need to be enforced to ensure that pregnant farmworkers are protected. The law applies to workplaces with 15 or more employees, extends protection for pregnant workers for disability (including temporary or short-term disability) associated with childbirth, miscarriages, or related conditions. The legislation was passed as part of the 2023 Omnibus Spending Bill and signed into law by President Biden in December 2022.

This law should be used to improve protections for farmworkers and other high-risk employees from the elevated adverse impacts on reproductive health associated with pesticides. One of the law’s key provisions is an anti-retaliation clause, that protects workers asking for “reasonable accommodation.” In addition, accommodations for pregnant workers cannot be imposed by the employer but must be agreeable to the worker as well.

Barriers for pregnant farmworkers have been demonstrated in California, where farmworkers—regardless of citizenship status—who are exposed to pesticides can take time off during the pregnancy as a preventive measure if other accommodations are not available, receiving 70 percent of their wages to make up for lost income—to be increased to 90 percent for low-wage workers in 2025. Farmworkers in California who are exposed to pesticides can access this program practically from the time they find out they are pregnant because of the risk pesticide exposure poses. However, farmworkers have historically been shut out of these programs due to language and access barriers, lack of information for workers and their medical care providers, and racism. 

The nation depends on farmworkers, yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by EPA, while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers. Many farmworkers are migrant workers, and are subject to conditions that would not be permitted for U.S. citizens. The U.S. is not a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens. To learn more about farmworker protection, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice page.

Take Action: (1) Tell EEOC to require an enforcement plan that ensures pregnant farmworkers will not work in or be exposed to drift from pesticide-treated fields; (2) Tell EPA to update its Worker Protection Standard to ensure that pregnant farmworkers are not exposed to pesticides; and (3) Tell President Biden (through Secretary of State Blinken) to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

EPA must update its Worker Protection Standards, and more fundamentally, must base its pesticide risk assessments on the dangers to the most vulnerable people—pregnant farmworkers and their families. EPA must reverse its policy and require that risk assessments adopt a standard that protects farmworkers. Food production is not sustainable unless the workers who plant and harvest our food are safe in their place of employment.

Pregnant farmworkers and their families are better protected when we support organic agriculture and purchase organic food. Organic practices eliminate industrial agriculture’s reliance on petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, protecting health and the environment .

Letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

Final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) are expected to be issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December, 2023. The legislation, which went into effect June 23, 2023 and applies to all workplaces with 15 or more employees, extends protection for pregnant workers for disability (including temporary or short-term disability) associated with childbirth, miscarriages, or related conditions. The legislation was passed as part of the 2023 Omnibus Spending Bill and signed into law by President Biden in December 2022.

This law should be used to improve protections for farmworkers and other high-risk employees from the elevated adverse impacts on reproductive health associated with pesticides. EPA’s Worker Protection Standards (WPS) are rules that govern labor safety standards within federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA). Farmworkers are not covered for toxic chemical exposure by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and WPS have long been criticized by farmworker, labor, and health advocates for providing insufficient protections for farmworker communities.

Farmworkers need enforceable protections. Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. A recent report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country’s pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers.

Many farmworkers are migrant workers and are subject to conditions that would not be permitted for U.S. citizens. The U.S. is not a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens.

In alignment with the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), please update the agency’s worker protection standard to not permit pregnant farmworkers to work in fields that have been treated with pesticides or work in fields that are subject to pesticide drift. Additionally, please tell President Biden to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Thank you.

 Letter to Equal Opportunity Committee (EEOC):

Final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) are expected to be issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December 2023. The legislation, which went into effect June 23, 2023 and applies to all workplaces with 15 or more employees, extends protection for pregnant workers for disability (including temporary or short-term disability) associated with childbirth, miscarriages, or related conditions. The legislation was passed as part of the 2023 Omnibus Spending Bill and signed into law by President Biden in December 2022.

This law should be used to improve protections for farmworkers and other high-risk employees from the elevated adverse impacts on reproductive health associated with pesticides. EPA’s Worker Protection Standards (WPS) are rules that govern labor safety standards within federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA). Farmworkers are not covered for toxic chemical exposure by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and WPS have long been criticized by farmworker, labor, and health advocates for providing insufficient protections for farmworker communities.

Farmworkers need enforceable protections. Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. A recent report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country’s pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers.

As a means of enforcing the EEOC regulations for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), please insist that EPA and state agencies responsible for enforcing federal law, under agreements with the federal government, protect pregnant farmworkers by not permitting pregnant farmworkers to work in fields that have been treated with pesticides or work in fields that are subject to pesticide drift. Additionally, please advise President Biden to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Thank you.

Letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken:

I am writing to ask your assistance in protecting migrant farmworkers.

Final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) are expected to be issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December 2023. The legislation, which went into effect June 23, 2023 and applies to all workplaces with 15 or more employees, extends protection for pregnant workers for disability (including temporary or short-term disability) associated with childbirth, miscarriages, or related conditions. The legislation was passed as part of the 2023 Omnibus Spending Bill and signed into law by President Biden in December 2022.

This law should be used to improve protections for farmworkers and other high-risk employees from the elevated adverse impacts on reproductive health associated with pesticides. EPA’s Worker Protection Standards (WPS) are rules that govern labor safety standards within federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA). Farmworkers are not covered for toxic chemical exposure by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and WPS have long been criticized by farmworker, labor, and health advocates for providing insufficient protections for farmworker communities.

Farmworkers need more protection. Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. A recent report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country’s pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers.

Many farmworkers are migrant workers and are subject to conditions that would not be permitted for U.S. citizens. The U.S. is not a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens.

Please tell President Biden to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 1, 2023) Even though researchers have noted since the 1970s that human fertility appears to be declining globally, doubt is still circulating that it is really happening and that pesticides could have anything to do with it. Very recently published studies, however, make it clear that, even without exact elucidation of the mechanisms by which pesticides damage male fertility, there is an unmistakable association of pesticides and many aspects of male reproductive health.

One of the new studies, a meta-analysis of 25 studies on the connection between pesticides and male reproductive problems, finds that men exposed to organophosphate (such as glyphosate and malathion) and carbamate (such as carbaryl and methiocarb) insecticides have lower sperm concentrations than the general population. This is especially true of men exposed in work settings. The senior author of the study, Melissa J. Perry,ScD of the George Mason University College of Public Health, told HealthNews, “The evidence available has reached a point that we must take regulatory action to reduce insecticide exposure.”

Human infertility is defined as “the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse.” Most public attention regarding infertility focuses on women’s difficulties in getting pregnant, causing couples to resort to in vitro fertilization and surrogates. But about a third to half the time, a couple’s infertility results from problems with the male contribution. Men’s reproductive health is measured by total sperm count, sperm’s ability to move, the incidence of malformed sperm or reproductive organ structure, testosterone levels and other criteria.

The relationships between aspects of male reproductive health such as sperm count, fertility and testicular cancer are not perfectly understood, but they are known to be interrelated. Low sperm counts can not only indicate decreased fertility, but also correlate with other markers of declining male reproductive health, including testicular tumors and testosterone levels. In 2017 Shanna Swan, PhD of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and colleagues published a major review of changes in sperm count between 1973 and 2011. They found that sperm counts declined by 52.4 percent over their study period.

Swan et al. also noted that reduced sperm count is a strong predictor of overall disease and death risk. In other words, sperm count reflects influences on health that go far beyond reproduction, and also that reproductive health is created by proper hormone balance, which many pesticides are well known to disturb.

Dr. Swan and colleagues wrote that chemical exposures, including pesticides (especially the endocrine disrupters) are plausible bad actors in the sperm count decline, but also said “lifestyle factors” such as diet and smoking are likely factors. High body mass index (BMI) and obesity have also been associated with low sperm counts.

Obesity is often cited as a “lifestyle choice” causing the reproductive problems, unrelated to factors like pesticide exposures. This is something of a straw man, however, because obesity itself can be an outcome of such exposures. For example, a 2022 review found that two carbamate insecticides and eight organophosphate insecticides were “significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence,” suggesting that obesity and low sperm count may have a common cause rather than a direct cause-and-effect relationship.

Pesticides present an especially vexing problem in that they affect organisms through many different pathways, often simultaneously. For example, organophosphates notoriously damage neurotransmitters, but they have also been associated with poor semen quality in exposed factory workers. Similarly, carbamates interfere with neurotransmitters and are known for disrupting thyroid and steroid hormones and increasing the risk of both non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and dementia, but they have also been associated with chromosome damage in sperm. Far less scientific attention has been devoted to these chemicals’ effects on male reproduction than on their neurological ones, but the reproductive consequences may be even greater. For one thing, many pesticides, including organophosphates, can cross the placental barrier if the mother is exposed during pregnancy. Fetal exposures to organophosphates affect childhood cognition and coordination and predispose the child to develop cancer in later life.

But it gets worse. A father’s environmental exposures can alter not only his direct fertility but also his epigenetic patterns, and these can be passed from parent to child. Epigenetics are a suite of cell processes in which gene expression is controlled by molecules that block or open access to genes in the double DNA helix. In every cell of the body, this process continually operates to orchestrate the cell’s biochemistry and its relation to other cells and organs, but it does not change genes themselves. Epigenetic patterns are a kind of template or history of the habits and exposures of the parent, including smoking history, diet, pesticide exposures, alcohol and drug consumption, and social stress. Sperm are major contributors of epigenetic information passed from one generation to the next, and pesticides affect that information.

“It is becoming clear that epigenetic information can function as molecular memory of past environmental exposures and be passed from one generation to another via the germline,” according to the authors of a 2022 review by a pair of Georgetown University Medical Center and Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center scholars. Descendants of an exposed male may have no direct exposure themselves but be paying for the inadvertent “sins” of their fathers—“sins” such as agricultural or factory work.

A 2023 update of the 2017 review of temporal trends in sperm count, also co-authored by Swan, expanded the geographical range of the study by including data on men in 53 countries on six continents to get a global picture rather than one focused on industrialized countries where data is more plentiful. They found “strong evidence” that sperm counts have declined globally. Disturbingly, the authors show that the downward trend in sperm counts has become steeper since 2000, accelerating beyond the already-worrisome rate seen in the 2017 meta-analysis. From 1972 to 1999, sperm count dropped by about one percent a year; since 2000, the rate has been about 2.6 percent.

The evidence has continued to mount that pesticides affect both male and female reproductive health, yet most of these chemicals remain on the market, contributing to the prospect of agricultural collapse and declining human population worldwide. There is no longer any time to waste. What Beyond Pesticides said in 2022 still holds: “As the human civilization grapples with a range of cascading crises, from climate change to the insect apocalypse and global biodiversity crisis, we may be missing the chance to address one of the most critical aspects to the continuation of humanity as we now know it.”

For more information on the fertility crisis, see Dr. Swan’s presentation to Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 National Pesticide Forum, Cultivating Healthy Communities, on Beyond Pesticides’ YouTube page.

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

Sources:

Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28981654/

Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of samples collected globally in the 20th and 21st centuries
https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/29/2/157/6824414?login=false

Pesticides and Male Fertility: A Dangerous Crosstalk 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8707831/

Paternal Transmission of Stressed-Induced Pathologies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217197/

Scientific Literature Review Again Connects Pesticides and Male Fertility Problem

Scientific Literature Review Again Connects Pesticides and Male Fertility Problems

Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2022/11/sperm-counts-worldwide-are-plummeting-faster-than-we-thought

The Sperm-Count ‘Crisis’ Doesn’t Add Up
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/health/sperm-fertility-reproduction-crisis.html

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2023) Scientists at Minami Kyushu University in Japan have made a groundbreaking discovery of a new biological control for a target insect. They have identified a virus in tobacco cutworms that kills males, creating all-female generations. The discovery was described in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences and The New York Times as evidence that multiple viruses have evolved to kill male insects.

This “male-killing” virus could be added to the growing attempts to control unwanted insects with biological, as distinguished from genetically engineered (GE) solutions. Efforts range from the introduction of natural predators, to radiation-based sterilization of insects, CRISPR-based genetic mutations, and other techniques. While the GE approach has run into controversy because of unanswered questions associated with their release into natural ecosystems, some approaches have also run into resistance problems. Nearly a decade ago, researchers found armyworm resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-incorporated genetically engineered (GE) maize in the southeastern region of the U.S., calling this evolution of insect resistance to a naturally occurring soil bacterium engineered into crops “a serious threat to the sustainability of this technology.”

The general population knows to avoid eating raw eggs because the bacteria salmonella, can live inside chicken eggs. Similarly, scientists have long known that microbes can live in insects’ eggs. One of the scientists, Daisuke Kageyama, PhD, explained that the Wolbachia bacteria, another male-killer, is propagated through females. Dr. Kageyama told the The New York Times, “Males are useless” because they cannot help propagate the microbe, so the bacteria prevents male eggs from hatching.

The scientists in Japan discovered the new male-killing virus in tobacco cutworms and called it SIMKV. The New York Times described the discovery of the virus as being very lucky that research technician Misato Terao stumbled upon the caterpillars while cleaning the greenhouse and placed them in Yoshinori Shintani’s lab. Even luckier was the temperature zone that enabled the virus to impact the resulting all-female generation of moths.

Anne Duplouy, PhD, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Helsinki specializing in the study of microbial symbionts in insects, suggests that there is a diminishing window of opportunity for humanity to glean insights from these microbes sensitive to temperature changes. Due to climate change, she said, “we are likely to be losing many of these interactions” before they can be documented.

The authors of the study believe the identification of this male-killing virus in insects has the potential to revolutionize methods for managing agricultural pests and disease-carrying insects. Conventional pest control approaches rely on the use of toxic pesticides, which can adversely affect the environment and human health.

Many scientists believe a “female-killer” virus could be a more ecologically friendly approach to pest control. However, these biological controls do not always consider the entirety of a systems-based organic approach that focuses on the root causes of pest problems. To see a more systematic approach to mosquito control, see the city of Boulder, Colorado’s mosquito management plan, which includes  Living with Mosquitoes and Ecological Mosquito Management.

As scientists delve deeper into the study of the relationships between mosquitos and the interactions of species in an ecosystem, there is the prospect of uncovering novel strategies for pest and disease control that are both more efficacious and less environmentally harmful.

The revelation of the male-killing virus in insects serves as a poignant reminder of the extraordinary biodiversity of life on Earth. As scientists persist in their exploration of biological control, they are bound to reveal many more captivating discoveries that will contribute to a better understanding of the natural world.

As The New York Times wrote in November 2018, “The Insect Apocalypse is Here.” Karen Lipps, PhD, and other scientists and researchers observed the consequences for ecosystems that experience the loss of one species and its cascading impact on other species. Dr. Lipps writes about the massive loss of frogs and other amphibians due to a fungus and its resulting increase in insect populations. This, in turn, decreased snake populations (which would have preyed on the frogs).

In industrial agriculture, the typical approach to addressing pest issues often involves prioritizing the destruction of a single “pest” using a pesticide as the primary solution. This practice results in a cascade of harmful effects throughout the food chain, impacting both prey and predator as they fall victim to the broad-spectrum pesticides. While it intuitively makes sense that pesticides can affect more than just their intended insect targets, the extent of this issue came to light through a study conducted by German researchers and published in PLOS One. Their findings, based on 27 years of trapping flying insects, reveals a staggering 75% decline in overall biomass during the study period.

To learn more about using biological control for your yard and outdoor pest problems, make sure the use of any pest management fits within a broader, structured, ecological approach to pest management. Use Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage to assist your research on biological controls.

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

Source: Male-Killing Virus Is Discovered in Insects

(Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2023) A study published in Environment International finds high pesticide exposure incidence associated with shingles, a varicella-zoster virus (the same highly contagious virus that causes chickenpox) that reactivates in the body after having chicken pox. Shingles is a painful condition with a blistering rash that can lead to vision and hearing loss, brain and lung inflammation, and even death if not treated. Since shingles manifest decades after initial exposure, and the association is strongest among individuals already hospitalized for pesticide-related illnesses, researchers find the long-term/chronic effects most concerning. Although dermal pesticide exposure can cause a range of adverse reactions, including dermatitis, allergic sensitization, and cancer, any route of exposure can exacerbate dermal manifestations through immune system response, causing virus-based skin reactions like shingles.

People encounter toxic chemicals daily. However, frequent use of pesticides, including the use of everyday products like cleaning supplies, personal care products, agricultural chemicals, fabrics, non-stick cookware, and general airborne pollution, exacerbate chemical exposure risks. Dermal exposure is the most common pesticide exposure route, composing 95 percent of all pesticide exposure incidents, and is a significant concern for occupational (work-related) health.

The study notes, “[The] findings of elevated shingles risk associated with acute, clinically relevant pesticide exposures also highlights potential long-term costs of unintentional high-level pesticide exposures, especially those contributing to poisoning, which is a global problem in agricultural settings.”

Using 22,753 licensed private pesticide applicators of 66 years and older with more than 12 consecutive months of Medicare hospital and outpatient coverage between 1999 and 2016, researchers identified patients who experience at least one shingles incident. Additionally, researchers gathered information on whether patients received medical care for pesticide-related illnesses and if they encountered high pesticide exposure events (HPEE) and poisoning. The results find that 2,396 pesticide applicators were diagnosed with shingles during the 1996 to 2016 timeframe, with higher shingles rates among patients hospitalized for pesticide-related illness, pesticide poisoning, and HPEE. Thus, these initial findings suggest acute, high-level, and medically significant effects of pesticide exposure can increase shingles risk in individuals years to decades following exposure.

The skin responds to numerous external stimuli that can change its morphological (shape/structure), physiological (function), and histological (tissue) properties. Some responses to external stimuli are typical, including skin exposure to sunlight (UV-light) for tanning or water for wrinkling. However, exposure to excessive stimuli, including environmental contaminants, can propagate adverse, permanent changes to the skin. Just as excessive exposure to UV rays can cause skin discoloration and cancer, prolonged dermal contact with disinfectants can cause many adverse reactions, including skin discoloration and cancer. One of the most predominant routes of pesticide exposure is dermal, and most disinfectants are potential skin irritants and sensitizers (allergens), suggesting that direct skin contact with these toxic chemicals and the adoption of proper application protocol is critical.

Most pesticides cause some form of acute skin irritation. Although certain pesticides are less harmful to dermal contact than others, many chemicals cause irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). ICD is a nonimmune response that manifests into localized skin inflammation by directly damaging the skin following toxic agent exposure. ACD is an immune response to skin contact with a dermal allergen that an individual is already allergic (sensitized) to, causing nonlocalized skin inflammation and systemic bodily response. However, chronic, cumulative exposure to more mild chemical irritants can elicit a skin reaction. As skin cancer has increased significantly over the past 50 years, many appropriately point to the link between sun exposure and the development of the disease. However, this research indicates that contact exposure to herbicides may be affecting risk. The authors point to studies finding links between skin adsorption of pesticides and exposure to UV radiation, as well as research that finds sunscreen itself may facilitate skin adsorption of pesticide residue.

This study is the first to demonstrate the occurrence of shingles associated with pesticide exposure. However, this study is not the first to establish pesticides’ relationship with immune system disorders related to the skin. A Dutch study found that infants exposed to dioxins (a pesticide byproduct) and PCBs have a higher incidence of recurrent chicken pox, while, as mentioned, is linked to shingles.

Although this study notes that the mechanism involved in shingles incidence is not well understood, studies, including this one, suggest immune system suppression is the main culprit. The immune system offers the best defense against viral infection, as the virus stimulates an innate and adaptive immune response to expel viral particles from the body. Innate immune responses are the first line of defense against viral infections, activating myeloid immunocytes (cells that mediate immune responses against pathogens). These mediating cells create antibodies that the complement system (a network of proteins that eliminate pathogens) enhances. Therefore, review researchers speculate that immunocytes and the complement system can restrict viral infections. However, coronavirus infections can suppress/delay interferon (INF) protein synthesis responsible for defending against viral infections, causing a lapse in the innate defense system. Similarly, an adaptive immune response involves various immune cells and antibodies essential to protect against coronavirus infections. Still, injury to cells responsible for safeguarding against viral infections can induce more severe disease progression.

The global rate of shingles over recent decades is increasing despite vaccine availability. Therefore, there is an urgent need to evaluate the effect pesticide exposure and use have on disease health outcomes. Although some practices and products can prevent vital infections, the continued use of toxic pesticides increases disease risk factors. 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 multiple harms of pesticides, see PIDD pages on body burdens (including skin reactions and diseases), immune system disorders, cancer, and other conditions. 

Additionally, replacing pesticides with organic, nontoxic alternatives is crucial for safeguarding public health, particularly in communities vulnerable to pesticide toxicity. For more information on how organic is the right choice, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. Furthermore, visit Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disinfectants and Sanitizers and Least Toxic Control of Pests In the Home and Garden to learn more about safer, non-toxic pesticide alternatives. 

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

Source: Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, November 28, 2023) Final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) are expected to be issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December, 2023. The legislation, which went into effect June 23, 2023 and applies to all workplaces with 15 or more employees, extends protection for pregnant workers for disability (including temporary or short-term disability) associated with childbirth, miscarriages, or related conditions. The legislation was passed as part of the 2023 Omnibus Spending Bill and signed into law by President Biden in December 2022.

With the elevated adverse impacts associated with pesticides and reproductive health, this law may be used to improve protections for farmworkers and other high-risk employees. One of the law’s key provisions is an anti-retaliation clause, that protects workers asking for “reasonable accommodation.” See short video on the law.  

However, there are barriers for pregnant farmworkers, as seen in California, where existing programs go further than the new federal law. California is part of a handful of states that offers a state disability Insurance (SDI) program. The SDI, which most employees pay into, provides short-term disability insurance and paid family leave—paying part of a worker’s wages when an employee needs to take time off from work.

Under the California program, farmworkers—regardless of citizenship status—who are exposed to pesticides can take time off during the pregnancy as a preventive measure if other accommodations are not available, receiving 70 percent of their wages to make up for lost income. In 2025, that number goes up to 90 percent for low-wage workers. In California, farmworkers who are exposed to pesticides can access SDI practically from the time they find out they are pregnant because of the risk pesticide exposure poses.   

A California initiative, Dar a Luz: Legal Rights for Farmworkers in Pregnancy and Postpartum, a collaboration  between Worklife Law and Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Community (CAUSE). The program raises awareness in the farmworker community, educating on workers’ rights under the law. In many cases, farmworkers’ health or the health of their fetus is at risk because of direct daily exposure to agricultural pesticides. 

By any measure, farmworkers and agricultural communities are among the least protected and least visible populations in the United States. In California, 97% of farmworkers are Latinx, 92% are Spanish-speaking, and over 90% are immigrants. California produces 1/3 of the nation’s vegetables and nearly 2/3 of the nation’s fruits and nuts and 90% of the strawberries grown in the U.S. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of all farmworkers in America reside in California, or roughly 500,000 – 800,000 farmworkers.  Approximately 75% of California’s farmworkers are undocumented.  “For too long, the experience of farmworker families and communities affected by pesticide exposure has been disregarded,” said Angel Garcia, co-director of the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform.  

Despite health risks, most pregnant farmworkers cannot afford to take unpaid time off, often working throughout their pregnancies and returning shortly after giving birth. The annual income for farmworkers is estimated to be just $25,000 to $30,000 a year, and the majority of workers are Latinx.

Disproportionate Pesticide Harm Is Racial Injustice and Systemic Racism

Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. As Beyond Pesticides previously reported, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country’s pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers.

Many farmworkers are migrant workers, and are subject to conditions that would not be permitted for U.S. citizens. The U.S. is not a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens. To learn more about farmworker protection, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice page.

Take Action: Tell EPA to protect farmworkers. Please tell President Biden (through Secretary of State Blinken) to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Tell EPA that we need strong Worker Protection Standards, and more fundamentally, EPA must base its pesticide risk assessments on the dangers to the most vulnerable people—farmworkers and their families. EPA must reverse its policy and require that risk assessments adopt a standard that protects farmworkers. Food production is not sustainable unless the workers who plant and harvest our food are safe in their place of employment.

Pregnant farmworkers and their families are better protected when we support organic agriculture and purchase organic food. Organic practices eliminates industrial agriculture’s reliance on petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, protecting health and the environment .

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

Sources: Pregnant farmworkers in California are eligible for paid time off — but many don’t know it exists

(Beyond Pesticides, November 27, 2023) The waters of the United States are again under attack by the U.S. Congress. After the chemical industry and pesticide users won a major victory in the U.S. Supreme Court that limits the definition of protected waterways in May, 2023, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation that would ease restrictions of pesticides that could contaminate the remaining waterways protected under the Clean Water Act. Capitol Hill watchers expect the bill’s supporters will try to attach it to the 2023 Farm Bill.

The legislation, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, HR 5089, was introduced in the House of by Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC) in July. It would reverse a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirement to obtain a permit before spraying pesticides on or near waterways. This is a repeat of HR 953, which passed the House and failed to pass the Senate in 2017. The House had passed similar legislation in 2011 amending the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to eliminate provisions requiring pesticide applicators to obtain a permit to allow pesticides or their residues to enter waterways. CWA was adopted “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

Tell Congress that protection of the nation’s water should be strengthened, not weakened.

HR 5089, if enacted into law, would reverse a 2009 decision issued by the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, which held that pesticides applied to waterways should be considered pollutants under federal law and regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA), through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Prior to the decision, the EPA, under the Bush Administration, had allowed the weaker and more generalized standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to be followed. This allowed pesticides to be discharged into U.S. waterways without any federal oversight, as FIFRA does not require tracking such applications and assessing the adverse effects on local ecosystems.

To be clear, HR 5089 would:
(1) undermine federal authority to protect U.S. waters under the Clean Water Act,
(2) allow spraying of toxic chemicals into waterways without local and state oversight,
(3) contaminate drinking water sources and harm aquatic life, and
(4) not reduce claimed burdens to farmers, since there are currently no burdens.

Backers of the bill continually argue that the permit requirements place undue burdens on farmers, but in reality, the majority of pesticide applicators can obtain a permit with little restriction, and agricultural activities are exempt from the requirement. What the bill will actually do is take away Americans’ right to know what toxic chemicals are entering their waterways. “This bill takes away the public’s right to know about toxic pesticides we may be exposed to,” Mae Wu, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s health program, said in a statement about the earlier bill, emailed to ThinkProgress. “It eliminates the current commonsense requirement that communities should have access to basic information about what’s being sprayed in waters that can pose risks for public health.”

If this bill passes, citizens will be forced to take innovative local actions to protect threatened waters. Already, nearly 2,000 waterways are impaired by pesticide contamination, and many more have simply not been tested. A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and National Park Service collaborative survey report finds a harmful mixture of pollutants, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, caffeine, methylparaben, algal toxins, and fecal and parasitic bacteria, in Pipestone Creek at Pipestone National Monument in Minnesota, U.S.— adding to evidence of widespread pesticide contamination in waterways across the U.S. Pesticide contamination in waterways is historically commonplace. Known pesticide water contaminants, such as  atrazine,  metolachlor, and  simazine, continue to be detected in streams more than 50 percent of the time, with fipronil being the pesticide most frequently found at levels of potential concern for aquatic organisms in urban streams. A 2018 report from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reveals the year-round presence of neonicotinoids (neonics) in the Great Lakes – the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. Neonics, which are highly toxic to aquatic organisms and pollinators, are prevalent in the tributaries of the Great Lakes with concentrations and detections increasing during planting season. In 2015, another USGS report found that neonicotinoid insecticides contaminate over half of urban and agricultural streams across the United States and Puerto Rico.

The 2021 U.S. Geological Services (USGS) study of pesticide contamination of rivers on the U.S. mainland finds that degradation of those rivers from pesticide pollution continues unabated. USGS scientists looked at data from 2013 to 2017 (inclusive) from rivers across the country and offered these top-level conclusions: “(1) pesticides persist in environments beyond the site of application and expected period of use, and (2) the potential toxicity of pesticides to aquatic life is pervasive in surface waters.” Ultimately, water quality and aquatic organisms and their ecosystems will be fully protected from pesticides only through a wholesale movement to organic land management practices.

Tell Congress that protection of the nation’s water should be strengthened, not weakened.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators

On July 28, Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC) introduced in U.S. House of Representatives HR 5089, a bill that would reverse an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirement to obtain a permit before spraying pesticides on or near waterways. Titled The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, it is actually part of an effort to undermine the purpose of the Clean Water Act—”to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Please reject this bill either as standalone legislation or as a provision in the 2023 Farm Bill.

Passed in 1972, the Clean Water Act set bold goals for drinkable, swimmable waters in this country. Unfortunately, the “National Pollution Discharge Elimination System” has not made significant steps towards eliminating polluting discharges but has instead reinforced them. Even less progress has been made towards eliminating nonpoint source pollution, such as agricultural runoff.

Already, nearly 2,000 waterways are impaired by pesticide contamination, and many more have simply not been tested. A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and National Park Service collaborative survey report finds a harmful mixture of pollutants, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, caffeine, methylparaben, algal toxins, and fecal and parasitic bacteria, in Pipestone Creek at Pipestone National Monument in Minnesota, U.S.— adding to evidence of widespread pesticide contamination in waterways across the U.S. Pesticide contamination in waterways is historically commonplace. Known pesticide water contaminants continue to be detected in streams more than 50 percent of the time. A 2018 report from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reveals the year-round presence of neonicotinoids (neonics), which are highly toxic to aquatic organisms and pollinators, in the Great Lakes – the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem, with concentrations and detections increasing during planting season. An earlier USGS report found that neonicotinoid insecticides contaminate over half of urban and agricultural streams across the United States and Puerto Rico.

HR 5089, if enacted into law, would reverse a 2009 decision issued by the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, which held that pesticides applied to waterways should be considered pollutants under federal law and regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA), through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Prior to the decision, the EPA, had allowed the weaker and more generalized standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to be followed. This allowed pesticides to be discharged into U.S. waterways without any federal oversight, as FIFRA does not require tracking such applications and assessing the adverse effects on local ecosystems.

To be clear, HR 5089 would:
(1) undermine federal authority to protect U.S. waters under the Clean Water Act,
(2) allow spraying of toxic chemicals into waterways without local and state oversight,
(3) contaminate drinking water sources and harm aquatic life, and
(4) not reduce claimed burdens to farmers, since there are currently no burdens.

Backers of the bill argue that the permit requirements place undue burdens on farmers, but the majority of pesticide applicators can obtain a permit with little restriction, and agricultural activities are exempt from the requirement. The bill will actually take away Americans’ right to know what toxic chemicals are entering their waterways, eliminating the current commonsense requirement that communities should have access to basic information about what’s being sprayed in waters that can pose risks for public health.

Please oppose HR 5089 and tell EPA to take stronger steps “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 22, 2023) As a leading organization in advocating for organic and sustainable land management, Beyond Pesticides is honored to host the third and final webinar of the National Forum Series: Transformative Community-Based Change from the Ground Up on November 29, 2023, at 2 PM EST!

This event, focusing on managing parks and playing fields with organic practices and policies, invites concerned citizens, elected officials, and land managers to learn about effective strategies for implementing organic land management in their communities.

The panel discussion will highlight activists like Avery Kamila, who was instrumental in establishing Portland, Maine’s pioneering ordinance—the strongest local ordinance in the United States—that restricts the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers on both public and private properties, with few exceptions. This landmark ordinance establishes organic land care practices as the primary means to maintain properties within Portland’s city limits, including lawns, gardens, sports fields, parks, and playgrounds.

Kamila’s efforts, alongside other concerned citizens, led to significant policy changes in Portland, demonstrating the powerful impact of grassroots advocacy. While Maine is one of a handful of states that allow citizens and local governments the right to control their exposure to pesticides through local government pesticide regulation (known as ‘home rule’), many other advocates and local governments have enacted similar changes restricting pesticide use on public lands (like city parks and properties).

Beyond Pesticides invites you to join Avery Kamila and our renowned panelists below, who will walk through the practical steps for maintaining parks and playing fields without toxic chemicals. Their work has become a model for communities nationally and worldwide.

If you are concerned about pesticide use in your local community, don’t miss this important conversation! The webinar is designed to share practical, science-backed approaches to organic land management and is for all who want beautiful landscapes, parks, and playing fields without the reliance on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.
Attendees will gain insights into:

• Model approaches to grassroots advocacy and public policy.
• Strategies for managing parks, playing fields, and landscapes without toxic chemicals.
• Practical steps that have been successful in various communities.
• The benefits of organic practices, including enhancing biodiversity and reducing carbon footprint.

If you are concerned about your health and that of your community, an elected official interested in effecting movement away from toxic chemical reliance, and/or a land manager/landscaper who works in parks and on playing fields and other landscapes—this conversation is for you! 

>>Click here to register and please spread the news this Thanksgiving!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2023) According to a study in the Scientific Reports Journal, plant-forward diets might increase exposure to pesticide residues compared to meat-heavy diets. However, a switch to organic plant-based options significantly reduces this risk, with a separate research study indicating that vegetarians and vegans—often favoring organic products—are generally less exposed to synthetic pesticides than omnivores. The study also corroborates other research emphasizing the environmental benefits of plant-based diets, advocating for policies that make organic plant-based foods more widely accessible and emphasizing their crucial role in enhancing both environmental and human health.  

Plant-based diets are increasingly popular—and with good reason. The intensification of animal agriculture is a major cause of deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and high water usage. In particular, Brazil accounts for one-third of global tropical deforestation, with 80% of this deforestation in the Amazon due to cattle ranching. Additionally, animal products like fish, eggs, and meat, responsible for about 83% of land use, supply only 37% of the global protein. Numerous studies suggest that reducing meat and animal product consumption can significantly mitigate environmental impacts, particularly regarding land use and greenhouse gas emissions. However, managed grazing in organic animal agriculture reduces many of the hazards associated with conventional management. This is especially relevant as the modern Western diet, heavy in animal products, is energy inefficient, especially in intensive production settings, where energy loss is prevalent throughout the food chain.  

However, the study finds that in spite of all the environmental benefits, a plant-based diet that is nutritionally equivalent to a conventional omnivore diet may increase the risk of pesticide residue exposure. The study finds that a plant-based diet leads to an increase in consumption of dried fruit, legumes, soy, whole grains, vegetables, and oil, which–while nutritionally adequate–corresponds with an increase in pesticide residue exposure since fruits, vegetables, legumes, and cereals exhibit the highest levels of pesticide residues.  

Using a sample of adults recruited on a voluntary basis from the general population, researchers collected this data using self-administered questionnaires during a time period of June 2014 to December 2014. The questionnaire included 264 food and beverage items in which participants reported the frequency of their consumption of conventionally and organically sourced products, with options ranging from “never” to “always.” The study employs stepwise optimization models to determine the maximum feasible plant food content within nutritional constraints. This involves calculating the energy intake from plant and animal sources, using validated recipes developed by dieticians, which accounts for the nature of the ingredients. 

Researchers also consider demographic factors such as age, education, and smoking status to ensure a thorough understanding of dietary habits and their implications. To assess the environmental impact of food production, the study analyzed data for 92 raw agricultural products. The study also included the development of a food contamination database sourced from the Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt (CVUA) in Stuttgart, which contains extensive data on pesticide residue levels in Europe from 2012 to 2015. It focuses on plant-based foods, both organic and conventional, excluding animal-origin foods. The database breaks down the plant-based food items into 442 ingredients, calculating mean contamination levels for various pesticides, including organophosphates and pyrethroids, as well as substances allowed in organic farming, like natural Pyrethrins and Spinosad. The study developed a synthetic indicator to evaluate exposure, weighted against the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Additionally, the study accounts for the different nutritional requirements of men and women and evaluates the environmental impact of lacto-vegetarian diets, including the consumption of milk and the rearing of beef cattle. 

The study’s model on pesticide residue exposure indicates that increasing plant-based food consumption generally raises pesticide exposure. Overall, in all scenarios where plant consumption rises, exposure to pesticide residues increases. However, diets rich in organic plant-based foods show a significant reduction in synthetic pesticide exposure. An exception is Spinosad—a natural pesticide permitted in organic farming—which results in an increased exposure in organic diets. Despite this, pesticide exposure levels in organic diets remain much lower compared to conventional ones. Plant-based diets with conventionally-grown food consumption showed overall pesticide exposures six times higher than those with organically-grown food consumption. In all cases, specific pesticide exposures were lower with organic farming. 

Researchers note that despite the potential concerns about pesticide exposure in plant-based diets, the study also reveals a notable environmental benefit: a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Regardless of the agricultural methods used, adopting a plant-based diet led to a 65% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, emphasizing the environmental advantages of plant-based dietary choices. 

In addition to the significant environmental benefits of plant-forward diets, a 2021 study in the Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal highlights that vegetarians and vegans have lower exposure to synthetic pesticides compared to omnivores, with vegans experiencing the least exposure. This study finds that these groups are more inclined to choose organic produce, illustrating the dual benefits of plant-based diets for both the environment and human health. Recognizing the advantages of organic plant-based diets, the study calls for improved policies to enhance the accessibility of organic and synthetic-pesticide-free foods.  

Here at Beyond Pesticides, we are dedicated to making information about organic options widely available. We encourage those interested in incorporating more organic foods into their diet to visit our Eating with a Conscience webpage, which offers comprehensive information and practical steps for adopting a healthier lifestyle through organic choices. 

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

Source: Environmental Pressures and Pesticide Exposure; Estimated Dietary Exposure to Pesticide Residues  

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2023) At Beyond Pesticides, we are thankful to those working in their communities to protect the earth through their tireless efforts to effect the changes in land management required for a sustainable future. We are honored and thankful to work with and support those leading community campaigns that are foundational to the change necessary for a livable future. We recognize the difficult work of changing the status quo—dependency on practices and products that harm people and contaminate the ecosystems on which life depends—in the face of existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises.

Decisions in communities that eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers are driven by the underlying science on chemical hazards to the environment and people. These decisions embrace the value of protecting the complex web of life.

In this spirit, we reprint a Thanksgiving Address and prayer (the Ohèn:ton Karihwatéhkwen) of the Haudenosaunee (also known as the Iroquois Confederacy or Six Nations—Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, Onondaga, Seneca, and Tuscarora) that reflects their relationship to the Earth by giving thanks for life and the world around them. It is a prayer that is appropriate at any time, but especially on a holiday celebrating the abundance of the Earth’s gifts. 

As you read this prayer, please choose actions to protect our relationship with the natural world and her inhabitants. Beyond Pesticides thanks all of you for your support. 

Beyond Pesticides wishes you—our readers, network, and supporters—a healthy Thanksgiving and holiday season. We appreciate you joining us as we strive to elevate our voices for transformational change to protect health and the environment.

>>Click here to read a personal Thanksgiving appeal from Executive Director Jay Feldman and please consider supporting our programming at our secure site—bp-dc.org/give2023

The People  
Today we have gathered and we see that the cycles of life continue. We have been given the duty to live in balance and harmony with each other and all living things. So now, we bring our minds together as one as we give greetings and thanks to each other as people.  

Now our minds are one.  

The Earth Mother 
We are all thankful to our Mother, the Earth, for she gives us all that we need for life. She supports our feet as we walk about upon her. It gives us joy that she continues to care for us as she has from the beginning of time. To our mother, we send greetings and thanks.  

Now our minds are one. 

The Waters  
We give thanks to all the waters of the world for quenching our thirst and providing us with strength. Water is life. We know its power in many forms- waterfalls and rain, mists and streams, rivers and oceans. With one mind, we send greetings and thanks to the spirit of Water.  

Now our minds are one.  

The Fish  
We turn our minds to all the Fish life in the water. They were instructed to cleanse and purify the water. They also give themselves to us as food. We are grateful that we can still find pure water. So, we turn now to the Fish and send our greetings and thanks.  

Now our minds are one.  

The Plants
Now we turn toward the vast fields of Plant life. As far as the eye can see, the Plants grow, working many wonders. They sustain many life forms. With our minds gathered together, we give thanks and look forward to seeing Plant life for many generations to come.   

Now our minds are one. 

The Food Plants 
With one mind, we turn to honor and thank all the Food Plants we harvest from the garden. Since the beginning of time, the grains, vegetables, beans, and berries have helped the people survive. Many other living things draw strength from them too. We gather all the Plant Foods together as one and send them a greeting of thanks.  

Now our minds are one.  

The Medicine Herbs
Now we turn to all the Medicine herbs of the world. From the beginning, they were instructed to take away sickness. They are always waiting and ready to heal us. We are happy there are still among us those special few who remember how to use these plants for healing. With one mind, we send greetings and thanks to the Medicines and to the keepers of the Medicines.  

Now our minds are one.  

The Animals 
We gather our minds together to send greetings and thanks to all the Animal life in the world. They have many things to teach us as people. We are honored by them when they give up their lives so we may use their bodies as food for our people. We see them near our homes and in the deep forests. We are glad they are still here and we hope that it will always be so.  

Now our minds are one. 

The Trees  
We now turn our thoughts to the Trees. The Earth has many families of Trees who have their own instructions and uses. Some provide us with shelter and shade, others with fruit, beauty and other useful things. Many people of the world use a Tree as a symbol of peace and strength. With one mind, we greet and thank the Tree life.  

Now our minds are one.  

The Birds  
We put our minds together as one and thank all the Birds who move and fly about over our heads. The Creator gave them beautiful songs. Each day they remind us to enjoy and appreciate life. The Eagle was chosen to be their leader. To all the Birds—from the smallest to the largest—we send our joyful greetings and thanks.  

 Now our minds are one.  

The Four Winds  
We are all thankful to the powers we know as the Four Winds. We hear their voices in the moving air as they refresh us and purify the air we breathe. They help us to bring the change of seasons. From the four directions they come, bringing us messages and giving us strength. With one mind, we send our greetings and thanks to the Four Winds.  

Now our minds are one.  

It is not too late to register for the National Forum! The last session will address “Transformative Community-Based Change from the Ground Up: Managing Parks and Playing Fields with Organic Practices and Policies” on November 29, 2023, at 2:00 pm EST. >>Speaker and registration information HERE.

This session is for all who want beautiful landscapes, parks, and playing fields without the reliance on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. The subject matter is cross-cutting and will inform people concerned about their health and community health, elected officials (from town, city, county, regional, state to school boards) interested in moving away from toxic chemical reliance, and land managers and landscapers who work in parks and on playing fields and other landscapes.

Join Us on November 29, 2023 for our final session centered on grassroots action: Transformative Community-Based Change from the Ground Up: Managing Parks and Playing Fields with Organic Practices and Policies 

(Beyond Pesticides, November 17, 2023) Since the beginning of this fall and our first webinar in September, the aim of the National Forum Series has been and continues to be enabling a collective strategy to address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate threats and chart a path for a livable and sustainable future. We come together to empower effective action. You are part of the solution! 

Click here to register! 

Change is driven by grassroots action of local people, elected officials, and land managers. In this context, the third session of the National Forum will share model approaches to grassroots advocacy, public policy, and land management that teach and implement respect for nature and ecosystem services, such as the natural cycling of nitrogen and disease resistance—resulting in resilient plants, landscapes, parks and playing fields, and control the existential threats to health, biodiversity, and climate. The panelists in this session will focus on organic land management systems that do not utilize petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers but focus on building organic matter and biological life in the soil to nourish plants. The result—beautiful landscapes that are cost-effective to manage. 

While a key piece of the local strategy is achieving the public awareness that activates community members and decision makers to embrace the importance of ecosystems that support life, this session will focus on the “how-to” practical steps that have worked in dozens of communities across the country. The approach utilizes certified organic practices and materials defined in federal organic law, with a systems soil-building approach that enhances biodiversity. Panelists will explain the practical steps for maintaining parks and playing fields without toxic chemicals. Their work has become a model for communities nationally and worldwide. 

While the focus is on what municipalities (towns, cities, counties) and states can do since they are the largest landowners in their jurisdiction, the discussion can be applied to residents and homeowners who are managing lawns and gardens. The approaches to be discussed in this session define meaningful change based on the need for urgency to empower action with science, protect community health, local biodiversity, and ecosystems, and end disproportionate harm to people of color who, in many communities, are landscapers handling highly toxic pesticides. The strategies to be discussed result in positive effects well beyond the community’s or state’s border, as healthy soil life with organic practices that reject toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers draws down and sequesters atmospheric carbon (mitigating the climate emergency). In addition, as we reduce demand for hazardous products, chemical manufacturing facilities that pollute fence line communities nearby are replaced with clean product production. 
 
What is happening at the grassroots is transformative in eliminating our dependency on toxic substances and adopting practices that improve public health and environmental quality. This is no longer viewed as a niche approach to land management, but a necessity in the face of studies showing that we are threatening, beyond planetary boundaries, the ecosystems on which life depends. The panelists are a testament to the fact that transformative change is possible and practical and that as we advance reform, it is no longer adequate to tinker with failed, undefined, “sustainable” or “regenerative” strategies. Rather we can eliminate the use of toxic materials starting from the ground up. This is done with methods that eliminate expensive petrochemical chemical pesticides and fertilizers with practices and materials that support natural soil biology that maintains ecological balance, cycles nutrients, and reduces water use, resulting in long-term cost savings. As more and more communities make the transition to organic land management and eliminate the release of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) into the environment, our collective efforts will significantly mitigate the impact and cost of climate disasters, from flooding to fires. It should also be noted that costly synthetic turf playing fields, which are often touted as an environmentally friendly alternative, are reliant on polluting plastic (can contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances-PFAS) and toxic pesticides for bacteria, mold, and fungus, create contaminated water runoff, and cover over the natural environment, which is critical to preserving health and biodiversity, and averting climate disasters.

As a strategy and through this session, we are advancing common sense solutions with grassroots advocacy, armed with science, and practical management methods. In collaboration with community leaders, decision makers, and land managers, this session will help to move us forward.

This session is for all who want beautiful landscapes, parks, and playing fields without the reliance on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. The subject matter is cross-cutting and will inform people concerned about their health and community health, elected officials (from town, city, county, regional, state to school boards) interested in effecting movement away from toxic chemical reliance, and land managers and landscapers who work in parks and on playing fields and other landscapes. 

Speakers 

Chip Osborne, founder and president, Osborne Organics, Cape Neddick, Maine. Mr. Osborne is a nationally renowned organic turfgrass expert and a professional horticulturist with 40 years experience, including 20 years in greenhouse production as the former owner and operator of Osborne Florist and Greenhouse in Marblehead, Massachusetts. As founder and president of Osborne Organics, he has over 20 years of experience in creating safe, sustainable, and healthy athletic fields and landscapes that are managed cost-effectively. Mr. Osborne has worked with municipalities, assisting in the development and management oversight and consultant for organically managed sports fields and parks in communities, school districts, and universities across the U.S. He has pioneered organic land management programs that both evaluate soil biology (the soil food web) and design strategies for building soil microbial life, which is critical to working with nature to break down organic matter as a natural food source for plants. His analysis and recommendations advise park managers in maintaining turf and landscapes without petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. As a part of his work, he evaluates compost for beneficial organisms to determine its value in a management program and measures the ability of the soil in his projects to sequester atmospheric carbon. He has served in elective office as the chair of Marblehead’s Recreation and Parks Commission for 20 years. As a wholesale and retail nurseryman, he has first-hand experience with the pesticides routinely used in the landscape industry. Personal experience led him to believe there must be a safer way to grow plants. His personal investigation, study of conventional and organic soil science practices, and hands-on experimentation led him to become one of the country’s leading experts on growing organic turf. Chip is a Beyond Pesticides board member.

Avery Kamila, co-founder, Portland Protectors, Portland, Maine. Ms. Kamila founded Portland Protectors to bring together Maine citizens to end the use and sale of synthetic lawncare pesticides and fertilizers in the coastal city. Portland Protectors says, “We strive to protect our kids, pets, bees, soil, and Casco Bay from these toxic chemicals, as they drift around neighborhoods and leach into the public water systems.” In 2018, the city of Portland passed an ordinance that, over five years, phased in restrictions “to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City and to conserve and protect the City’s waterways and natural resources by curtailing the use of pesticides and fertilizers for turf, landscape and outdoor pest management.”  The ordinance establishes organic land care methods as the primary means to care for and maintain public and private property in Portland, including lawns, gardens, athletic fields, parks, and playgrounds. Ms. Kamila was appointed to the city’s Landcare Management Advisory Committee, created by the City Council in the ordinance. As a result of its passage, Portland posts the following on its website: “Using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers harms pollinators and native species. These products cause excess chemicals to run off into our waterways, worsening water quality, increasing ocean acidification, creating algae blooms, and damaging marine life–which also impacts local fisheries and marine businesses.  Plus, pesticides and fertilizers have proven negative effects on our families.  Children are especially vulnerable to chemical exposure from lawn products when they play outside.  Pesticides and herbicides are also linked to cancer in dogs.  By switching to organic lawn and landscape care, we can ensure the health of our community and make our environment more resilient to climate impacts.”  

Ben Gratton, parks supervisor, Parks, Open Space, and Trails Department, Longmont Colorado.  A Colorado native and Colorado State University graduate, Mr. Gratton has been maintaining and transforming municipal landscapes across the Front Range for nearly 15 years. Using his degree in Landscape Horticulture, his work as a parks supervisor has helped the City of Longmont’s more than 600 acres become more sustainable with organic maintenance, turfgrass conversions, pollinator gardens, and reimagining traditional landscapes. Mr. Gratton has been managing pilot sites in Longmont, Colorado, as a part of Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program. Of the program in Longmont, Mr. Gratton told the Longmont Leader, “Instead of using pesticides, Longmont, “selects turfgrass with more aggressive rhizomes — underground stems — to outcompete weed seeds, engages in more frequent core aeration and in overseeding to decrease weed pressure dramatically,” The city views the organic land management program as part of its overall sustainability efforts to reduce water use, protect air quality, and enhance its ecosystem. 

Make plans to attend the 40th National Forum, Forging a Future with Nature, on November 29, 2:00-4:00pm EST. Sign up here to receive a Zoom link, if you have not already signed up!

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