(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2015) Three members of a Delaware family, a father and his two teenage sons, remain hospitalized after being exposed last month to methyl bromide, a highly neurotoxic pesticide, while on vacation at their luxury condo in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Methyl bromide is a restricted use pesticide and is not registered for residential use, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2013 Methyl Bromide Preliminary Workplan (pg. 6). Although mostly banned in the U.S., it can still be used in certain agricultural and food storage sites under a controversial “critical use exemption” loophole in federal (and international) law.

According to James Maron, a family spokesman, Steve Esmond, his wife, Theresa Devine, and their two teenage sons are being treated at hospitals in the mainland United States. Mr. Esmond has regained consciousness, but his sons are in critical condition and remain in a coma weeks after the exposure.

Use of methyl bromide was confirmed the day after the family became ill, which has helped inform doctors and medical experts on how to treat the family, said Judith Enck, EPA’s regional administrator in New York City, which has jurisdiction over the U.S Virgin Islands. “We have confirmed that the problem is indeed methyl bromide,” she said. “Methyl bromide is a potent neurotoxin. It’s a gas. It can cause convulsions, coma, cognitive deficits, inflammation of the lungs. A lot depends on how much a person is exposed to and for what period of time.” So far the investigation has revealed a certified applicator working for Memphis, Tennessee-based Terminix applied the methyl bromide in the complex while targeting an indoor beetle that consumes wood, Ms. Enck said.

Investigators also learned methyl bromide has been used in the complex before, but it’s not clear why the ban was ignored. “Certified pesticide applicators know this is not approved for indoor residential use,” Ms. Enck said. “The health effects are quite serious.” EPA officials said the agency is looking into the use of the pesticide with the U.S. Virgin Islands government at the Sirenusa Condominium Resort in Cruz Bay, St. John. The Justice Department is also investigating the company that may be responsible.

Because methyl bromide is an ozone-depleting substance, its production is controlled under both the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances, which is legally binding on all signatories to the treaty, of which the United States is one, and the Clean Air Act. These laws mandate that the substance was to be completely phased out, according to a  precise schedule, by January 1, 2005. However, due to the “critical use exemption” (CUE) loophole in the which allows the chemical to  continue to be used  if users petition that there are “no feasible alternatives.” As a result of uses under CUEs, application rates of methyl bromide in the U.S. have remained persistently high.

While it should be noted that there are no CUEs for residential uses, methyl bromide has CUEs for its use as a pre-plant soil fumigant and in the post-harvest treatment of commodities and structural (food storage sites) fumigation. For example, CUEs for 2014 and 2015 include pre-plant use on strawberries and post-harvest use for California storage facilities for walnuts, dried plums, figs, raisins, and dates. Other current CUEs exist for dry cured pork products, rice millers, and pet food manufacturing facilities. As a result of methyl bromide’s continued use on crops, there currently exist food tolerances for inorganic bromide residues resulting from fumigation with methyl bromide on nearly 90 commodities, as well as a tolerance for methyl bromide on cotton. The continued existence of CUEs for methyl bromide in agriculture is alarming, especially due to the fact that  viable alternatives  do already exist. For instance, when it comes to strawberries, alternatives to methyl bromide include selecting more resilient varieties and improved cultivars of strawberries, as well as incorporating traditional cultural practices such as crop rotation, cover crops, and physical methods such as soil solarization and anaerobic disinfestation. Despite these alternatives, strawberries continue to make up a large proportion of methyl bromide use in the U.S.

Due to its use in agriculture, reports over the years have highlighted additional risks of exposure, particularly for children who attend school where pesticides like methyl bromide are used. According to a California State report, issued by the California Environmental Health Tracking Program (CEHTP) and titled “Agricultural Pesticide Use near Public Schools in California,” methyl bromide was one of the toxic pesticides found to be applied near schools.  Additionally, Latino children are also more likely to attend schools near areas with the highest use of pesticides of concern. The civil rights complaint Angelita C. v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation alleged that California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) discriminated against Latino school children by allowing unhealthy levels of methyl bromide to be applied near schools populated by mostly Latino children. The complaint alleged that this pattern and practice of allowing methyl bromide to be applied near schools caused an unhealthy and racially discriminatory condition for Latino school children and their parents.

Fumigants like methyl bromide are some of the most dangerous pesticides on the market. Other fumigants include methyl iodide, which was previously proposed as an alternative to methyl bromide but was soon slated for phase out after EPA and the registrant, Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to formally terminate all agricultural use of the chemical in the U.S. by the end of 2012 and ultimately remove all methyl iodide products from the U.S.; methyl iodide has been linked to thyroid toxicity, permanent neurological damage, and fetal losses in experimental animals. Another methyl bromide alternative is sulfuryl fluoride, which EPA will also be phasing out over a period of three years due to concerns over fluoride residues; EPA concluded that the tolerance no longer meets the safety standard under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) when combined with other fluoride exposure pathways. Fumigants like these are applied in large quantities, vaporize easily, drift and expose nearby farmworkers and other community members to harm, with health effects linked to headaches, vomiting, severe lung irritation, and neurological effects. Some fumigants are linked to cancer, reduced fertility, birth defects and higher rates of miscarriage. Despite these concerns, EPA has continued to allow these chemicals to remain on the market. In the case of sulfuryl flouride, Congress intervened to undermine its plan to phase-out agricultural uses. As such, the poisoning of the Esmond family raises serious issues about the continued availability and use of highly hazardous chemicals like methyl bromide, sanctioned by EPA, and compliance and enforcement of the use of restricted pesticides, in light of federal and international bans and phase out.

For the management of structures and buildings, Beyond Pesticides advocates the use of  integrated pest management (IPM)  as  a vital tool that aids in the adoption  of non-toxic methods to control pests and facilitates the transition toward a pesticide-free (and healthier) world. It offers the opportunity to eliminate or drastically reduce pesticide use and to minimize the toxicity of and exposure to any products that are used. Sanitation, structural repairs, mechanical and biological control, population monitoring are some IPM methods that can be undertaken to control pests.

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

Source: CBS News

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2015) — A new report released yesterday by the European Academies Science Advisory Council on neonicotinoid insecticides finds that “[T]here is more and more evidence that widespread use of neonicotinoids has severe effects on a range of organisms that provide ecosystem services like pollination and natural pest control, as well as on biodiversity.” The report points to major declines of wild bee species, other pollinators, insect species with natural pest control functions and biodiversity indicators such as farmland birds. The report, Ecosystem Services, agriculture and neonicotinoids, finds the following:

1. There is an increasing body of evidence that the widespread prophylactic use of neonicotinoids has severe negative effects on non-target organisms that provide ecosystem services including pollination and natural pest control.
2. There is clear scientific evidence for sublethal effects of very low levels of neonicotinoids over extended periods on non-target beneficial organisms.   These should be addressed in EU approval procedures.
3. Current practice of prophylactic usage of neonicotinoids is inconsistent with the basic principles of integrated pest management as expressed in the EU’s Sustainable Pesticides Directive.
4. Widespread use of neonicotinoids (as well as other pesticides) constrains the potential for restoring biodiversity   in farmland under the EU’s Agri-environment Regulation.

Regarding the economic effect of natural pollination services, the report says,

The value of pollination services to agriculture is relatively straightforward to quantify compared with other ecosystem services; a study by Gallai et al. (2009) assessed the contribution of insect pollination to agricultural output worldwide, and concluded that the total annual economic value of pollination services amounts to approximately €153 billion. Recent studies on economic gains attributed to insect (particularly honey bee) pollination suggest that, across Europe, crop pollination by insects accounted for €14.6 billion ( ±â‚¬3.3 billion) annually, which equalled 12% ( ±0.8%) of the total economic value of annual crop production (Leonhardt et al., 2013).

In the USA, Losey and Vaughan (2006) estimated that native pollinators, almost exclusively bees, were responsible for US$3.07 billion of fruits and vegetables produced. Estimates of the value of species other than the honey bee are few, but the solitary bee (Megachile rotundata) — the major pollinator of alfalfa — contributed US$5.26 billion to the value of alfalfa hay in 2009 (Calderone, 2012). In the UK, the value of insect pollination was estimated at £603 million per year in 2010 (Hanley et al., 2013), while the UK NEA noted that many field crops (e.g. oilseed rape, linseed), top fruits (e.g. apples, pears, plums), soft fruits (e.g. strawberries, raspberries, blackcurrants) and vegetables (e.g. tomatoes and peas) are dependent, at least in part, on insect pollination. A recent study of the value of pollination to UK apple production showed that insects were essential for the two varieties studied and contributed £36.7 million per annum (Garratt et al., 2014). In Ireland, the economic value of insect pollination to oilseed rape was estimated at an overall value of €3.9 million per annum (Stanley et al., 2013).

The range of impacts that is considered in the report extends well beyond the considerations evaluated by the U.S. Environmental Protections when it conducts risk analysis under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or when the U.S. Department of Agriculture considers the deregulation of genetically engineered crops under the Plant Protection Act. What is missing is an analysis of the pesticides to be used in herbicide-tolerant cropping systems that are harmful to biodiversity and ultimately plant health. The range of diversity factors as it relates to agricultural productivity includes: pollination, natural pest control, maintenance of soil fertility and farmland biodiversity and its supporting habitats, as well as flowering plants, arthropods, birds and mammals (as well as other invertebrates, fungi, protists and prokaryotes), and maintaining farmland biodiversity. According to the report, “Biodiversity and associated ecosystem processes provide ecosystem services, with many species involved in delivering more than one ecosystem service. However, overall trends in abundance and species richness for many farmland species are downward or uncertain.” The report addresses the range of species in some detail.

As a persistent pesticide, neonicotinoids disrupts the function of the soil food web, which is important ecosystem service, according to the report. The report explains that, “The soil decomposer food web plays an essential role in key ecosystem services such as soil formation, nutrient cycling and soil carbon storage (de Vries et al., 2013). In natural ecosystems, a substantial majority of primary production enters the soil where it is gradually decomposed and turned into nutrients and carbon dioxide which returns to the atmosphere. At the same time, the decomposer food web contributes to stabilisation of soil organic matter, which forms an important pool of carbon (soil contains about three times as much carbon as the atmosphere) and contributes to formation of soil aggregates and other structures essential for soil services such as water retention and purification, control of greenhouse gas emissions and erosion control (MEA, 2005).”

While defenders of neonicotinoids repeatedly point to the varroa mite and viruses as key factors in bee decline, the report indicates a concern about the increased vulnerability of bees to these factors caused by the chemicals. The report says,” Several studies have demonstrated synergistic effects of neonicotinoid residues with bee parasites and viruses. Some effects are behavioural (e.g. blocking the ability of bees to sterilise the colony and their food). Others appear related to limiting the immune response leading either to earlier infection or to increased mortality from infection. Very recent work has shown that the limitation of the immune response after exposure to neonicotinoids can promote viral replication, allowing covert infections to become overt. Such effects reduce honey bee survival and increase developmental deformities. In view of the emphasis placed by some reviewers on assigning honey bee losses to diseases and parasites, this is a critical issue

Importantly, while advocates of neonicotinoid use often tout the benefits of integrated pest management (IPM), as a credential for sensitivity to environmental concerns, the report indicates that the general principles of IPM appear to be “incompatible with the prophylactic use of neonicotinoids in seed dressing because of the following:

Ӣ only a small proportion of the insecticide enters the plant and most is released into the environment immediately;
Ӣ neonicotinoids may be applied proactively, not reactively based on just-in-time-and-place monitoring of the need for pest control; and the first priority is placed on chemicals instead of seeing them as a last resort;
”¢ principle 5 (which specifies that ”˜the pesticides applied shall be as specific as possible for the target and shall have the least side effects on human health, non-target organisms and the environment’) is also inconsistent with the many toxic effects reported for neonicotinoids on non-target organisms.

This report provides a thorough analysis, with references, of the harm that neonicotinoids wreak on biodiversity and the scientific basis for advocates who argue that they should be suspended from use.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2015)  Organic stakeholders have filed a lawsuit in federal court, maintaining that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated the federal rulemaking process when it changed established procedures for reviewing the potential hazards and need for allowed synthetic and prohibited natural substances used in producing organic food. A coalition of 15 organic food producers and farmer, consumer, environmental, and certification groups asked the court to require USDA to reconsider its decision on the rule change and reinstitute the agency’s customary public hearing and comment process. Read the complaint here.

When it comes to organic food production, consumers and producers expect a high level of scrutiny and are willing to pay a premium with the knowledge that a third-party certifier is evaluating compliance with organic standards. The burgeoning $35+ billion organic market relies heavily on a system of public review and input regarding decisions that affect organic production systems and the organic label.   The multi-stakeholder National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)[1], appointed to a 5-year term by the Secretary of Agriculture, holds semi-annual meetings to solicit public input and to write recommendations to the Secretary on organic policy matters, including the allowance of synthetic and non-organic agricultural materials and ingredients.

The unilateral agency action taken to adopt major policy change without a public process, the plaintiffs maintain, violates one of the foundational principles and practices of OFPA ””public participation in organic policy-making. In adopting the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), Congress created standards for organic certification and established the NOSB to oversee the allowance of synthetic materials based on a determination that they do not cause harm to human health and the environment and are necessary in organic food production and processing, given a lack of alternatives. Under the law, a review of these materials takes place on a five year cycle, with a procedure for relisting if consistent with OFPA criteria. Plaintiffs in this case maintain that the USDA organic rule establishes a public process that creates public trust in the USDA organic label, which has resulted in exponential growth in organic sales over the last two decades.

At issue in the lawsuit is a rule that implements the organic law’s “sunset provision,” which since its origins has been interpreted to require all listed materials to cycle off the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances every five years unless the NOSB votes by a two-thirds majority to relist them. In making its decision, the NOSB is charged with considering public input, new science, and new information on available alternatives.

In September, 2013, in a complete reversal of accepted process, USDA announced a definitive change in the rule it had been operating under since the inception of the organic program without any public input.   Now, materials can remain on the National List in perpetuity unless the NOSB takes initiative to vote it off the List.

In a joint statement, the plaintiffs, representing a broad cross-section of interests in organic, said:

We are filing this lawsuit today because we are deeply concerned that the organic decision making process is being undermined by USDA. The complaint challenges the unilateral agency action on the sunset procedure for synthetic materials review, which represents a dramatic departure from the organic community’s commitment to an open and fair decision making process, subject to public input. Legally, the agency’s decision represents a rule change and therefore must be subject to public comment. But equally important, it is a departure from the public process that we have built as a community. This process has created a unique opportunity within government for a community of stakeholders to come together, hear all points of view, and chart a course for the future of organic. It is a process that continually strengthens organic, supports its rapid growth, and builds the integrity of the USDA certified label in the marketplace.

The plaintiffs in the case, represented by counsel from Center for Food Safety, include: Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Equal Exchange, Food and Water Watch, Frey Vineyards, La Montanita Co-op, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, New Natives, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Northeast Organic Farmers Association Massachusetts, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, Organic Consumers Association, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, PCC Natural Markets, and The Cornucopia Institute.

[1] The NOSB is a 15 member Board comprised of farmers, consumers, environmentalists, retailers, certifiers and food producers who advise the Secretary of Agriculture and the National Organic Program on all matters related to organic food and agriculture policy.

See the joint statement here.

Source: Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2015) Scientists working with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) don’t have adequate protections from pressure and retaliation when researching issues that threaten the interests of powerful agrichemical corporations like Monsanto, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which filed a petition for rule-making with the agency last month. PEER’s petition seeks to strengthen USDA’s Scientific Integrity Policy, and urges the agency to adopt best practices used in other federal agencies in order to prevent political suppression or alteration of studies.

USDA adopted a new integrity policy in 2013 in response to a 2009 memorandum issued by President Obama with the goal of “ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological processes.” PEER alleges that USDA’s policy falls far short of this aim, even containing language which actively encourages the agency to suppress scientific work for political purposes. USDA’s current policy reads, “scientists should refrain from making statements that could be construed as being judgments of or recommendations on USDA or any other federal government policy, either intentionally or inadvertently.” PEER explains that USDA management regularly uses this provision as reason for suppressing technical work of employees when industry stakeholders disagree with the scientific conclusions reached.

The petition reports that “agribusiness interests, such as those of Monsanto Corporation, have access to top agency managers” and are “invited to lodge complaints and concerns about the published work of agency scientists.” Scientists and researchers have been pressured to water down studies, remove their name from authorship, endure indefinite delays in approving controversial papers, or even fully retract studies. PEER reports that scientists targeted by industry are subject to demotions, threats to damage careers, disruptive investigations, disapproval of formerly routine requests, suspensions without pay or disciplinary actions over small matters, and intimidation from supervisors intent on pleasing “stakeholders.”

“A largely invisible and toothless Scientific Integrity Policy enables corporate influence over critical USDA scientific research decisions,” stated PEER Executive Jeff Ruch, noting the USDA policy promises a website to display case-specific and other information but no such site exists. “USDA’s scientific integrity program is like a black hole, allowing no information to escape and no light to penetrate.”

PEER details one case, which occurred “in recent months,” where USDA scientists received a “summons to meet with Secretary Vilsack in an effort to induce retraction of a paper that drew the ire of industry representatives.”

At least 10 scientists have been investigated or faced other consequences as a result of research calling into question the safety of certain pesticides, said Mr. Ruch to Reuters. “Your words are changed, your papers are censored or edited or you are not allowed to submit them at all,” said a decidedly anonymous scientist who experienced such intimidation to Reuters.

PEER’s petition recommends USDA adopt model provisions which already exist in other agencies’ integrity policies. The organization has put together a report card reviewing the Scientific Integrity Policy of each agency. Agencies are scored for scientific misconduct, public communications of science, and transparency of policy decision-making. USDA scored 33 out of 100 possible points on the organization’s rubric. The petition recommends USDA update its policies regarding the ability of scientists to publish and discuss research, contest decisions to block release of data, file and pursue complaints of political manipulation of studies, and enjoy protection from reprisal for filing a complaint or engaging in research with potential political implications.

“There is no reason why USDA scientists should labor under safeguards far inferior to those extended to their colleagues working inside other agencies,” Ruch added. “To earn public credibility for its scientific work, USDA needs to spell out procedures by which political influences can be policed and scientists protected while allowing outside review of its handling of allegations and disagreements.”

With independent science both in and outside of the U.S. pointing to a growing list of impacts from pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) crops, ranging from the decline of bees to the carcinogenicity of the widely used herbicide glyphosate, it is critical that federal scientific agencies tasked with protecting human and environmental health be able to inform the public without the taint of an industry whose only interest is in protecting profits. PEER’ press release and petition to USDA can be viewed here.

In anticipation of the stranglehold industry currently displays over USDA, the Organic Foods Production Act created an independent advisory board, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), from a wide range of organic stakeholder groups to provide recommendations to the National Organic Program and USDA on products and processes allowed in certified organic products. It is critical that consumers make their voice heard over that of industry, and protect organic from being overtaken by the same agribusiness interests that dominate conventional agriculture at USDA. Comments to the NOSB are due by midnight tonight. Please go to Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong page, and provide a unique public comment to the board.

Source: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2015) Last week, the city council of Portland, Oregon voted unanimously to ban the use of neonicotinoid insecticides on city-owned property because these pesticides are persistent in the environment, harmful to pollinators, and have been involved in acute bee kills in other areas of the state.

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

Portland’s ordinance was spurred in part by the 2013 deaths of tens of thousands of bees as a result of the improper use of the neonicotinoids. Last month state officials banned  four   of the bee-killing insecticides, including   imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran from  use on  Linden  trees. In addition to banning the use of neonicotinoids on city property, the ordinance urges private retailers to label any product that may contain these toxic chemicals.  “We’re doing another good thing for the people of Portland, Oregon, the United States, maybe the entire world,” Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who introduced the policy,said to The Oregonian. However, the ordinance does not immediately apply to two rose gardens in the city. A “pilot program” will be run to find alternatives to using neonicotinoids to kill rose midges, a difficult pest to manage. The city has until December 2017 to come up with a sufficient alternative.

Portland’s ordinance to ban neonicotinoids on city-owned property follows numerous other communities that  have taken steps toward creating  a safer habitat for pollinators and  a healthier environment. In 2014, Eugene, Oregon became the first community in the nation to specifically ban the use of  neonicotinoid pesticides from city property. Eugene had previously set up a pesticide-free parks program and required all departments to adopt integrated pest management (IPM) standards. Other communities passed similar bans, such as Skagway (Alaska),  Shorewood, Minnesota and, in Washington State,  Thurston County,  Seattle, and  Spokane. Even school campuses have joined in, with the University of Vermont Law School becoming the first BEE Protective campus after announcing that it was going neonicotinoid pesticide-free. At Emory University, the Office of Sustainability Initiatives not only banned neonicotinoids on campus, but also went a step further by planting pollinator habitats and conducting campus outreach and education on the importance of pollinators. These restrictions on neonicotinoids are especially important because they build pressure at the federal level, and demonstrate to other communities and cities across the country that there are ways to create positive environmental change with their own local actions.

In 2014, President Barack Obama signed a Memorandum that recognizes the severe losses occurring in the nation’s pollinator populations, including honey bees, wild bees, monarch butterflies, and others. In accordance with these losses and acknowledging the importance of  pollinators to the agricultural economy, the memorandum directs federal agencies to establish a Pollinator Health Task Force, and develop a pollinator health strategy within 180 days that supports and creates pollinator habitat, and works to reverse these unsustainable pollinator declines. In 2015, Beyond Pesticides, along with many other environmental organizations, rallied in front of the White House to deliver more than 4 million petition signatures calling on the Obama administration to put forth stronger protections for honeybees and other pollinators.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a moratorium on any new neonicotinoids, which  pose a threat to bees or birds. Although the decision was welcome news, demonstrating that EPA is acknowledging the impact that neonicotinoids have on our pollinators, it was a tempered  victory for environmental advocates. This announcement does nothing to address the toxic neonicotinoids that are already on the market, nor other bee-toxic systemics that have recently been registered by the agency. Farmers, beekeepers, and environmental groups have urged EPA to consider suspending these dangerous products that have already been approved for use. Groups expect EPA’s announcement to  foreshadow broader recommendations from the White House Pollinator Health Task Force, which is why they say it is so important to urge the Obama administration to develop a strong plan for combating the dangers that neonicotinoids pose to our pollinators, the  food supply and world.

Take action.
You too can make a difference! If you are interested in supporting efforts  to save honey bees, go to save-bees.org and sign the petition. You also can work to get bee-toxic neonicotinoids out of your community. It takes a lot of work and commitment, but it can be done with some perseverance. It’s important to find support —friends, neighbors, and other people who share your concerns about environmental health. It’s also essential to reach out to your local politicians and government .Beyond Pesticides has resources and factsheets available to help you organize in your community. You can also call (202-543-5450) or email ([email protected]) for one-on-one consultation about the strategies you can take to have an impact.

Source: The Oregonian, Beyond Toxics

Image Source: Beyond Toxics

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2015) Earlier today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a moratorium on new bee- and bird- harming neonicotinoid pesticide products and uses. While supportive of the partial halt on new registrations, farm, beekeeper and environmental groups were have urged EPA to suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market. EPA’s announcement may  foreshadow broader recommendations from the White House Pollinator Health Task Force, according to the alliance.

“We need EPA to protect bees and other pollinators from the neonicotinoids and other bee-harming insecticides that are already covering the corn and soybean acres in our area, not just keep new products off the market,” said Joanna Voigt, program and communications coordinator at Kansas Rural Center. “Here at the Kansas Rural Center we work with farmers who rely on pollinators to cultivate crops like squash, blueberries, apples, cucumbers, peppers, sunflowers and more. These farmers deserve more from EPA.”

Over 125 farmer, food safety, beekeeper, faith and environmental groups sent a letter to the president last month urging a moratorium on all neonicotinoids and their chemical cousins, other systemic pesticides. Additionally, more than four million Americans signed petitions urging the Obama administration to take immediate action on bee-toxic pesticides.

“EPA’s announcement is disingenuous,” said Jeff Anderson, a beekeeper and owner of California Minnesota Honey Farms. “In the last year, EPA has approved registration for two new neonics, and expanded uses of these pesticides to additional blooming crops ”” also increasing residue tolerances to accommodate these new uses. Allowing increased toxic exposure to my bees and then announcing a moratorium? Very disingenuous.”

Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have both acute and chronic effects on honey bees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species, and are considered a major factor in overall pollinator declines. A growing body of independent science links neonics to bee declines, both alone and in combination with other factors like disease and malnutrition. Twenty-nine independent scientists conducted a global review of over a thousand independent studies, and found overwhelming evidence linking neonicotinoid pesticides to declines of bees, birds, earthworms, butterflies and other wildlife.

Neonics are also slow to break down, causing them to build up in the environment and endanger a whole range of beneficial species that inhabit these ecosystems.

After neonics came under scrutiny, other long-lived, highly-toxic “systemic”insecticides came on the market. Systemic or “whole plant” insecticides are drawn up into plants from the root, and can infuse both pollen and fruit. These new chemicals, including sulfoxaflor and flupyradifurone,  are very closely related to neonicotinoids, and arguably could be included in the neonicotinoid grouping. Yet they were placed in a separate subgroup from neonicotinoids by CropLife’s Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, a categorization that will allow EPA to continue registering new uses of systemic insecticides, even after today’s announcement.

Numerous food safety and environmental groups are urging EPA to expand the moratorium to include products already on the market.

“It’s welcome news that EPA is finally beginning to address the threat that neonics pose to the nation’s bees and other pollinators, but given the threats to the nation’s food and farming system, more is needed,” said Kristin Schafer, policy director at Pesticide Action Network North America. “Numerous bee-harming neonics and their cousin products are already on the market, and seed coatings in particular have led to a dramatic surge in use over the last few years. EPA should go further to place a moratorium on existing products.”

“EPA has finally admitted it lacks the basic data needed to determine whether bees, other pollinators, or the environment will be adversely affected by neonicotinoids,” said Peter T. Jenkins, attorney for the Center for Food Safety. “If EPA is unable to assess the safety of new uses, the agency similarly is not able to assess the safety of the close to 100 outdoor uses already approved. In view of its admissions, EPA has no option under FIFRA other than to suspend the existing uses, as well as follow through with its moratorium on the proposed new uses.”

“Although EPA acknowledges the harm neonicotinoids cause to pollinators, this action simply does not address the current neonicotinoid and other systemic insecticide products used in agriculture and by consumers that already pose unacceptable risks to pollinators,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “We urge the agency to suspend neonicotinoid products and take meaningful action on pollinator health.”

Today’s move comes on the heels of a new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology that highlights how use of pesticides that coat seeds, which EPA is not tracking, has sharply risen. According to the study, many farmers are prophylactically using these coatings as an insurance policy to protect crop yields, despite evidence of limited benefits.

According to an independent poll released last month, more than half of Americans consider the declining populations of honey bees and other pollinators to be a serious problem. And while today’s announcement indicates that EPA is slowly responding to Americans’ concerns, groups are concerned about the action’s limitations.

“Today’s action by EPA is an important step forward in protecting bees, butterflies, and the entire web of life,” said Lori Ann Burd, Environmental Health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “There is no question that these toxic chemicals are killing our pollinators, and we commend EPA for recognizing these impacts and taking this action ”” but they need to go even further.”

Groups that expressed disappointment in today’s announcement and urged EPA to go further include American Bird Conservancy, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Kansas Rural Center, Pesticide Action Network and numerous beekeepers.

Contact:
Jay Feldman, [email protected], 202-543-5450
Nichelle Harriott, [email protected], 202-543-5450
Paul Towers, Pesticide Action Network, [email protected], 916-216-1082
Tiffany Finck-Haynes, [email protected], 202-222-0715
Cynthia Palmer, American Bird Conservancy, [email protected], 202-888-7475
Abigail Seiler, Center for Food Safety, [email protected], 202-547-9359
Lori Ann Burd, Center for Biological Diversity, 847-567-4052

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2015) Just one more week to make your voice heard! Help protect the integrity of organic and defend human health and the environment in the process. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is seeking YOUR input to determine what should be allowed on organic food. It’s up to you to maintain the integrity of the organic food label or let USDA and big food take it over.

Our draft comments and summaries are now posted so check out our website to learn more about the issues and our positions and to submit a comment by April 7, 2015.

Major issues before the spring 2015 NOSB include:

”¢ Synthetic methionine should be phased out of organic poultry feed as the NOSB originally decided. Methionine is an amino acid that acts as a growth promoter (comparable to the synthetic growth promoter rGBH used in dairy cows). The new proposal increases use instead of increasing space and outdoor access, and alternative feed sources —without any scientific support. Neither synthetic amino acids nor synthetic growth promoters are compatible with organic practices. The phase out requires an expiration date. Learn more here.

Ӣ Nonorganic agricultural ingredients in organic products should be eliminated based on health and environmental impacts and the ability to produce them organically. Documentation for decisions has been lacking, including environmental and health impacts of pesticides used in their production. Organic agriculture can now supply most, if not all, of these materials. Learn more here.

”¢ “Inert” ingredients in pesticides used in organic production must be individually reviewed without further delay, according to processes recommended by the NOSB. So-called “inert” ingredients in pesticide products are neither chemically nor biologically inert, but designed to enhance the pesticidal activity of pesticide products and can have toxic properties that do not meet the standards of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Learn more here.

”¢ Organic should be chlorine-free, to the extent possible. Chlorine is hazardous in its production, transportation, storage, use, and disposal. EPA’s Design for the Environment has identified safer viable alternatives for some or all uses, including other materials on the National List. It is time for the NOSB to update its thinking and approach to cleaners and disinfectants. Learn more here.

We ask that you submit comments on as many issues and materials as you can by the April 7, 2015 deadline. For help crafting your comments, view Beyond Pesticides’ commenting guide.

Please go to Beyond Pesticides Keeping Organic Strong webpage to learn more about these and other substantive issues and provide a unique public comment. Thank you for continuing to work with Beyond Pesticides each NOSB meeting to uphold the public’s voice in organic issues and the integrity of the organic label.   Organic is only as strong as our voice. Our future is only as healthy as organic.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2015) According to a new study from Harvard University researchers, eating fruit and vegetables containing pesticide residues adversely affect men’s fertility, leading to fewer and poorer quality sperm. The study, published online in the journal,  Human Reproduction, adds to a growing body of research that finds pesticide exposures give rise to impaired reproductive function, including reduced sperm counts, sperm quality and reduced fertility in exposed men. The results of this study also underscore the importance of an organic diet in reducing pesticide exposures.

The study, “Fruit and vegetable intake and their pesticide residues in relation to semen quality among men from a fertility clinic,” believed to be the first to  look into the consumption of fruits and vegetables with high levels of pesticide residue in relation to semen quality, and conducted by researchers at Harvard University’s TH Chan School of Public Health, found that men who ate the greatest amount of fruit and vegetables with high levels of pesticide residue had a 49% lower sperm count and a 32% fewer normally formed sperm than those who consumed the least.

Jorge Chavarro, MD, assistant professor of nutrition and epidemiology and co-author of the study, said, “We found that total intake of fruit and vegetables were completely unrelated to semen quality. This suggests that implementing strategies specifically targeted at avoiding pesticide residues, such as consuming organically grown produce or avoiding produce known to have large amounts of residues, may be the way to go.”

The researchers analyzed 338 semen samples from 155 men aged between 18 and 55 attending a fertility center between 2007 and 2012, asking them about their consumption of fruit and vegetables. The fruits and vegetables consumed were then categorized as containing high or low-to-moderate pesticide residues based on data from the annual U. S. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program. Overall, the results find that intake of high pesticide residue fruits and vegetables is associated with lower total sperm count, ejaculate volume and percentage of morphologically normal sperm.

While there are some limitations to the study, including the fact that men presenting to fertility clinics tend to have semen quality problems, making it difficult to know whether the results would be similar in the general population, and that the researchers did not have information on whether food consumed was actually conventionally or organically grown, it is safe to say that switching to an organic diet not only reduces pesticide residues consumed in food, but would also reduce the risk of developing impaired sperm quality.

Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure. One study published earlier this year finds that people who eat an organic diet have lower levels of pesticides in their bodies than those who eat conventional fruits and vegetables grown with pesticides. In this study, people who reported eating organic fruits and vegetables had significantly lower organophosphate residue levels in their urine when compared to people who almost always ate conventionally grown produce.  Children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosphate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet. An American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) report also recognizes that lower pesticide residues in organic foods may be significant for children.

A literature review in 2013 found semen quality is affected by pesticide exposure. The researchers counted semen quality according to concentration of sperm over an area, their motility and ability to move, as well as their shapes. Researchers targeted studies on DDT, HCH, and  abamectin, grouping pyrethroids and organophosphates by class. What they found was striking: almost all the studies reported a decrease in sperm concentration; decreased motility was also reported though less frequently; while morphological changes were not strongly associated in studies””only two indicated any changes to sperm shape. These findings build on a growing body of evidence that pesticide exposure at environmental or occupational levels diminished sperm health.

Pesticides are associated with a host of chronic human reproductive health problems. Sperm counts have been reported to be in decline across the globe, with scientists naming pesticides as a possible factor. One French study documenting an alarming 30 percent decrease in sperm counts across France between 1989 and 2005, found the strongest decreases and lowest sperm values are consistently observed in densely populated and highly agricultural regions, where pesticides are used. Spanish researchers also found that exposure to organochlorine pesticides significantly alters semen quality in young men from southeast Spain. Others studies have linked pesticide exposure to reduced reproductive function in males. One 2011 study linked pesticides to abnormal genitals in baby boys, such as cryptorchidism and hypospadias, and decreased sperm counts in men. Pesticides like 2,4-D, glyphosate, pyrethroids like cypermethrin, and abamectin have been linked to reduced sperm and other male reproductive parameters.

Studies documenting the impact of pesticides on human sexual and reproductive functions can be found in the Pesticide-Induced Disease Database, which along the Eating With A Conscience —a database that provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use, underscore the importance of organic and the need to transition from an agricultural system dependent on toxic inputs. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

Join Louis Guillette, Ph.D. and Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. to discuss the influence of pesticides on reproductive health in both humans and wildlife at the  33rd National Pesticide Forum  in Orlando, Florida April 17-18,  Agricultural Justice, Age of Organics, and Alligators.

General admission is  only $45, and  $20 for students  with current ID. We also have an upgraded rate of $75, which includes a 1-year membership to Beyond Pesticides and a free 100% organic tote bag, and an industry rate of $175.  Register today!

Source:  Guardian , Washington Post  

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2015) A world renowned entomologist, who reevaluated data from a controversial study on neonicotinoid insecticides, has concluded that UK government scientists misinterpreted the findings when they  concluded that restrictive policy wasn’t necessary on the bee-killing pesticide. David Goulson, Ph.D., a bee researcher and professor at the University of Sussex in Falmer, said the UK was wrong in its position, based on the new analysis.

Neonicotinoids have been found by a growing body of scientific literature to be linked to honey bee and pollinator decline. The European Commission voted to suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in 2013 for two years. The ban came several months after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a report  identifying “high acute risk” to honey bees from uses of certain neonicotinoid chemicals.  However, this action was opposed by the UK government. Despite this opposition, Britain was required  to comply with the ban under European Union (EU) rules.

One of the main pieces of evidence informing this opposition is a study published in 2013 by Britain’s Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA), which found  “no clear consistent relationship” between exposure to neonicotinoids and the growth of bee colonies and the number of queens they produce. Dr.  Goulson conducted a new analysis of the FERA data and concluded that they clearly  show substantial negative effects of neonicotinoids on the performance of colonies.

“I would argue they didn’t correctly interpret their own results,” says Dr. Goulson, who supports the EU moratorium on neonicotinoid use.

In a statement, the Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which commissioned the FERA study, said that it was aware of the new analysis and recognized that pesticides are “one of the potential pressures” on bees. “We continue to work closely with the EU and our independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides to review any new research into the effects of neonicotinoids on bee populations, ensuring it is based on the best scientific evidence available,” said the statement.

In the U.S., the struggle to address the pollinator crisis continues to face obstacles, even in face of a growing number of Americans who believe bee declines are critical and linked to pesticide use.  Earlier this month,  advocates delivered over four million signatures  to the White House calling for decisive action on the rampant use of  neonicotinoids  and similar systemic insecticides, which scientists say are a driving factor in declining bee populations. Saving America’s Pollinators Act, reintroduced this month by Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and John Conyers’s (D-MI), if passed, will suspend the use of four of the most toxic neonicotinoids until the EPA conducts a full review of their safety.

Learn more about pollinator issues and what you can do at the 33rd National Pesticide Forum,  Agricultural Justice, Age of Organics, and Alligators, Protecting health, biodiversity, and ecosystems,  in Orlando, Florida April 17-18, 2015.  Get more information and register today!

Source: Nature

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2015) Last week, following the World Health Organization’s (WHO) declaration that glyphosate is carcinogenic to humans  based on animal studies, a new study was published in the American Society of Microbiology’s journal, mBio, linking glyphosate, 2,4-D and dicamba to antibiotic resistance after testing the sub-lethal effects of these pesticides in certain bacteria.

The new mBio study finds  that when bacteria, specifically Salmonella and E. coli, are exposed to the herbicides described above, they responded differently to the common antibiotics ampicillin,
ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, kanamycin, and tetracycline. Researchers replicated real-world scenarios by purchasing weed killers from a local store and using the exact levels that are specified on the product label. This provided researchers with the opportunity to observe how the bacteria reacted when exposed to the herbicides at sublethal levels; that is, those that did not kill them. When the bacteria are exposed to the herbicides and the antibiotics at the same time, the exposure to the herbicides trigger a defense mechanism that otherwise would not have been triggered solely by the antibiotics. This defense mechanism seeks to rid the bacteria of toxins and is non-specific, which means while it builds resistance to the toxic effects of the herbicides, it also builds resistance to the antibiotics, creating antibiotic-resistant strains that otherwise may not have occurred.

These results do have serious implications for public health, given the worldwide crisis of antibiotic resistance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) named resistance to antibiotics one of the world’s most pressing public health problems of our time. Many bacterial infections are becoming resistant to most commonly prescribed antibiotics, resulting in longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, and the need for more expensive or hazardous medications. Although the levels at which the researchers saw effects are higher than the residues allowed on food, effects are seen at  lower levels those often used in rural and agricultural settings. This means farmers, farmworkers, and individuals who live in agricultural communities where pesticides are sprayed near homes and schools are particularly at risk. Even homeowners who may assume they are out of range from agricultural areas using pesticides may experience pesticide drift, where pesticides can be transported over long distances through wind and rain, or as a result of volatilization, and cause adverse symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation. Children are even more susceptible and can suffer from elevated rates of leukemia and brain cancer.

We also know that it is not just the residues of the chemicals, but also the residues of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to which people are exposed that affects the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria in the gut of people. Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria can develop in agricultural fields and then travel freely through the environment, transferring from one bacterial species to another. This “horizontal gene transfer” means that a pool of resistant soil bacteria can then transfer the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens. A strain of antibiotic-resistant soil bacteria may seem innocuous to humans, but the documented fact that its resistance can be transferred into human bacterial strains reveals that the use of antibiotics in agriculture can have disastrous and deadly consequences.

Moreover, the generalized mode of action discovered in this study suggests an impact that might be produced by many different toxic chemicals, and therefore the possibility that spraying any pesticide could be increasing antibiotic resistance requires further  be investigated.

Glyphosate, 2,4-D and dicamba have all previously been shown to have a wide range of detrimental impacts on the environment, wildlife, and even in humans. A 2012 study found that glyphosate induces morphological changes in amphibians. Another study published by the American Cancer Society found that humans exposed to glyphosate are 2.7 times more likely to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified 2,4-D as a chronic risk to fish, an acute risk to plants, and a potential risk for endangered species. It has carcinogenic effects and is considered to be an endocrine disruptor. Dicamba is classified as only slightly toxic to aquatic wildlife, although acute toxicity varies wildly across species and can be increased by “inert” ingredients that are mixed with the herbicide. It has been found to cause neurotoxicity and has detrimental reproductive effects.

There are viable alternatives to using antibiotics and pesticides in food production. Chemical-intensive conventional farming methods do not provide consumers with the safest food possible. The agrichemical industry continues its attempts to inundate the media with statements that pesticides are safe and tested by EPA before registration, but the combined effects of pesticides and so-called inert ingredients (other non-disclosed and often toxic ingredients) are not documented, leaving consumers in the dark. These inert ingredients can comprise up to 99% of a pesticide formulation and may not be chemically or biologically  benign. One Monsanto representative, Charla Lord, even agreed that there are unknowns, stating, “It is difficult to separate the effect of surfactants, which are known to have an impact on cultured microbes, from the active ingredients.” Rather than parse the potential dangers of various pesticide formulations, the only way to definitively know that the food is the safest possible is to commit to organic agricultural practices.

Organic food contributes to better health through reduced pesticide exposure for all and increased nutritional quality. It can feed us and keep us healthy without producing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture. Our food choices have a direct effect on the health of our environment and those who grow and harvest what we eat. It is important to eat with a conscience, choosing to eat food that has been nurtured in a system of food production, handling, and certification that rejects hazardous synthetic chemicals. Choosing organic is affordable! It is possible to eat organic food while on a budget. There is also the option of growing your own food, which can be a truly fun and fulfilling experience all while providing a safer food source. There are many ways to grow your own food, such as utilizing small backyard spaces to build raised beds or vertical pallet gardens, or even something as simple as planting your own herbs in a windowsill box. Starting today, you can make the change to a healthier and safer lifestyle for yourself and those around you. Contact Beyond Pesticides for more ideas.

To discuss these issues and strategize on solutions in your community, state, and the nation, treat yourself and attend the   33rd National Pesticide Forum  in Orlando, Florida April 17-18,  Agricultural Justice, Age of Organics, and Alligators. You’ll meet incredible people, hear spectacular speakers, and come away better informed, inspired, and empowered to make your community protective of health and the environment. And, right now we are running an early bird discount rate of $5 off the normal price through March 15. Register today!

Source:  The Guardian

Photo Source:  The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2015) Portland, Oregon is considering a ban on neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides linked to bee deaths, from use on city property. If the measure passes, Portland will join a long list of towns and communities, including Eugene (Oregon),  Skagway (Alaska),  and, in Washington State, Thurston County,  Seattle, and Spokane.

Under the proposed ordinance, city officials would not be permitted to use or buy neonicotinoids or similar pesticides on city lands or in city buildings and would urge stores to label products, such as plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoids. The proposal also applies to city contractors.

Additionally, the proposed ban on neonicotinoids and neonicotinoid-like insecticides would not apply immediately to two city rose gardens. Officials say the rose midge, a pest, is difficult to eradicate with the insecticide. Instead the city will look for an alternative method using a pilot project at Peninsula Park in North Portland to test alternative non-toxic insecticides. That proposal would be phased in with a deadline of December 2017 to eliminate all neonicotinoid-based products.

The proposal cites seven separate bumble bee incidents in Oregon related to the application of neonicotinoids on trees since June 2013, documented by the state’s Department of Agriculture. Six of those incidents occurred in the greater Portland area. The proposal also mentions growing scientific evidence linking the pesticides to pollinator decline and damage to beneficial organisms, as well as the contamination of neonicotinoids in our nation’s waterways. The proposal specifically lists imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, and other neonicotinoid or neonicotinoid-like, systemic, persistent pesticides.

“I think it’s appropriate for us to take this kind of action,” said Mayor Charlie Hales, referring to the city’s track record of green policy proposals.

Commissioner Steve Novick said the city doesn’t necessarily need a smoking gun linking the insecticides to bee die-offs. “The cautious thing to do is to get rid of them,” Mr. Novick said.

The City Council held a public hearing on Wednesday to discuss the proposal and a final vote is expected April 1.

Meanwhile, federal action to curb threats to pollinators posed by neonics remains sluggish. Some promising steps have been taken, such as the ban of neonics on  National Wildlife Refuges  and the issuance of a  Presidential Memorandum,  Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators, and establishment of a corresponding White House Task Force. However, federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency remain hesitant to take meaningful action.

As federal efforts languish, local efforts like the Thurston County bans provide a promising opportunity for communities across the United States to stand up for pollinators. Visit Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective webpage  to learn more about the issue and what can be done to protect pollinators.

Take Action! With your help, we can prompt Portland to join other cities that have shown they care about pollinators by banning the use of neonicotinoids. Comments need to be submitted by Tuesday March 31, as the Commissioners plan to vote on the ordinance the next day,  April 1.

E-mails can be sent to Mayor Hales and Commissioners Fish, Fritz, Novick and Saltzman: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Source: The Oregonian

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2015) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to regulate novel nanomaterial pesticides as a result of a lawsuit filed by Center for Food Safety (CFS) and joined by Beyond Pesticides in December. In 2008, a coalition of more than 13 organizations filed a legal petition requesting, among other things, that EPA recognize the risks associated with a growing class of nano-silver consumer products and regulate them as new pesticides. After EPA had failed to respond to the petition for six years, in December 2014 some of the petitioner groups sued the agency to force it to respond. That lawsuit succeeded on Friday, with EPA issuing a 23-page response.

“We are gratified that EPA has now fundamentally acknowledged that, with regard to both the legal and scientific evidence, nano-silver antimicrobial products must be regulated as new pesticides,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney at Center for Food Safety. “This is an important step in safeguarding the public.”

Nanotechnology is a platform technology for manipulating materials at the atomic and molecular level; manufactured nanomaterials are so small that they cannot be seen with an ordinary microscope. Yet, “nano” means more than just tiny; it means materials that have the capacity to act in fundamentally novel ways, ways that cannot be predicted from the same materials at larger scale. Their exponentially small size gives them extraordinary mobility for a manufactured material, as well as unique chemical and biological properties. Nanomaterials’ properties increase potential for biological interaction and increase potential for toxicity.

Nano-silver products are overwhelmingly the most common nanomaterial in consumer products, commonly used as a powerful antimicrobial agent. Because of nano-silver’s properties, it is considered a pesticide and active ingredient under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the primary federal law governing pesticide use in the U.S. Under FIFRA, any product containing an active ingredient that acts as a pesticide must be registered with EPA. However, in the 2008 petition, petitioners identified 260 nano-silver consumer products not registered under FIFRA. That number has increased to over 400 nano-silver products on the market today. Because there are no labeling requirements for nano-scale products, many more likely exist. These products carry with them significant risks to people and the environment, including DNA damage to plants, increasing bacterial resistance to antimicrobials, and toxic and potentially lethal impacts on fish.

The petition was granted in part and denied in part. EPA agreed that nano-silver products that are intended to kill microorganisms qualify as pesticides, and that they are in fact a new type of novel pesticide, the safety of which cannot be assumed from data pertaining to the macro-counterpart of a nanomaterial. The agency also agreed that developers of such products must seek EPA review and approval before the products are allowed in the marketplace. EPA also agreed with the petitioners’ request that the agency require nano-specific data.

EPA would not commit, however, to the petitioners’ demand that the agency undertake enforcement actions against all currently commercialized products that have not undergone the EPA registration process. Instead the agency has responded to the lawsuit by saying it will seek enforcement against current unregistered products at its discretion, and will be “strongly encouraging” all manufacturers to seek pesticide registration. The agency has previously taken enforcement actions against some non-compliant manufacturers already.

“We are disappointed that EPA has not agreed to investigate and take enforcement action against all current product manufacturers, despite agreeing with our basic legal and scientific arguments indicating such a need,” said Jaydee Hanson, policy director for the International Center for Technology Assessment. “We urge all nano-silver manufacturers to follow EPA’s instruction and seek registration, and will continue to push the agency to regulate them and any future products.”

“This important decision is part of the transformation our government agencies must continue to pursue in order to protect the public from potentially dangerous products containing nanoscale ingredients,” said Ian Illuminato, health and environment campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

“It is unfortunate that the EPA has chosen not to exercise its enforcement authority categorically by requiring withdrawal from the market of pesticide products incorporating nano-silver whose developers have chosen not to submit data and other information required for an EPA risk assessment,” said Steve Suppan of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “By deciding to use its enforcement authority only on a case by case basis, the EPA risks possible failure to execute its statutory obligations due to inadequate resources to pursue a case by case enforcement strategy. In this event, a prudent ”˜no data, no market’ regulatory approach would be undermined by the EPA’s de facto allowance of commercialization for a product whose developers had failed to submit nano-specific data to the agency.”

The plaintiffs represented by CFS legal counsel in the lawsuit are CFS, its sister nonprofit, the International Center for Technology Assessment, as well as Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Environmental Health, Clean Production Action, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2015) Several environmental and food safety groups released new polling data which shows the public believes bee decline issues are critical and linked to pesticide use. This comes as concerned citizens flooded the White House this week with more than 3,500 phone calls demanding action against bee-harming chemicals, ramping up pressure on the Obama administration to protect America’s imperiled pollinators.

The poll released yesterday was conducted by the firm FM3 and is being distributed in anticipation of recommendations from the  White House Pollinator Health Task Force. Last year, the President charged this inter-agency task force ””led jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)”” with implementing a plan to improve the health of bees, butterflies, birds and other pollinating species.

According to the poll, an overwhelming majority (86%) say that honey bees and other pollinators are important to our nation’s food supply. More than half of the survey respondents (56%) consider the declining populations of honey bees and other pollinators to be a serious problem ””following only concerns around health care costs (76%) and jobs and the economy (75%), and on par with the problem of gas prices (55%). Furthermore, when asked what is causing pollinator population declines, 70% of respondents felt it was primarily human behavior, including increased use of pesticides.

“The poll results show that Americans are very concerned with pollinator losses, as they should be. Every one in three bites of food we eat is dependent on pollination. The White House must show strong leadership on reversing these losses, and direct EPA and USDA to take quick, meaningful action to protect these creatures, starting with  the suspension of neonicotinoid insecticides being a critically necessary action.”

The poll results are clear. “We conducted a rigorous national survey and our findings highlight that Americans are concerned about declining pollinator populations. Policymakers should take these findings seriously,” said Paul Maslin, principal investigator with FM3.

Earlier this month, advocates delivered over four million signatures to the White House calling for decisive action on the rampant use of neonicotinoids and similar systemic insecticides, which scientists say are a driving factor in declining bee populations.

Beekeepers have also voiced their concerns. Since 2006, they have been witnessing the devastating impact of these chemicals on their hives, and have been leading the call for federal action. “Beekeepers are on the front lines of the food system, witnessing dramatic bee declines. We’re heartened by the growing and diverse groundswell of support and understanding of the critical value of bees and beekeeping, said Jim Doan a New York beekeeper and owner of Doan Family Farms. “It’s time for federal officials to take a stand for comprehensive policies that protect bees, tackle pesticides, and ensure the future prosperity of the food system,”

In a letter sent to President Obama and the EPA earlier this month, more than 125 conservation, beekeeping, food safety, religious, ethnic and farming advocacy groups ”” many of whom were involved in today’s call-in action ””pressed for bee-protective policies. The European Union passed a two-year moratorium on three of the most widely used neonicotinoids, yet federal regulators in the U.S. have failed to follow the science and take meaningful action. Citing public support and a clear body of science, this diverse alliance of groups has remained openly critical of regulatory efforts that fail to sufficiently address the threat pesticides pose to pollinator populations and supports a comprehensive plan to protect bees.

Scientists remain concerned that the White House and task force leaders at EPA and USDA are not heeding their concerns, including those expressed in the “Worldwide Integrated Assessment” ”” a review of over 800 studies by 29 independent scientists released last year that documents significant harms to bees and ecosystems from neonicotinoids.

“The President’s task force should listen to the body of science that links pesticides to bee harm and bee declines,” said Jim Frazier, PhD, an emeritus entomology professor at Pennsylvania State University and commercial beekeeper advisor who specializes in chemical ecology, in a statement. “These systemic pesticides are not only lethal to pollinators, but at low doses can disrupt critical brain functions and reduce their immunity ”” leaving them susceptible to common pathogens.”

Only days into spring, this week also marks the two-year anniversary of a lawsuit filed against EPA by beekeepers and environmental groups over the approval of two neonicotinoids. That case is ongoing and interested parties are still waiting for meaningful action from the agency. To date, the most promising federal action is the Saving America’s Pollinators Act, reintroduced this month by Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and John Conyers’s (D-MI). The bill would suspend the use of four of the most toxic neonicotinoids until the EPA conducts a full review of their safety.

A summary of the poll results can be found here.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2015) Last week, to the dismay of health and environmental advocates, the House Agriculture Committee unanimously passed the latest version of the inaccurately titled “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015” (H.R. 897), which would nullify regulations that require pesticide applicators to apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) before applying pesticides on or near surface waters. The legislation also amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by stating that no permit shall be required for the use of a pesticide that is registered under FIFRA. Generally, it means that pesticide applicators can discharge pesticides into waterways with no EPA oversight under the the standards of the CWA and the permitting process, which takes into account local conditions that are not addressed under FIFRA.

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

Already,  nearly 2,000 waterways are impaired  by pesticide contamination  and many more have simply not been tested. The potentially high cost of public health problems, environmental clean-up efforts, and irreversible ecological damage that can result from unchecked, indiscriminate pollution of waterways is being ignored by opponents of  CWA  regulation. The reality is that this permitting process encourages pesticide users to seek alternative approaches to pest management if their current methods are going to contaminate nearby sources of water.

To understand the complex topic and the subsequent journey that this legislation has undertaken, it is helpful look back to where the entire controversy originated.

In 2006, EPA issued a rule allowing exemptions from the CWA under two specific situations where a permit with NPDES would not be necessary: (1) The application of pesticides directly to waters of the U.S. to control pests (such as mosquito larvae or aquatic weeds); and (2) The application of pesticides to control pests that are present over or near water and a portion of the pesticide can be deposited in lakes, rivers and streams. The statute that EPA claimed to rely on to protect water, FIFRA, is a regulatory and licensing law that oversees the registration of pesticides and their application. It does not, however, regulate and oversee water quality and the protection of aquatic ecosystems in the local context, which is specifically regulated under CWA. As Beyond Pesticides asserted at the time, this EPA action allowed weaker and more generalized standards under FIFRA to trump the more stringent CWA standards.

In 2009, in The National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed EPA’s 2006 rulemaking and held that pesticide residuals and biological pesticides constitute pollutants under federal law and therefore must be regulated under CWA in order to minimize the impact to human health and the environment.

In June 2010, EPA responded to this decision by  outlining the applicability of the permits to  pesticide usage. Since then, industry has lobbied hard to get Congress to prevent this measure from going into effect this year.

In August 2010, Congress proposed the first of many bills to combat the ruling that emerged from The National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA case. Bill S. 3735 was introduced by then-Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). In September of that same year, Beyond Pesticides joined other environmental groups in sending a letter to supporters of the legislation, urging the immediate withdrawal of S. 3735. The letter argued that the NPDES permit was vital to protecting waterways from indiscriminate pesticide contamination. Eventually, S. 3735 was stalled, but the proponents of this legislation returned in 2011 with the first iteration of the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 (H.R. 872), introduced by Rep. Gibbs (R-OH). H.R. 872 was adopted  by the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 292-130, but eventually was stalled in the Senate by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD).

Since this first attack against these important protections, two other attempts have been made. One in 2011, (S. 718), and another over the last two years, (HR 935), which was also passed by the full House, but again stalled in the Senate.

And now the fight for clean water continues, this time with supporters in control of both houses of Congress. The latest installation of the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015 (H.R. 897) was passed March 19, 2015 in the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture. This bill, similar to the previous ones, will  eliminate the need for a federal Clean Water Act permit for aquatic pesticide applications in, over, or near “waters of the United States.”

Despite the constant attacks on our nation’s water, it’s imperative that concerned residents remain stalwart in their dedication to protecting and improving the healthfulness of  water. Continue to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her  to stand with you in opposing the chemical industry’s  Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015 (H.R. 897). Go to Beyond Pesticides action page to send a letter to your Representative today.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2015) The fight to save our bees and other pollinators is at a critical moment. The Obama Administration charged federal agencies with  improving pollinator health this last June, and now, after months of delay, the President’s plan is expected imminently. Your voice is needed because  the chemical  companies that manufacture bee-toxic neonicotinoid pesticides, Bayer and Syngenta, have been working aggressively to  stop the President from taking action to restrict their chemicals, despite the critical threat they pose to bee health.

A  week ago, more than four million Americans called on President Obama to take swift action to protect bees from toxic pesticides, and Beyond Pesticides joined with allies to rally in front of the White House to reinforce  this important message.

We urgently need to ramp up pressure on the Obama administration to do the right thing for bees and our food system. Call President Obama’s office TODAY to deliver this message. It’s easy, we’ll patch you straight through.

Call details:

Call number: 1-877-796-1948

Just dial the number, you’ll hear an automated message with instructions and then be patched through to the White House to deliver your urgent message.

When you’re connected to the White House, deliver this message:

“Hi, my name is _______ and I’m calling to urge President Obama to protect bees from toxic pesticides immediately to protect our food supply and the environment.”

The administration is being lobbied by Bayer, Syngenta and other big chemical companies to withhold  action on pesticides, but President Obama needs to hear directly from  the public  to know that we’re invested in this issue and will support his decision to direct his administration to protect bees from pesticides.

Industry has already launched an attack against preliminary recommendations from the task force. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) updated federal guidelines to require pollinator friendly plantings without the use of systemic pesticides at federal buildings, but AmericanHort and the Society of American Florists has called the proposal “not a viable recommendation.” Despite recent research showing the value of pesticide-free pollinator habitat, industry continues to jeopardize pollinator populations.

As the scientific record increasingly identifies  neonicotinoids as key contributors to declining pollinator health, the  pesticide industry has  attempted to stymie free speech. In early March, Bayer lost a lawsuit that sought  to silence Friends of the Earth Germany for its  efforts to speak out against the use of thiacloprid, a harmful neonicotinoid insecticide not covered under the EU suspension of these chemicals.

At the same time,  industry is investing heavily in attempting to spin the pollinator crisis through outreach and PR campaigns such as “Bayer Bee Care Tour” and  their latest “Feed a Bee Initiative,” which encourages people  to increase habitat by planting seeds or plants without any warning that they may contain the company’s neonicotinoids. Non-profits like Beyond Pesticides and our allies have the resources  that assist with the development of  pesticide-free pollinator habitat and a directory to find organic seed and nursery stock and suppliers that don’t utilize  systemic chemicals that make the whole plant poisonous to bees.

Please make a call for the bees by dialing 1-877-976-1948 today!

When we stand up, voice our concerns, we will show the administration there is a strong and powerful movement in this country that wants him to save the bees and our food system. Together, we can win this.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, Washington, DC, March 20, 2015 — A national public health and environmental group, Beyond Pesticides, is calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to stop the use of the country’s most popular herbicide, glyphosate, in the wake of an international ruling that it causes cancer in humans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released its finding today concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based on laboratory studies.

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

“With the cancer classification on top of the documented weed resistance to glyphosate and water contamination resulting from its use, continued reliance on glyphosate is irresponsible from a public health and environmental perspective,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “We have effective sustainable organic management systems that do not utilize glyphosate and it’s time that EPA and USDA recognized its responsibility to move away from hazardous and unnecessary pesticides,” he continued.

Ironically, EPA in 1985 originally classified glyphosate as ”˜possibly carcinogenic to humans’ based on tumors in laboratory animals, but changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in human years later, most likely due to industry influence, allowing the chemical to be the most widely used pesticide in the U.S. USDA has contributed to its growth by deregulating crops, including   the vast majority of corn and soybeans, that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to the chemical. In recent years, weeds have exhibited resistance to glyphosate and its efficacy has been called into question. Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routinely finds glyphosate in U.S. waterways especially in the Midwestern states and the Mississippi River valley. Ecological data also reports that glyphosate and glyphosate formulated products are toxic to aquatic organisms, and is extremely lethal to amphibians.

But the U.S. regulatory agencies have ignored questions about its hazards and its necessity in crop production. Last year, cotton growers applied for an emergency exemption for the use of propazine on three million acres of cotton because glyphosate was no longer effective. Now that IARC has classified the world’s most widely used herbicide as a probable human carcinogen, EPA must quickly reevaluate its widespread use and registration status.

In addition to glyphosate, IARC also reviewed four other organophosphate herbicides, including malathion, diazinon, tetrachlorvinphos, and parathion. Malathion and diazinion were also classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2015) A new pesticide residue report just out requires context for those wishing to use their purchasing power to protect health, the environment, and those who grow and harvest our food.  For consumers who care about the environment, farmworkers, and want to reduce pesticides in their diet, organic agriculture continues to be the best choice because purchasing can support a whole system of agriculture that is more protective of workers, the environment and biodiversity, and consumers of food. Because of this, Beyond Pesticides supports highlighting consumer exposure to pesticide residues in food, but not to exclusion of toxic pesticide use patterns that result in worker exposure and environmental contamination associated with chemical-intensive agriculture. Some crops have highly toxic inputs in agricultural production, but low residues on the finished food commodity.  To help explain the urgent need for a major shift to organic food consumption, Beyond Pesticides’ database Eating with a Conscience  evaluates the impacts on the environment and farmworkers of the toxic chemicals allowed for use on major food crops, grown domestically and internationally. The  new report released today by the nonprofit organization Consumer Reports identifies a list of fruits and vegetables that exposes  consumers to the highest hazardous  pesticide residues. So,  when a new residue report like this comes out, we urge a critical analysis of its findings.

The new residue report, entitled  “From Crop to Table,” analyzes pesticide residue data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and toxicity data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report places fruits and vegetables into five risks categories, from very low to very high. Some crops, such as grapes and pears, have improved over the years, moving from the high-risk or very high-risk category to the low-risk category. Other crops, such as green beans, have been in the higher-risk category for the past 20 years. Consumer Reports also draws attention to the lack of monitoring of widespread herbicides like glyphosate.

There is more to consider than just the amount of pesticides in your food. “Tolerance levels are calculated for individual pesticides, but finding more than one type on fruits and vegetables is the rule””not the exception,” says Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., a toxicologist and executive director of the Consumer Reports Food Safety and Sustainability Center. Almost a third of the USDA-tested produce had two or more pesticides. “The effects of these mixtures is untested and unknown,” Dr. Rangan says.

“We’re exposed to a cocktail of chemicals from our food on a daily basis,” says Michael Crupain, M.D., M.P.H., director of  Consumer Reports’ Food Safety and Sustainability Center. “It’s not realistic to expect we wouldn’t have any pesticides in our bodies in this day and age, but that would be the ideal,” says Dr. Crupain. “We just don’t know enough about the health effects.”

Chemical mixtures are not the only concern. EPA’s flawed risk assessment process also fails to look at synergistic effects, certain health endpoints (such as endocrine disruption), disproportionate effects to vulnerable population groups, and regular noncompliance with product label directions. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

The report recommends that consumers buy the organic versions of certain fruits and vegetables in place of their conventional counterparts that got placed in the high- or very high-risk categories. These include peaches, tangerines, nectarines, strawberries, sweet bell peppers, sweet potatoes, carrots, and more.

The report also compares various environmental sustainability labels, such as USDA Organic, Rainforest Alliance, and the Whole Foods Responsibly Grown. Once again, USDA Organic comes out on top when it comes to prohibiting toxic pesticides.

Our food choices have a direct effect on the health of our environment and those who grow and harvest what we eat.    That’s why food labeled organic is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, protection of farmworkers and farm families, and stewardship of the earth. While lists put out by Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group’s Clean 15/Dirty Dozen  are helpful in alerting consumers to hazardous residues on food, food residues are only part of the story.  It turns out that those very same “clean” food commodities may be grown with hazardous pesticides that get into waterways and groundwater, contaminate nearby communities, poison farmworkers, and kill wildlife, while not all showing up at detectable levels on our food.

Action Alert! Help protect the integrity of organic and defend human health and the environment in the process. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is seeking YOUR input to determine what should be allowed on organic food. It’s up to you to maintain the integrity of the organic food label. Stay tuned for our draft comments over the next few weeks. In the meantime, check out Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong page to learn more about the issues. We ask that you submit comments on as many issues and materials as you can by the April 7, 2015 deadline. For help crafting your comments, view Beyond Pesticides’ commenting guide.

Source: Consumer Reports, ABC Action News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2015) A federal court ruled Monday against the use of neonicotinoid insecticides linked with destruction of bee colonies and other beneficial insects in national wildlife refuges in the Midwest region.  The ruling caps a legal campaign to end the planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops and other industrial agricultural practices on national wildlife refuges across the country.

The federal lawsuit was filed by Center for Food Safety (CFS), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Sierra Club, and Beyond Pesticides. The suit focused on farming contracts for five refuges in four Midwestern states (IL, IA, MN and MO) and sought to force the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), which operates refuges, to stop these practices until it completes rigorous analyses of their environmental impacts. Beset by this litigation, this past July FWS decided that it will phase out the use of GE crops to feed wildlife and ban neonicotinoid insecticides from all wildlife refuges nationwide by January 2016.  This new policy still allows for case-by-case exceptions.

In the March 16, 2015 ruling, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered:

“By no later than APRIL 15, 2015, Defendants shall file a Notice indicating the extent to which neonicotinoid pesticides are currently used on the five challenged refuges and where those pesticides are used. Assuming that these pesticides are currently used””or Defendants plan for them to be used””this claim is remanded to the agency to devise a plan to phase out their use as soon as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2016.” [Emphasis in original]

“The court found that neonicotinoid pesticides so upset the natural balance a refuge is supposed to safeguard that a thorough site-specific environmental assessment is required before these potent agents can be used,” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, noting that neonics are now widely used in U.S. agriculture and even in backyard gardens. “While we did not win on all counts, the court found that the Service’s mismanagement of refuges did not always sink to the level of illegality — a very low bar indeed.”

“The decision makes clear that FWS must analyze the specific impacts genetically engineered crops will have on each unique refuge environment before approving them,” said Paige Tomaselli, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety. “FWS can no longer get away with after-the-fact environmental risk analysis on our fragile wildlife refuges.”

This was the fifth lawsuit filed by CFS and PEER challenging GE crops on wildlife refuges.  For nearly 10 years, Beyond Pesticides has joined the two groups to campaign against GE crops and pesticide use on refuges. In March 2009, CFS and PEER won a lawsuit, filed in 2006, halting GE plantings on Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware. In 2011, the groups forced a legal settlement ending GE planting on refuges throughout the 12-state Northeast Region. In 2012, a federal court formally halted the planting of GE crops on all National Wildlife Refuges in the Southeastern U.S. as well as ordered steps to mitigate environmental damage from their previous illegal cultivation. The groups have also petitioned FWS to prohibit GE Crops nationally twice and to prohibit neonicotinoid pesticides on refuges once. The Center for Biological Diversity and Beyond Pesticides co-signed the second legal petition, filed in February last year.

Given the recent FWS no-GE/no-neonics policy, the groups do not anticipate the need for further litigation on these subjects. However, they are closely monitoring the ban to ensure it is not honeycombed with exceptions.

For information on what you can do to protect bees and other pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective campaign information.

Source: Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides March 18, 2015) Fifty-two members of Congress penned a letter to the White House, calling for the protection of the Monarch butterfly, which has declined by 90 percent in the last 20 years, and for listing as a ”˜threatened’ species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This comes on the heels of a formal  notice  of intent to sue submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to protect threatened and endangered species, including butterflies, amphibians and birds, from flupyradifurone, a newly approved systemic insecticide.

The letter sent to President Obama on Tuesday was spearheaded by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME), a long-time advocate for protecting monarch butterflies. In her press release, Rep. Pingree notes that the annual migration of monarchs from North America to Mexico has plummeted because of the use of herbicides on genetically engineered (GE) crops in the U.S.   The herbicides have wiped out milkweed, the main food for monarchs.  According to the letter, efforts by farmers, local, state and federal agencies to boost habitat are laudable, but without changes in how the federal government addresses the use of herbicides, especially as applied to herbicide-resistant crops, vital monarch habitats will simply continue to disappear. “We believe that the Endangered Species Act represents the last best chance to save this amazing species and its incredible migration,” the letter notes.

“When the monarchs got to Mexico they used to cover 50 square miles.   By 2013 they covered an area about the size of a football field,” Rep. Pingree said.   “The loss of habitat and devastation of the monarch population should be a wakeup call.   If we keep applying ever increasing amounts of chemicals to farmlands, it’s going to have an impact on the environment.”

One day earlier, conservation and food-safety groups submitted a formal  notice  of intent to sue EPA for failing to protect threatened and endangered species, including butterflies, amphibians and birds, from flupyradifurone, a newly approved systemic insecticide. In registration documents, EPA acknowledges that flupyradifurone could harm wildlife protected under the Endangered Species Act but failed to consult with expert wildlife agencies as required by the ESA before issuing registration approval earlier this year. According to the groups, the new insecticide would be especially harmful to imperiled, solitary bees like the blue orchard bee. These bees are prolific pollinators, important for pollinating agricultural crops, and already suffering from the effects of other systemic insecticides.

When EPA announced it completed the registration of this new insecticide in January 2015, the agency noted that the chemical would be marketed as an alternative to neonicotinoid pesticides, and “safer for bees.” But a closer look at this chemical revealed that the agency is grossly misleading the public on the ecological safety of flupyradifurone since the chemical is systemic, persistent, and highly acutely toxic to adult honey bees. Flupyradifurone (“Sivanto”) is a new systemic, butenolide insecticide from Bayer CropScience that is to be used on crops such as citrus, cotton, potatoes and many others, and also as seed treatment. The chemical is a neurotoxic insecticide that can inhibit nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) in the nervous system. Neonicotinoids, widely linked to devastating health impacts on bees,  affect the nervous system in the same way. However, EPA states that flupyradifurone differs from neonicotinoids because of the way it binds to the receptors and  how it is metabolized. However, most troubling is that, based on EPA’s registration documents, the chemical is highly toxic to adult bees for short-term oral exposures. EPA’s registration document states, “While the acute oral toxicity study indicates that flupyradifurone is highly toxic to individual adult honey bees”¦”  For bees that come into surface contact with the chemical, EPA states in one document that the chemical is “practically nontoxic to adult bees on an acute contact exposure basis,” but in another document it reports, “In the acute contact toxicity test, some bees showed movement coordination problems or lethargy at the two highest concentrations”¦” after a few hours of exposure. EPA notes that the field studies reveal high mortality in adult bees within 24 hours of treatment

EPA failed to consider the highly toxic impacts of this new systemic insecticide on native pollinators such as bees- especially solitary bees, butterflies, and on a range of birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and aquatic invertebrates. According to the groups that submitted the notice of intent to sue, there are  4,000 species of solitary bees living in the U.S. whose wellbeing EPA effectively ignores. In fact, EPA’s own risk assessment recognizes that this pesticide is both persistent and mobile, meaning it will reach aquatic environments and put additional species at risk.

For decades the EPA has approved hundreds of pesticides that can harm endangered wildlife without consulting expert wildlife agencies as required by the Endangered Species Act. In 2013 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report identifying problems and suggested solutions to correct the agency’s flawed approach for reviewing the impacts of pesticides on endangered wildlife. Accordingly, in approving flupyradifurone, the EPA failed to remedy the problems identified by that report and did not complete the required ESA consultation.

It was about one year ago that EPA introduced to the market sulfoxaflor, another bee-toxic insecticide registered by EPA despite warnings from concerned groups and beekeepers. Beekeepers have since sued EPA over the registration of sulfoxaflor. Soon thereafter EPA registered another highly toxic bee pesticide, cyantraniliprole. A notice of intent to sue was also submitted to EPA regarding cyantraniliprole for failure to consult under the ESA. Given the global phenomenon of pollinator decline and the precautions  taken by European nations to protect bees and other pollinators, advocates are calling it  irresponsible for EPA  to allow into the environment more chemicals wit high  hazard  potential  for bee health, before a full analysis on their impacts to all threatened and endangered species. To many, EPA’s decisions on the approval on these latest pesticides appears counter to current agency and inter-agency work to protect pollinators.

Take Action
You too can make a difference! If you are interested in giving your support to saving the honey bees, go to save-bees.org and sign the petition. You also can work to get bee-toxic neonicotinoids like thiacloprid out of your community. It takes a lot of work and commitment, but it can be done with some perseverance. It’s important to find support —friends, neighbors, and other people who share your concerns about environmental health. It’s also essential to reach out to your local politicians and government .Beyond Pesticides has resources and fact sheets available to help you organize in your community. You can also call (202-543-5450) or email ([email protected]) for one-on-one consultation about the strategies you can take to have an impact.

Learn more about pollinator issues and what you can do at the 33rd National Pesticide Forum,  Agricultural Justice, Age of Organics, and Alligators, Protecting health, biodiversity, and ecosystems,  in Orlando, Florida April 17-18, 2015.  Get more information and register today!

Source: The Center for Food Safety Press Release  

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2015) Foraging bumblebees would prefer to dodge traffic rather than pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, according to the results of a new study published in the Journal of Insect Conservation. Researchers from Plymouth University in England discovered that the number of bumblebees observed foraging plants along roadsides was over twice the number located in adjacent patches facing agricultural crops. As both native and managed bees continue to decline throughout the globe, this research strengthens calls from farming and environmental groups to improve agricultural practices through increased on-farm diversity, and sharp reductions in the use of pesticides, particularly systemic chemicals such as neonicotinoids.

Mick Hanley, Ph.D., lead author of the study, explains, “There have been hedgerows and field boundaries in these locations for centuries, and even if you go back 50 or 60 years, you would not have  seen this phenomenon. Both sides of hedgerows would have been flourishing, and bees and other insects would have been numerous on both sides, but that was before an increase in the use of fertilizers.”

However, it is likely the use of agrichemicals that has caused such a stark discrepancy between roadside and farm-side habitats. “Now what you see is the chemicals having impacted one side, with the hedgerows in effect acting as a filter to protect the road-facing edge. It decreases the bees’ sources of food and, therefore, has the potential to impact on their numbers,” Dr. Hanley explains.

Researchers reach the conclusion in the study that organic farming is likely to offer distinct advantages for pollinator conservation efforts. As a result of reduced chemical use, organic farms are likely to provide pollinators with a greater diversity of flowers, and thus increase food availability. “The pesticides and fertilisers in use today tend to mean plants such as nettles flourish, whereas honeysuckle and other bee-friendly species do not,” said Dr. Hanley. “But we would argue that if farmers were a bit more sympathetic, any work they do to encourage bees and other insects could have reciprocal benefits for them and their crops.”

In the United States, efforts to increase pesticide-free pollinator habitat are under attack by industry. Last week trade groups AmericanHort and the Society of American Florists rejected an important, positive component of President Obama’s White House Pollinator Task Force recommendations. The groups called  guidelines from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to increase neonicotinoid-free pollinator friendly habitat at federal facilities “largely unachievable,” despite widespread demand for an urgent need to transition away from bee-toxic pesticides.

Although announced without mention of pesticides, the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicated it would provide $4 million in technical and financial assistance to U.S. farmers and ranchers in the Midwest to improve honey bee health. The new research suggests that, in addition to habitat, regulators efforts are needed to reduce the on-farm use of pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides maintains that pesticide-free hedgerows are a critical part of the solution to global pollinator declines. By taking advantage of the “edge effect,” an area where two environments/ecosystems meet, hedgerows can provide high levels of biodiversity. However, as this study shows, farmers and land managers must take pesticides out of the equation in order to realize the full benefits that hedgerows can provide.

For more information on the benefits of hedgerows, and guidelines to get your started, read Beyond Pesticides recent article by Terry Shistar, Ph.D., “Hedgerows for Biodiversity,” You can also work on creating your own pesticide-free pollinator habitat by visiting the BEE Protective webpage, “Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind.” The BEE Protective Habitat Guide will help you decide which plants work for your region and the type of pollinators you want to attract. Join us in continuing to put pressure on the White House to take swift action to reverse bee declines by signing the petition to President Obama at save-bees.org.

And join us in person to help us continue the fight to protect pollinators! This spring is Beyond Pesticides’ 33rd National Pesticide Forum in Orlando, FL, April 17-18th 2015. Register today!

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

Source: Plymouth Herald, Journal of Insectology

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2015) Last week, a judge in Duesseldorf Regional Court ruled that the German branch of Friends of the Earth (BUND) has a right to speak out against chemical company giant Bayer CropScience’s neonicotinoid pesticide, thiacloprid, regarding its potential danger to bees. The court considered the allegations put forth by BUND to be a form of free speech, a protected right.

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

Thiacloprid is one of the seven most commonly used neonicotinoids. It is used to control sucking and biting insects in cotton, rice, vegetables, pome fruit, sugar beet, potatoes and ornamentals. Low doses of neonicotinoids are considered highly toxic to honeybees and these types of pesticides can leach into groundwater and cause harm to humans as well; they can cause kidney and liver damage and are linked to birth defects. In 2003, EPA classified thiacloprid as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on thyroid tumors and uterine tumors in rats and ovary tumors in mice.

As Friends of the Earth declared, this ruling is a huge victory for freedom of speech and for the thousands of people across Europe (and beyond) who have dedicated themselves to protecting bees. Advocates hope this win will be a stepping stone towards action from the European Commission. Thiacloprid is not currently subject to the EU suspension on three neonicotinoid products, but Friends of the Earth and other groups are increasing pressure on the the European Commission to take a precautionary approach and suspend the use of thiacloprid products while reviewing its safety.

This ruling also stands out as one of the few cases where corporate bullying has failed to prevail. Unbeknownst to most, the corporate, agricultural and chemical giants exist in a world where pressure can be applied in order to get a preferred outcome, not only on environmental groups but also on scientists who study these topics and even organizations that work to protect honeybees. Some real world examples of this involve scientists such as Arpad Pusztai,PhD, previously the principal scientific officer of the Rowett Institute in Scotland, whose home was burglarized and his research stolen after he reported his findings on immunological damage found in rats that were fed genetically modified potatoes. Another scientist, Ignacio Chapela, PhD, was denied tenure at UC Berkeley and was the subject of a vicious PR attack mounted by Monsanto after he suggested that pollen from genetically modified corn may have drifted into the last reserves of biodiverse maize in the world, which could potentially eliminate maize biodiversity permanently.

One of the most exhaustive attacks in recent memory was led by Syngenta, a manufacturer of atrazine, a triazine class herbicide that is banned in the EU based on groundwater contamination. Syngenta has worked aggressively to scuttle research that links the chemical to adverse health outcomes. This article reviews an investigative report that unearthed that Syngenta routinely paid off third parties to speak in favor of atrazine. When one of their own scientists, Tyrone Hayes, PhD, discovered that atrazine was harming amphibians and decided to speak out, they launched a massive campaign to discredit him. Beyond Pesticides stands behind Dr. Hayes through The Fund for Independent Science, launched to help ensure the continuation of his critical research. He has been a speaker for past National Pesticide Forums,where he discussed the disappearance of frogs and human health effects linked to pesticide use. On April 17-18, Dr. Hayes will again be a speaker at the 33^rd National Pesticide Forum, which focuses on protecting health, biodiversity and ecosystems.

The tactics that these companies use to get their way are far reaching and can be seemingly innocuous at times. For example, Bayer recently donated $100,000 to Project Apis m., a non-profit organization that dedicates itself to enhancing the health of honey bees. Although the donation is directed towards providing additional forage to bees, it is evident that this action is another way for the company to spin the bee crisis. As a Friends of the Earth U.S. report Follow the Honey explains, “leading pesticide corporations —Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto— are engaged in a massive public relations disinformation campaign to distract the public and policymakers from thinking that pesticides might have something to do with bee death and destruction.”

Take action.
Beyond Pesticides, along with many other environmental organizations, rallied in front of the White House to deliver more than 4 million petition signatures calling on the Obama administration to put forth stronger protections for honeybees and other pollinators. You too can make a difference! If you are interested in giving your support to saving the honey bees, go to save-bees.org and sign the petition. You also can work to get bee-toxic neonicotinoids like thiacloprid out of your community. It takes a lot of work and commitment, but it can be done with some perseverance. It’s important to find support —friends, neighbors, and other people who share your concerns about environmental health. It’s also essential to reach out to your local politicians and government .Beyond Pesticides has resources and fact sheets available to help you organize in your community. You can also call (202-543-5450) or email ([email protected]) for one-on-one consultation about the strategies you can take to have an impact.

Source: The Ecologist

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2015) Exposure to endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDC) results in approximately € 150 billion ($162 billion) in health care costs in the European Union each year, according to panels of scientists tasked by the EU Commission to study their impact. “The shocking thing is that the major component of that cost is related to the loss of brain function in the next generation,” Philippe Grandjean, M.D. of Harvard University, one of the report’s authors, told the Guardian.

EDCs, contained in common household products such as detergents, disinfectants, furniture, plastics, and pesticides, interfere with the body’s hormone system either by mimicking naturally produced hormones, blocking hormone receptors in cells, or effecting the transport, synthesis, metabolism or excretion of hormones. These impacts can result in devastating effects on one’s health, including behavioral and learning disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), birth defects, obesity, early puberty, infertility, cardiovascular disease, and childhood and adult cancers. Nearly 100 percent of people have detectable amounts of EDCs in their bodies, according to the introductory guide to EDCs published by the Endocrine Society and IPEN.

“Our brains need particular hormones to develop normally —the thyroid hormone and sex hormones like testosterone and oestrogen. They’re very important in pregnancy and a child can very well be mentally retarded because of a lack of iodine and the thyroid hormone caused by chemical exposure,” Dr. Grandjean explained to the Guardian.

Scientists analyzed the economic impact of a number of EDCs, including phthalates, bisphenol A  (BPA), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, perfluoroalkyl compounds, as well as DDE and organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides. The work, Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union, was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the analysis, the economic burden of EDCs was calculated based on a 1981 Institute of Medicine approach to assessing the contribution of environment factors in causing illness. Uncertainty in the analysis was addressed by using a weight-of-evidence characterization for probability of causation developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and an epidemiology model used by the World Health Organization.

In addressing whether complete certainty of causation is a necessary basis for analysis, the study makes note of a quote from Sir Austin Bradford Hill, a 20^th century epidemiologist renowned for his work demonstrating the connection between lung cancer and cigarette smoking as well as developing criteria for determining causal associations. The author’s write, “In his widely cited work about the criteria for causation, Sir Austin Bradford Hill acknowledged the reality that ”˜all scientific work is incomplete ””were it be observational or experimental,’ noting that uncertainty ”˜does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to post-pone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.’”

Results of the study are glaring, and present a grim portrait of the future. The expert panel of scientists agreed on findings of probable causation for EDCs and a number of human diseases, including IQ loss, autism, ADHD, childhood obesity, adult obesity, adult diabetes, cryptorchidism (undescended testes), male infertility, and mortality associated with reduced testosterone. In particular, the analysis found with 70-100% probability that each year in Europe 13 million IQ points are lost due to prenatal organophosphate exposure (pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and malathion), and 59,300 additional cases of intellectual disability are caused. Pesticides were found to be the most costly of the EDCs analyzed, accounting for € 120 billion ($130 billion) of the estimated € 157 billion ($162 billion) in healthcare expenditures each year. As the author’s indicate, this total is approximately 1.23% of the EU’s GDP.

Although such a comprehensive study has not been undertaken in the United States, with similar or higher amounts of pesticide use than the EU, the impact is likely just as great. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required by law to  evaluate chemicals for their endocrine disrupting potential, the agency is still in the process of finalizing a screening protocol (work the EU has already developed), nearly two decades after the agency was statutorily required  to do so. According to the agency, it will be another decade before its protocol is up and ready.

Leonardo Transande, M.D., professor at New York University School of Medicine and lead author of the study told  TIME  magazine,  “Except for the Food Quality Protection Act, the regulatory model in the United States assumes innocent until proven guilty, resulting in broad and widespread experimentation on humans with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.” Dr. Transande continued, “We’re just trying to put information into the hands of decision makers, so that we can consciously and openly decide whether it’s appropriate to allow for a 50% probability that the use of a chemical may contribute to a condition and lead to billions of dollars of costs.” As regulators drag their feet and Congress remains stymied, the risks these chemicals pose to human intelligence and well-being persist.

“I would recommend that pregnant women and children eat organic fruits and vegetables and avoid using plastic containers and canned food, especially in the microwave, because containers are usually treated on the inside with substances and compounds that can leak into the tomato soup and may act as endocrine disruptors,” Dr. Granjean said to the Guardian.

Beyond Pesticides supports strong protections from pesticides and endocrine disruptors by pushing for regulatory action and the support of alternative products and practices that do not require these chemicals. Through the Eating with a Conscience tool, those concerned about pesticides on their produce and can find out the chemicals that are allowed in their production. The ManageSafe database helps homeowners and renters control household pests without toxic pesticides. And Beyond Peticides’ Lawn and Landscapes webpage helps property owners manage lawns without the use of pesticides linked to endocrine disruption and other ill health effects. Ultimately by supporting organic agriculture, with disallows the use of harmful synthetic pesticides, the health burden EDCs and other pesticides put on our economy and individual health can be drastically reduced.

Source: Endocrine Society (link to full study here) , The Guardian, TIME,
Photo Source: Endocrine Society

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2015) Marijuana may be legal in your state for medicinal and recreational use, but are toxic pesticides used in its production? A study released today of the 23 states and the District of Columbia that have legalized marijuana finds a patchwork of state laws and evolving policy that define allowed pesticide use and management practices in cannabis production. This variety of state law is occurring in the absence of federal registration of pesticide use for cannabis production because of its classification as a narcotic under federal law. The investigation, Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options, evaluates the state laws governing pesticide use in cannabis production where it is legalized.

“The use of pesticides in the cultivation of cannabis has health implications for those growing the crop, and for users who are exposed to toxic residues through inhalation, ingestion, and absorption through the skin,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “The good news is that five states and DC have adopted rules that require marijuana to be grown with practices that prevent the use of pesticides. State officials have an opportunity to restrict all pesticide use at the front end of a growing market, require the adoption of an organic system plan, and set a course to protect health and the environment,” Mr. Feldman continued. The USDA certified organic seal will not be found on marijuana products because of their federal status.

Typically, when a pesticide is used in crop production, it is evaluated for the specific use site and assessed for its potential adverse impact on health and the environment. The federal government in the case of cannabis cannot conduct its normal registration review for this use, given the crop’s illegal federal status. Many have incorrectly assumed that, since there are no federal pesticide registrations for marijuana production, all pesticide use is illegal, except those materials that are exempt from federal registration. States are required under federal law to only permit pesticides registered or exempt by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The study raises safety concerns due to loopholes in federal law. For example, recently EPA told the states that while marijuana does not fit into any general group, such as an herb, spice, or vegetable, “[I]t may be legally used on marijuana under certain general types of crops/sites when there is an exemption from tolerance” (allowable pesticide residues in food set by EPA). The agency has said that broad spectrum herbicide and fumigant use outdoors is allowed under certain circumstances. This use pattern, according to the study, raises issues of pesticide uptake into crop and environmental impacts.

The report identifies six states that have legalized marijuana but are silent on pesticide use in its production and raises questions of compliance. It recommends in those states with legalization the adoption of laws governing cannabis production that prohibit federally registered pesticides and require the adoption of organic practices that only allow products exempt from registration based on the full range of possible exposure patterns.

The study contains a state-by-state analysis that evaluates pesticide restrictions, pesticide/contaminant testing, pesticide labeling, and organic production requirements.

The study can be found here.

See this chart for a comprehensive overview of state pesticide regulations to date.