(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2014) Earthworms that make their home in contaminated soil do so at a significant cost, according to French and Danish researchers. Results of the study, “Acclimation of earthworms to chemicals in anthropogenic landscapes, physiological mechanisms and soil ecological implications,” found that earthworms exposed to fungicides in conventionally farmed soil were at a stark disadvantage to worms in land managed organically. Earthworms exposed to the fungicide product Opus, containing active ingredient epoxiconazole, were able to detoxify the chemical, but gained half as much weight as worms from an organic farm, where their population was also 2 to 3 times higher.

The study observed the adaptation capability of earthworms by comparing the response from those in land managed conventionally for 20 years to those in land managed organically for the same amount of time. Researchers focused on the metabolic changes seen in each group of worms after exposure to epoxiconazole. According to the study’s authors, “The fungicide increased metabolism rate in the worms, both the adapted worms and the not adapted worms. In the not adapted worms we saw that their energy reserve of glycogen was used faster. Contrastingly, only in the adapted worms we saw that amino acids and protein contents increased, suggesting a detoxification mechanism. They also increased their feeding activity, possibly to compensate for the increase in energy demand.”

Expending all of this energy takes a heavy toll on the earthworm population as a whole. “We see that the worms have developed methods to detoxify themselves, so that they can live in soil sprayed with fungicide. They spend a lot of energy on detoxifying, and that comes with a cost: The worms do not reach the same size as other worms, and we see that there are fewer of them in sprayed soil. An explanation could be that they are less successful at reproducing, because they spend their energy on ridding themselves of the pesticide”, the researchers, PhD student Nicolas Givaudan and associate professor, Claudia Wiegand, PhD, say. Worms taken from organic soil weighed .6 grams on average while those living in conventional soil averaged only .3 grams.

Researchers note that previous studies have found that 70% of fungicides do not reach the target crop, eventually leading to residual compounds in the soil. The fact that this investigation focused on environmentally relevant sub-lethal concentrations of epoxiconazole provides further evidence of how the conventional approach to agriculture weakens the resiliency of natural systems, even when these chemicals are “used as directed.” Earthworms provide crucial ecosystem services, increasing soil porosity and aggregation, providing channels for root growth, and stimulating microbial activity as digested organic matter passes through their intestines, among numerous other benefits. Recent studies show that earthworms even play an important role in sequestering carbon dioxide in the soil.

The organic, “feed the soil” approach emphasizes the importance of maintaining and strengthening soil ecology. Under the U.S. Organic Foods Production Act, a farm’s crop production plain must “contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility.” By eschewing harsh chemical pesticides and fertilizers, organic agriculture creates a soil ecosystem that confers significant benefits to crops though increased pest and disease resilience. Studies show that, for example, organic methods of farming strawberries lead to healthier berries and soils, and result in improved pollination success. Farmers don’t need to apply soil-harming pesticides in order maintain crop yields. A 13 year Iowa State University study released in 2011 found organic production returned about $200 per acre more than conventional agriculture, and produced comparable yields and healthier soils.

But in order for organic to maintain strong protections for environmental and human health, it is critically important for consumers to become involved in the organic rulemaking process. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the rulemaking body that votes to allow or prohibit substances and practices in certified organic food and farming, will meet April 29- May 1, 2014 at the St. Anthony Hotel in San Antonio, Texas. Beyond Pesticides strongly encourages concerned consumers to visit the Keeping Organic Strong webpage, review the issues before the NOSB, and provide a unique public comment at regulations.gov. Also see Beyond Pesticides’ Save Our Organic Campaign, to help defend organic standards against changes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that will weaken public trust in the organic food label.

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

Source: Phys.org, Science Direct

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2014) On March 24 the Oregon Department of Justice (ODJ) ordered the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to turn over records that are part of an investigation of an aerial herbicide spraying over timberland in southwestern Oregon. This public disclosure of records may allow residents to have a better understanding of the chemicals associated with ongoing exposure incidents.  This recent spray event is just one in line of many that have led environmental groups and federal agencies to call into question the effectiveness of Oregon’s regulation of pesticide use on timberland.

ODA began its investigation in November of 2013 after complaints that herbicides sprayed from a helicopter on commercial timberlands near Gold Beach drifted on to residential areas. ODA is investigating five herbicide active ingredients: 2,4-D, triclopyr, glyphosate, imazapyr, and  metsulfuron methyl.  However, ODA has not released information about the specific products it believes were used or their potential toxicity. Fifteen residents filed complaints with the department after they experienced rashes, headaches, asthma, and stomach cramps directly after the application.

Recently, the Oregon Department of Justice ordered ODA to turn over records that are part of an investigation after the agency denied a request made in January by Beyond Toxics to make these records public.  ODA may be able to redact some personal and confidential information from its investigation records before making them public.   This disclosure is viewed as a victory by environmental groups who are concerned about the health effects of spray incidents.

Spray incidents such as these are not surprising as Oregon has more relaxed regulations on timber production than its  neighboring states. In Oregon, there are no required  buffer zones around residential land, similar to those along fish-bearing streams, and the state does not require notification of residents near timberland.  Timberland owners do have to notify the Oregon Department of Forestry, and people can pay a fee to receive those notifications, but they do not specifically disclose that chemicals that will be used, or the day and time of the spraying. Aerial herbicide application is also only used on private land as public forest land is managed without these practices.

These lax state regulations have also resulted in problems for the state of Oregon with  federal authorities.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  recently found that the Oregon’s program to reduce nonpoint coastal pollution is inadequate. Both federal agencies state that Oregon’s program does not adequately protect streams that are habitat for Coho Salmon, an endangered species, and drinking water from herbicides that are aerially sprayed by lumber companies. This proposed disapproval action is part of a  settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Northwest Environmental Advocates in 2009, which charged Oregon has failed to meet the conditions of the Oregon Nonpoint Program’s approval.

Triangle Lake, another Oregon Community, has experienced similar pesticide exposures from the aerial application of herbicides to timberland. In 2011,  atrazine  and  2,4-D  were found in the urine of residents around Triangle Lake. After these incidents, state and federal agencies launched the Highway 36 Corridor Public Health Exposure Investigation. The investigation resulted in the Oregon State Forester requiring pesticide applicators to turn over three years of forestry pesticide spray records from private and state timber operations. This incident was highlighted in a recent report by Beyond Toxics, “Oregon’s Industrial Forests and Herbicide Use: A Case Study of Risk to People, Drinking Water and Salmon.”

Join us at Beyond Pesticides’  32^nd  National Pesticide Forum,  “Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators, and Practices,”  in Portland, OR April 11-12.  The Forum will focus  on improving farmworker protections along with solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, strengthening organic agriculture, and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Space is limited so  register now.

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

Source: OPB

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2014) The European Commission released a new proposal this week to impose stricter regulations for organic food produced within the European Union (EU). The initiative would harmonize standards within the 29-member bloc, eliminate many exceptions currently allowed in organic agriculture while simultaneously improving consumer trust and addressing producer concerns. The move comes just as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is receiving comments on allowable organic materials.

The Commission’s proposal acknowledges the massive expansion of the organic market in the EU, which has quadrupled in size over the last ten years ””with similar patterns shown in U.S. organic market. “The future of the organic sector in the EU depends on the quality and integrity of the products sold under the European organic logo,” said Dacian CioloÅŸ, EU Commissioner for Agricultural and Rural Development. “The Commission is looking for more and better organic farming in the EU by consolidating consumer confidence in organic products and removing obstacles to the development of organic agriculture.”

The proposal will eliminate exceptions in organic farming through measures such as reducing the conventional feed and seed, and toughening limits for allowable pesticide and genetically engineered (GE) contaminants. The move is expected to improve consumer trust in the EU organic label.

Producer concerns on rising costs are also addressed as the proposal outlines methods to improve access to the global market through trade standards. In essence, the proposal will set out regulations for  non-EU counties that want the EU organic seal. “We need a better supervision when it comes to imports. We want to negotiate with partners outside the EU and guarantee consistent standards,” said Commissioner CioloÅŸ. The proposal would also help farmers to more easily switch to organic by introducing group certification systems which will improve transparency and reduce administrative costs.

The EU Commission simultaneously released its Action Plan, which provides organic farmer and producer tools to implement policy changes for organic production in the EU. Specifically, the Plan provides information to farmers on EU farm initiatives and rural development, improves investment in agricultural research and development, and improves recognition of the EU organic label to targets such as schools.

However, the proposal is only the first step toward strengthening the EU organic label, now it’s in the hands of the European Parliament and European Council for approval. Meanwhile, here in the United States the public has the opportunity to comment to start the same process towards strengthening the USDA organic label.

Take Action to Defend Organic here in the United States

We need your voice now more than ever. The NOSB will meet in San Antonio, Texas from April 29 to May 1, 2014 to decide on a range of issues regarding the future of organic food and farming in the U.S. The Board is now accepting public comments until April 8, 2014 for its upcoming spring meeting. Beyond Pesticides has compiled a list of the issues before the Board, which can be viewed on the Keeping Organic Strong website. We strongly encourage all those concerned about the future of organic food to review the issues and submit a public comment to the NOSB.

Protect public trust in the organic food label. In addition to your public comment, Beyond Pesticides is asking you to help defend organic standards against USDA changes that will weaken public trust in the organic food label by sending an email or letter to your U.S. Representative and Senators, President Obama, and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. For more information visit Save Our Organic.

It’s important to remember that while we raise our voice in defense of the integrity of the organic label, organic farming is still significantly better for human health and a cleaner environment than its conventional, chemical-intensive counterpart. Through public involvement, we must protect the integrity of the organic label and the process that supports it. Otherwise, the market will disappear and with it the opportunity to solve serious environmental and health problems associated with chemical-intensive practices. Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that focuses on feeding the soil and growing naturally healthy crops, whereas chemical-intensive agriculture depends on toxic chemicals and inputs which poison the soil, as well as air, water, farmworkers and consumers.

For more information on what you can do, see Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong website, which provides a number of resources for people to participate in the organic review process alongside the Board.

Sources: Deutsche Welle,  European Commission  Press ReleasePhoto Credit: Natalie Maynor

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2014) — A report released by Center for Food Safety (CFS) this week refutes claims that a dangerous class of insecticides, neonicotinoids, bring greater benefits than costs to farmers. In the report, Heavy Costs: Weighing the Value of Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Agriculture, researchers analyzed independent, peer-reviewed, scientific literature to answer the simple question: Are neonicotinoid insecticidal seed treatment products beneficial or not?

Neonicotinoids, the pesticides in question, are a class of systemic insecticides. Despite numerous studies linking these insecticides with bee kills, colony collapse, and weakened pollinator immune systems, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to operate under an alarmingly slow pesticide registration review process, one that extends to 2018 and will most likely fail to appropriately apply the appropriate standard of review for pesticide registration. Under that standard of review, EPA should not approve a pesticide that poses unreasonable risks to “man or the environment,”  taking into account economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits.   Unfortunately, economic costs and benefits usually become the sole factor.

Because of EPA’s failure to appropriately weigh these costs and benefits, honey bees and other pollinators have been bearing the brunt of the costs without recognition of the benefits they provide. For example, honey bees are responsible for producing one in every three bites of food eaten, but research increasingly shows they are being severely harmed by the indiscriminate use of neonicotinoids, both alone and in combination with other pesticides.

The CFS report authors set out to weigh these benefits and costs as they should be considered. The answer: No, neonicotinoids are not beneficial. And especially not when you consider the severe impact of these dangerous insecticides on pollinator populations necessary for the very crop production they allegedly are supposed to improve.

To get to this conclusion, CFS summarized 19 articles from scientific journals that studied the relationship between neonicotinoid treatments and actual yields of major U.S. crops: canola, corn, dry beans, soybeans, and wheat. Researchers at CFS also examined reports on crop yield impacts from other countries that had withdrawn approval of neonicotinoids because of the significant losses to pollinator populations.

The scientific literature examined in the report, while not as robust as researchers would have preferred, supported one or more categories of findings:

• Crops treated with neonicotinoids don’t provide yield benefits.
• Crops treated with neonicotinoids provide inconsistent yield benefits.
• Using neonicotinoids frequently does not provide an economic benefit to farmers compared to alternative control methods or application patterns.
• Neonicotinoids are unreliable and sporadic in their effectiveness.

Not stopping there, CFS then went on to examine reports produced from countries like France and Italy that have looked at crop yields from both a before and after perspective, because of bans on certain neonicotinoids established as far back as 1999. Based on data from longer term bans, authorities from these countries found no evidence of harms to productivity or economic harm. Similarly, scientific review of international crop yield impacts and treatment costs as compared to alternative control methods and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) treatment methods in Brazil, the United Kingdom, and North America found costs to be lower with IPM treatment methods and crop yields static or minimally improved.

Together these reviews and findings led to the conclusion that the benefits of prophylactic neonicotinoid use, as done with the majority of crops through indiscriminate and unrequested seed coatings, were nearly non-existent.

Concerning the costs, the report found that any minor benefits if they did exist disappeared because of the significant impacts to farmers, bee cultivators, and an extended range of pollinator populations. Specifically, the noted categories of losses identified in the report included, honey bee colony impacts, reduced crop pollination by honey bees, reduced production of honey and other bee products, loss of ecosystem services, and market damage from contamination events.   All of these losses carried both heavy economic losses and environmental losses.

In the end, the results of the report led the authors to a clear recommendation: EPA must take action to suspend all existing registrations of neonicotinoid seed treatment products whose costs and benefits have not been adequately weighed.

BEE Protective

Through its BEE Protective campaign, Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for EPA action to cancel pesticide registrations for neonicotinoids and conduct extensive health safety evaluations that take into account the real costs and benefits these insecticides bring with their use.

Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety launched the BEE Protective campaign, a national public education effort supporting local action aimed at protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides and contaminated landscapes. BEE Protective includes a variety of educational materials to help encourage municipalities, campuses, and individual homeowners to adopt policies and practices that protect bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticide applications and create pesticide-free refuges for these beneficial organisms. In addition to scientific and regulatory information, BEE Protective also includes a model community pollinator resolution and a pollinator protection pledge. Pollinators are a vital part of our environment and a barometer for healthy ecosystems. Let’s all do our part to BEE Protective of these critical species. Please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective webpage to learn more about our efforts to save pollinators and what you can do to help.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2014) Conservation and food-safety groups filed a formal notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday for failing to protect hundreds of endangered fish, butterflies and other species from a new, toxic pesticide, cyantraniliprole. The suit claims EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by approving the widespread agricultural and residential use of the new pesticide in January without input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, the two federal agencies in charge of protecting endangered species.

The Notice of Intent to Sue is being filed by the Center for Biological Diversity,  Center for Food Safety, and Defenders of Wildlife. Cyantraniliprole, a new, systemic insecticide, was formally registered by the EPA earlier this year. Despite evidence that cyantraniliprole is toxic to honey bees, EPA’s registration document for cyantraniliprole finds that, “There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide residue.” According  to EPA’s assessment the pesticide is also slightly to very highly toxic to aquatic organisms. Comments from beekeepers and concerned groups, including Beyond Pesticides, urged EPA not the grant registration, given the toxic nature of the pesticide and the many uncertainties in the ecological data, including outstanding data for long-term honey bee health.

According to the groups,   EPA failed to consider or mitigate impacts to endangered species despite concluding in its assessment that cyantraniliprole is “very highly toxic” to hundreds of endangered aquatic species, such as freshwater fish, mussels and clams, as well as endangered terrestrial invertebrate species, including 20 endangered butterflies. EPA’s failure occurred despite recent collaborative efforts on the part of the EPA and the two federal wildlife agencies  ””responding to a report from the National Academy of Sciences”” to improve its procedures for evaluating the impacts of pesticides on endangered species before approving those chemicals for general use. Right now hundreds of pesticides that adversely affect endangered species are in widespread use without ever having undergone an ESA review.

“Once again the EPA has approved a harmful pesticide without adequate conservation measures to protect endangered species,” said Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This reckless approval of cyantraniliprole really undermines recent efforts to reform the EPA’s dangerous policy of ignoring the disastrous effects pesticides are having on wildlife across the country.”

EPA has routinely disregarded the ESA’s requirement to consult with federal wildlife agencies on how to implement conservation measures to protect threatened and endangered species from pesticides. After years of gridlock, federal wildlife agencies, EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asked the National Academy of Sciences to study the issue and report on ways to better protect listed species from the effects of toxic pesticides. The National Academy report identified deficiencies for all the agencies involved in pesticide consultations, but singled out the EPA’s approach for its numerous analytical shortcomings.  In response to the Academy’s recommendations, the agency announced several reforms designed to better protect endangered species in the fall of 2013. Yet, EPA did not incorporate any of these reforms or the Academy’s recommendations in its process for approving cyantraniliprole.

“In unlawfully approving cyantraniliprole EPA blew a golden opportunity to fix its faulty pesticide procedures and protect the environment,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for Food Safety. “If you are in a hole, first stop digging. EPA must stop putting pesticides they know are harmful on the market, without addressing their potential harms to wildlife and agriculture.”

Previous lawsuits have been filed to force EPA to uphold its responsibilities under ESA. In 2001,   several stakeholder organizations, including the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), filed suit to force EPA to fulfill the distinct ESA requirements. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges EPA’s decision to register 54 pesticides without first consulting with federal fish biologists regarding the potential impact on protected salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest. In a  lawsuit initiated in 2002, the judge called EPA’s “wholesale non-compliance” with its ESA obligations “patently unlawful” and ordered the agency to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding adverse impacts on Northwest salmon. More recently, EPA’s failure to consult with FWS on the impacts of hundreds of pesticides known to be harmful to more than 200 listed species prompted a  2011 lawsuit.

Join us at Beyond Pesticides’  32^nd  National Pesticide Forum,  “Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators, and Practices,”  in Portland, OR April 11-12.  The Forum will focus  on improving farmworker protections along with solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, strengthening organic agriculture, and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Space is limited so  register now.

Source: Center for Biological Diversity Press Release  

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2014) Highly toxic rodenticides linked to the poisoning of pets, wildlife and young children will no longer be allowed on store shelves in California starting July 1 of this year. According to rules adopted last week by California’ Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), “second generation anticoagulant rodenticides,” including the chemicals brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone found in d-CON brand products, will be classified as California-restricted materials, and only allowed to be used by certified pesticide applicators. Attempts by the U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA) to remove these products from store shelves nationwide stalled last year after the manufacturer of d-CON rodenticides, Reckitt Benckiser, sued the agency to delay implementation of the cancellation process.

In July of 2011, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requested CDPR restrict the use of anticoagulant rodenticides due to numerous incidents involving direct and indirect poisoning of wildlife. Anticoagulants impair blood clotting and eventually cause internal bleeding in target animals. However, rodents can feed on poisoned bait multiple times before death (some are even resistant to the chemicals now), and as a result their carcasses may contain residues that are many times the lethal dose.

Poisoning can occur to nontarget species when predators or scavengers feed on these poisoned rodents. Reports show that federally listed threatened and endangered species, such as the San Joaquin kit fox and Northern spotted owl, have been adversely affected by these chemicals.

Illegal marijuana grow operations have been a troubling source of wildlife deaths as growers often use “industrial-sized quantities of poison in forests to fend off rodents,” according to Humboldt County District Supervisor Rex Bohn. One study found that 72% of endangered Pacific fishers surrounding an illegal marijuana grow operation had been exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides. Predators that aren’t killed by these chemicals become more susceptible to disease and can suffer lethargy, making it more difficult, for example, to dodge oncoming traffic if crossing a road.

Although California’s rulemaking specifically addresses the impact of these chemicals on wildlife, the removal of d-CON rodenticides from store shelves will also have the added effect of protecting young children. Between 1993 and 2008, the American Association of Poison Control Centers logged somewhere in the range of 12,000 to 15,000 reports of rat and mouse poison exposures each year for children under the age of 6. Children can be incidentally exposed to rodent poisons when they are placed in unsecured “loose bait” stations, and research shows that low-income and minority children are disproportionately impacted by these products.  One study in New York found that 57 percent of children hospitalized for eating rat poison from 1990 to 1997 were African-American and 26 percent were Latino.

EPA’s cancellation order addresses this issue, requiring manufacturers to pull “loose bait” anticoagulant rodenticides from the consumer market. All manufacturers except Reckitt Benckiser, maker of d-CON brand products, complied with EPA’s order. Reckitt Benckiser’s decision to sue EPA allows stores such as Walmart and Home Depot to continue selling these dangerous products to consumers (except in California beginning July 1).

Beyond Pesticides responded to the irresponsible actions of Reckitt Benckiser by launching the Care About Kids campaign to urge major retailers to stop selling dangerous d-CON rodenticides.  In lieu of federal action, Beyond Pesticides argues that retailers have an obligation to stop selling products that EPA has determined are too dangerous to children, pets, and wildlife.

For more information about Beyond Pesticides “Care About Kids” campaign, see our Rodenticides program page, where you can learn more about the harmful effects of these chemicals and find effective alternatives to their use.

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

Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Ft. Bragg Advocate-News
Image Source: Ft. Bragg Advocate-News

(March 24, 2013 Beyond Pesticides) A study by an entomologist at Iowa State University in Ames Iowa found that western corn rootworm is now resistant to two varieties of Bt-incorporated genetically engineered (GE) maize and that resistant insects are likely to be cross-resistant. This study adds to the growing scientific literature that shows insect resistance to Bt crops is making certain GE technologies obsolete, which could lead to an increase in insecticide use.

The study, Field-evolved resistance by western corn rootworm to multiple Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in transgenic maize, conducted by a team led by Aaron Gassmann, PhD, adds to the growing scientific literature that that finds western corn rootworm  is resistant to varieties of Bt-incorporated GE maize. In 2009, farmers in Iowa observed severe injury to Cry3Bb1 maize —one of the three varieties of Bt-incorporated GE maize- from larval western corn rootworm in the field. Subsequent laboratory assays reveal that this injury is associated with rootworm resistance to  Cry3Bb1. This study finds that injury to Cry3Bb1 maize because of rootworm resistance persisted beyond 2011 and expanded to include mCry3A maize, a second variety of Bt-incorporated GE maize.

Laboratory analysis of western corn rootworm from these fields finds resistance to Cry3Bb1 and mCry3A and cross-resistance between these toxins. Cross-resistance is important because it means that when generations of corn rootworms are resistant to one of these varieties they are also often resistant to a second form. To slow injury to crops from resistance, biotech companies are pyramiding, or stacking, Cry3Bb1 and mCry3A varieties with Cry34/35Ab1, the third form of Bt maize and has as yet exhibited  resistance.

However, according to the study, the presence of resistance to one toxin in a pyramid diminishes the effectiveness of a pyramid to delay resistance, and may hasten the evolution of new resistance. These results demonstrate that insects can evolve resistance rapidly to Bt crops -resistance shows up in Iowa fields an verage of 3.6 years after Cry3Bb1 is introduced -and raise concerns about the adequacy of current resistance management strategies and the ongoing effectiveness of non-GE Bt strains used widely in organic agriculture.

Several previous studies have also documented growing corn rootworm resistance to Bt maize. In 2011, Dr. Gassmann published “Field-Evolved Resistance to Bt Maize by Western Corn Rootworm,”  a study verifying the first field-evolved resistance of corn rootworm to a  Bt toxin. The researchers documented resistance to the  Bt  toxin Cry3Bb1. The study found the western rootworm’s ability to adapt is strongest in fields where Bt  corn is planted for three consecutive years and suggests that insufficient planting of refuges contributes to the problem.

This study was cited by a group of  22 prominent entomologists  who submitted  formal comments to EPA on their concerns about the viability of Cry3Bb1 corn. Recently,  even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that, “Corn rootworm may not be completely controlled by Cry3Bb1 in certain parts of the corn belt.” However, after this release, EPA did little to mitigate resistance beyond announcing that Monsanto had committed to conduct grower education programs demonstrating the value of crop rotation.

This publication also adds to the growing literature of cross-resistance. A 2013 study,    “Potential shortfall of pyramided transgenic cotton for insect resistance management,” by Thierry Brévaul, PhD and colleagues, found that stacking several  Bt-incorporated traits does not stop resistance. Researchers assumed that caterpillars resistant to the first  Bt  toxin would survive on the on-toxin plants, but die when consuming two-toxin plants because they had not yet developed resistance to the new formulation. However, caterpillars selected for resistance to one toxin survived significantly better than caterpillars from a susceptible strain.

Growing insect resistance to GE technology may lead to an increase in insecticide use. According to a report by the  Wall Street Journal  in 2013, insecticide sales soared  in 2013 as target insects have developed resistance to genetically engineered insecticide-incorporated crops. Pesticide manufacturers American Vanguard, FMC Corp, and Syngenta have all reported higher sales in 2012 and 2013 than in previous years. Syngenta alone reported doubling sales in 2012. Similarly, American Vanguard reported soil insecticide revenues rose by 50% in 2012.

For more information on the hazards associated with GE technology, visit Beyond Pesticides’  Genetic Engineering webpage.

Continue the conversation at Beyond Pesticides’  32^nd  National Pesticide Forum,  “Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators, and Practices,”  in Portland, OR April 11-12. Among the featured speakers,  George Kimbrell, senior attorney at Center for Food Safety, will  speak on his spearheading  litigation on  USDA’s deregulation of genetically engineered crops and the campaign to label food with GE ingredients.  The Forum will focus  on improving farmworker protections along with solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, strengthening organic agriculture, and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Space is limited so  register now.

Source: Nature

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2014) Banned pesticides and flame retardants may be the cause of higher autistic behaviors for children who were exposed in utero, according to new research published last week in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Previous research has demonstrated that organochlorine chemicals are linked to learning problems, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), especially in boys. This research is one of the first studies to evaluate their contribution to autistic behaviors.

According to the study, Gestational Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Reciprocal Social, Repetitive, and Stereotypic Behaviors in 4- and 5-Year Old Children, children who were exposed to higher levels of brominated flame retardant PBDE-28 and trans-nonachlor, a component of the banned pesticide chlordane, scored higher in terms of autistic behavioral patterns as ranked by their mothers.

In the study, researchers conducted a case-cohort study recruiting 175 pregnant women from seven prenatal clinics within the greater Cincinnati, Ohio region who provided urine and blood samples during pregnancy to measure the concentration of endocrine disrupting chemicals. On average, pregnant women had 44 suspected hormone disrupting chemicals.

Five years later, when children had turned four or five, mothers were asked to rank their children’s behavior based on a series of factors including how well they played with other children or how frequently they made eye contact when spoken to. Those with higher scores had more autistic behaviors. Although a high score does not necessarily mean the child is autistic, the Social Responsiveness Scale, as it’s called, is often used by teachers and parents to determine the severity of behaviors.

Researchers found that children with the highest exposure to trans-nonachlor in utero scored an average of 4.1 points higher on the scale than those with less exposure, while those exposed to the brominated flame retardant PBDE-28 scored an average of 2.5 points higher. Although the increase in autism-like behaviors to the two chemicals were slight, it does demonstrate a pattern consistent with other behavioral disorders such as ADHD.

While most organochlorine pesticides are banned or restricted ””chlordane was banned in the 1980s”” their residues still continue to cause problems decades after their widespread use has ended. This study reinforces the need for a more precautionary approach to regulating pesticides and industrial chemicals. Once released into the environment, many chemicals can affect health for generations, either through persistence in the environment or long-term changes to the genetic code of humans and other animals.

Autism is a developmental disorder which has dramatically risen over the last decade: between 2002 and 2012 autism rates in the United State climbed to 78 percent.  It affects the brain’s normal development impairing social interaction and communication skills. With boys four times more likely to develop autism than girls, it’s clear that hormones are directly linked to its development, and conversely that hormone disrupting chemicals like chlordane would disrupt that development.

Organochlorine pesticides have previously been linked to a number of other adverse effects to human health, including birth defects and diabetes. This study illustrates how the health impacts of pesticides can be often delayed, and pesticides once considered to pose “acceptable” risks are continuing to affect public health. In response to the growing evidence linking pesticide exposures to numerous human health effects, Beyond Pesticides launched the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database to capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies. The database, which currently contains hundreds of entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, is continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends.

Join us and continue the conversation with  James Roberts, MD at Beyond Pesticides’ 32nd National Pesticide Forum, Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators and Practices, April 11-12, 2013, Portland State University, Portland, OR to discussthe impact of pesticide exposure on children and organic solutions for the future. This years’ forum will focus on solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficials; strengthening the organic food production system; regulating and right-to-know genetically engineered food; improving farmworker protection and agricultural justice; and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes.

Sources: Environmental Health News, Environmental Health Perspectives

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2014)””Today, more than 500,000 signatures were delivered to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy, urging the nation’s top-ranking environmental leader to protect bees and other pollinators. The date marks the one-year anniversary of the lawsuit filed against EPA by beekeepers, food, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, over the continued allowance of two bee-toxic pesticides: clothianidin and thiamethoxam. It also marks the two-year anniversary of the emergency legal petition filed against the agency on this same issue. EPA has yet to take serious action to address dramatic bee declines.

The pesticides in question are a class of systemic insecticides known as neonicotinoids. Despite numerous studies linking neonicotinoids with bee kills, colony collapse, and weakened immune systems, EPA continues to operate under an alarmingly slow registration review process for these insecticides, one that extends to 2018. Honey bees are responsible for producing one in every three bites of food we eat, but research increasingly shows they are being harmed by the indiscriminate use of neonicotinoids, both alone and in combination with other pesticides. It is the job of the EPA to review such pesticides for safety and to take action if they are found to be harmful.

“We call on EPA Administrator McCarthy to lead the agency in a new direction by immediately suspending all outdoor uses of neonicotinoid pesticides. Bees can’t wait four more years for EPA to make a decision. If the agency acts now, we can save these vital pollinators before it’s too late,” said the groups in a joint statement.

“Beekeepers are losing colonies at an unprecedented rate — the losses are too extreme to keep up with, and our entire industry is at risk of collapse unless federal action is taken. Convening conferences and changing pesticide labels is lip service and window dressing to the issue, but has no substance,” said New York beekeeper Jim Doan, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who will be discussing bee declines on Capitol Hill next week.

In the absence of federal action, several states have taken action independently to introduce legislation that would suspend uses of neonicotinoids. California, Minnesota and New York are among the states considering action in their state legislatures. And this month, Eugene, Oregon became the first city in the country to ban the use of neonicotinoids on city property. Congress is also pushing to curb the use of neonicotinoids through the Saving America’s Pollinators Act, introduced by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).

In December 2013, Europe implemented a two-year moratorium on the most problematic neonicotinoids in order to protect bee health. This move came after several European countries had already implemented bans, with no economic costs to farmers or consumers.

“We are asking EPA to follow the EU’s lead and recognize that the risks are unacceptably high. Pollination services provided by honey bees and other, even less studied, wild bees are far too important for agriculture and ecosystems to treat them in a non-precautionary manner. Many thousands of beekeeper livelihoods, the future viability of commercial beekeeping and the crops relying on these pollination services, estimated at $20-30 billion annually, are potentially in jeopardy,” said the groups.

Beyond Pesticides along with other groups will continue to push for pollinator protections. Please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective website to learn more about our efforts to save pollinators and what you can do too.   Beyond Pesticides launched the BEE Protective campaign, a national public education effort supporting local action aimed at protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides and contaminated landscapes. BEE Protective includes a variety of educational materials to help encourage municipalities, campuses, and individual homeowners to adopt policies and practices that protect bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticide applications and create pesticide-free refuges for these beneficial organisms. In addition to scientific and regulatory information, BEE Protective also includes a model community pollinator resolution and a pollinator protection pledge. Pollinators are a vital part of our environment and a barometer for healthy ecosystems. Let’s all do our part to BEE Protective of these critical species.

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

Sources: Press Release, Letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2014) Ruling on a  challenge by biotech industry interests, the Colorado Supreme Court on March 13 authorized the Right to Know Colorado ballot initiative to label GMO foods, clearing the way to begin collecting over 86,000 signatures needed for a 2014 statewide ballot measure. In overturning a major challenge by the biotech industry, pesticide, and grocery interests to a statewide GMO labeling ballot initiative, the Colorado State Supreme Court affirmed Colorado consumer’s right to determine whether the presence of genetically engineered foods should be labeled on food packaging.

The State Supreme Court ruling allows the Right to Know Colorado campaign, a grassroots effort established by local residents to achieve mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients ( commonly known as GMOs) in foods, to begin circulating petitions for signatures to place the initiative on the November 2014 ballot. Colorado requires 86,105 valid signatures to be submitted by early August to place an initiative on the ballot. Once on the ballot, Colorado will vote on whether labeling should be required for GE foods. The campaign plans to partner with local farmers, farmers markets, moms, faith-based organizations, natural, organic and non-GE food retailers, and other health, sustainability and consumer advocacy organizations to gather the signatures needed.

“We are pleased that the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the GMO labeling ballot title, and we look forward to bringing a GMO labeling initiative before the voters of Colorado this fall. Coloradans have the right to know what is in their food, and to make purchasing decisions for their families based on knowing whether their foods are genetically engineered, and we believe they will have that opportunity after November,” said Larry Cooper, one of the proponents of the Right to Know Colorado initiative.

To view the ballot title as approved by the Colorado Supreme Court, visit: https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2013-2014/48Results.html.

With no federal GE labeling requirements in place in the U.S., it is estimated that more than 80% of conventional processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients from GE corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beets and other GE crops. However, according to national GMO labeling advocacy organization Just Label It, more than 90% of U.S. consumers surveyed want mandatory labeling of GE foods. While biotech interests claim that GE foods are safe, a growing body of scientific research suggests there may be enough risks to justify the need for consumer transparency. The European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and China, already require labeling for GE foods. Colorado joins several states, including Oregon, Maryland, Arizona, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, in considering measures for GMO labeling legislation so that consumers can make informed decisions about the food they eat. Connecticut and Maine have passed labeling laws with a  trigger clause that puts the laws into effect when five surrounding states, including a contiguous state, adopts a similar measure.

Other GMO labeling Initiatives
Last week, Beyond Pesticides testified before the Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee in the Maryland Senate in support of SB778, which requires that certain foods be labeled if more than 0.9% by weight of the food contains GE ingredients. In our testimony, Beyond Pesticides asserts that consumers want GE ingredients labeled because they understand GE crops are fundamentally different than their traditionally bred counterparts. In spite of this, consumers do not have access to the necessary information to know if their food contains GE ingredients. Unfortunately, this Maryland bill does not have broad legislator or state agency support, but is expected to initiate awareness and broad consumer support in the state.

Other efforts across the country to label GE food include a bill in Maine, “An act to protect Maine food consumers’ right to know about genetically engineered food and seed stock,” which was passed by the state legislature last summer and signed into law earlier this year. Before that, Connecticut passed a bill that requires food manufacturers to label products that contain GE ingredients, with a trigger clause  that stipulates the law will only go into effect if  five  contiguous states approve a  similar measure. This means people in Connecticut and other parts of the country will still have to wait to see GE labeling of their food. The New Hampshire legislature, on a second attempt,  decided to study the issue and act again in 2015,  after industry rallied against  a labeling bill, SB 411. Oregon has also been actively tackling labeling efforts, and has so far introduced five bills on the issue. Most recently, bill HB 4011 was introduced in February 2014 and a ballot initiative will   be on the November ballot.

In Washington, attempts to pass   ballot measure I-522 was defeated by a GE-industry spending spree””opponents of the measure outspent supporters 3 to 1. Similar to California’s Proposition 37, voters narrowly rejected this ballot initiative by 2 percent. California’s Prop 37 would have required GE foods and processed food that contain GE ingredients to be labeled. However, efforts in California are not letting up. Last week, state representative Noreen Evans of Santa Rosa introduced California Senate Bill 1381, known as the “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” to her fellow congressional members in Sacramento. This bill is being touted as a “cleaner, simpler” version of Prop 37, which may help it gain wider support and advance it through the state legislature.

A national GE labeling bill also remains in both Houses of Congress, but has yet to be voted on in committee in either the Senate or the House. National GE labeling efforts are being spearheaded by the  Just Label It!  Campaign and has garnered thousands of supporters across the country. In the meantime, the best way to avoid food with GE ingredients is to buy organic. Under organic certification standards, GE organisms are prohibited.  For this and many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers. For more information on GE foods and labeling issues, see Beyond Pesticides’  Genetic Engineering website.

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

Source: Press Release, Right to Know Colorado

(Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2014) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Friday that it has reached agreement with two major pet product companies to cancel flea and tick pet collars containing the insecticide  propoxur. The agreement, with a long phase-out period,  was reached between the agency and the two companies as a result of EPA’s risk assessment in fall 2013, which found unacceptable risks to children from exposure to pet collars containing propoxur.

The agency found that children were exposed to propoxur pet collars on the first day following application. Flea and tick collars work by leaving a pesticide residue on dogs’ and cats’ fur, which can be transferred to people by hugging, petting, or coming into contact with the pets. The major source of exposure to these chemicals is from absorption through the skin after directly touching the treated pet. Small children may ingest pesticide residues when they touch a treated cat or dog and subsequently put their hands in their mouth.

Under the cancellation agreement, Sergeant’s Pet Care Products, Inc. and Wellmark International will have until April 1, 2015 to continue producing the pet products containing propoxur under the trade names Bansect, Sentry, Zodiac and Biospot, and can continue to distribute them until April 1, 2016. EPA states that it will continue to watch for incidents from the use of these collars and is prepared to take further action if necessary.

Though this is a remarkable step towards removing a harmful product from the market, the extended phase-out period continues to allow children to be exposed. In fact, EPA has an astounding history of negotiated multi-year phase-outs with industry. As seen in other EPA decisions, cancellation of a toxic pesticide does not mean that the chemical would be removed from the market, but it is allowed to linger on the market for years continuing to threaten human health and contaminate the environment.

Propoxur is a carbamate insecticide first registered in the U.S. in 1963 for the control of household pests. Despite the fact that it was banned in 2007 for indoor uses to which children would be exposed, it remained widely used in flea and tick collars. EPA completed the propoxur pet collar risk assessment in fall 2013 in response to a 2009 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petition to cancel the uses.

A 2011 study published in the journal NeuroToxicology found a positive link between exposure to the pesticide propoxur and poor motor development in infants. At the age of two, children exposed to propoxur in the womb experience poor development of motor skills, according to a test of mental development. Propoxur can be very dangerous to humans and the environment. Common symptoms of poisoning include malaise, muscle weakness, dizziness, and sweating. Headache, nausea, and diarrhea may also result. EPA considers propoxur a possible human carcinogen, while the state of California classifies it as a known human carcinogen. Propoxur is also highly toxic to beneficial insects such as honey bees as well as crustaceans, fish, and aquatic insects.

Source: EPA Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2014) Organic means healthier food production for you, the environment, and those who farm. So, ensuring that the public trusts the organic food label is critical to the growth of organic. Please join our Save Our Organic campaign to defend the organic food label from USDA changes. Unfortunately, the organic label will be undermined by changes that USDA announced on its website on March 6.

These changes:

• Reduce the rigor of the ongoing decision making process on allowed synthetic materials in organic production;
• Take away transparency in the decision making process;
• Limit public participation in policies and procedures governing organic practices and standards;
• Undermine the responsibility of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and organic community to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on organic issues;
• Change organic policy making from one driven by the public process to one controlled by USDA, which can choose to dismiss critical issues.

Trust in the organic label over the last 20 years has been built on principles of collaboration among the stakeholder groups (farmers, consumers, and producers) and USDA. Because of the democratic and open decision making process, public trust in the organic label has grown rapidly along with the tremendous growth of the organic market. We want this to continue!

Congress established the NOSB, bringing together the diverse interests in the organic community, to adopt recommendations on policy and what materials are allowed in organic production. Through this process, the interest groups represented on the NOSB must concur that the allowance of a synthetic material is based on the latest science and an evaluation of its need, given alternative practices and natural materials. The process is based on the understanding that without concurrence from key groups —from farmers and processors to consumers and environmentalists— the organic label may lose the public’s trust. However, this will all change under the USDA-announced changes.

Tell USDA to set a moratorium on the adoption of the new policies announced on its website on March 6 and in the September 16, 2013 Federal Register, and allow time for open public discussion and input. We suggest you ask your Congressional representatives,   and the organic companies whose products you buy, and the places where you shop to support you in asking for this moratorium.

You can send a message asking for a moratorium on USDA changes to your elected representatives, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack by clicking here.

And, you can copy a letter asking for support of the moratorium that you can send to producers of products you buy and the places where you shop by clicking here.

For more information, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/SaveOurOrganic and check out more background detail on these issues by reading The Age of Organics.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2014) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced this week  three grants to universities in Texas, Michigan, and Arizona to implement integrated pest management (IPM) practices, reigniting the debate on whether pesticide dependency in many, if not most, IPM systems is warranted given techniques that have eliminated  toxic pesticide use. Are these programs moving pest management in the right direction, as strong IPM measures offer the opportunity to eliminate the use of pesticides, or is the IPM systems unnecessarily using pesticides that can be replaced by  management practices that exclude pest entryways, adopt sanitation and cleaning practices to eliminate pest conducive conditions, and when necessary, as a last resort, use carefully defined least-toxic chemicals.

One of the grants, awarded to Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, will be utilized to develop a central, online source for materials  providing school districts with important information and tools to implement an IPM program. The project’s goal within the three year  grant  period  is to reach  one percent of schools  or 552,350 students of the estimated 49 million children attending U.S. public schools in 15,000 school districts.

Another grant was awarded to University of Arizona, with the goal of developing and implementing a pilot training and certification program for staff members, including custodians in charge of cleaning, kitchen staff in charge of clean up, and school administrators that are required for oversight of IPM measures. The program will go out to eight states and four native tribes as well as five other universities. University of Arizona is required to disseminate the final certification materials to school partners through-out the nation.

Finally, EPA awarded Michigan State University with a grant to provide hands-on education, and training to five percent of schools within Michigan and Indiana in efforts to implement IPM, influencing 135,000 children.

There is reason for concern that these IPM programs may not provide the safety actually required for schools to keep children safe from toxic chemicals. IPM can have different definitions and methods of implementation, meaning virtually anything the practitioner wants it to mean. Beware of chemical dependent programs masquerading as IPM. Those who argue that IPM requires the ability to spray pesticides immediately after identifying a pest problem are not describing IPM. Conventional pest control tends to ignore the causes of pest infestations and instead relies on routine, scheduled pesticide applications. Pesticides are often temporary fixes, ineffective over the long term.

There are alternatives to pesticides for managing insects, rodents and weeds effectively without exposing families and children  to harmful toxic chemicals, especially incorporating the principles of IPM.   Beyond Pesticides’ The Safer Choice brochure focuses on what you can do to manage your home, school and community without poisoning your children, families, pets, and the environment.

Beyond Pesticides is a strong advocate of defined structural IPM practices and is working to champion the use of these methods particularly in schools and hospitals, where vulnerable populations are at elevated risk from pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides’ Healthy Schools Project aims to eliminate the risks posed by pesticides through the adoption of IPM policies and programs at the local, state, and federal level, thereby fostering a healthier learning environment. Central to this effort are activities aimed at public education on pesticide hazards and the efficacy of alternatives, and the continued development of model communities that serve as examples.

For more information on structural IPM, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ “What is Integrated Pest Management (IPM)?” page. If you would like to know if there are Pest Management Service providers that use least-toxic practices, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Safety Source database.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2014) Part deux of a 2012 study finding that sperm counts in French men had decreased 30% over the past 16 years came to a second startling conclusion in a 2014 analysis: the cause for those dramatic decreases may be pesticides.

2012 Sperm-Count Study

Published in the scientific journal Human Reproduction, the landmark 2012 study showed an alarming 30 percent decrease in sperm counts across France between 1989 and 2005. Because the data for the 2012 study were drawn from Fivnat ””a French assisted reproduction technology database”” researches made sure to limit analysis to 26,600 sperm samples from otherwise virile 35-year-old men whose partners’ fallopian tubes were either blocked or missing. This control was added to ensure that the each couple’s infertility was due to these latter problems and not a problem with the man’s sperm. Broken down, the 2012 studies identified a 1.9 percent continued annual dip in sperm concentration and also found that there was a significant 33.4% decrease in the percentage of normally formed sperm over the entire 16-year period.

At the time of release, the 2012 study’s authors wrote: “To our knowledge, it is the first study concluding a severe and general decrease in sperm concentration and morphology at the scale of a whole country over a substantial period. This constitutes a serious public health warning. The link with the environment particularly needs to be determined.”

Missing from the 2012 study was the reason for the decline. While researchers made adjustments for variables that could affect the results, such as men’s age, the season, the location where sperm samples were collected, and differing in vitro techniques, 2012 study controls were unable to address socioeconomic factors, including smoking and weight.

Joëlle Le Moal, Ph.D., lead scientist for both studies, speculated in 2012 that environmental factors, such as exposure to endocrine-disruptors, could be the cause of the decline but had not analyzed data to confirm that suspicion.

2014 Sperm-Count Study

Now it looks like the suspicion was correct. Using the same 2012 data and again led by Dr. Joëlle Le Moal, researchers went one step further and looked at which geographic regions had the steepest decline in sperm count rates over the same 16-year period. In Semen quality trends in French regions are consistent with a global change in environmental exposure, researchers conclude that while most regions demonstrate the overall trend of decline in sperm counts and quality, the strongest decreases and lowest values are consistently observed in the regions of Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrénées, and Burgundy ””densely populated and highly agricultural regions.

This time, Dr. Moal and her team were able to discount alcohol and cigarettes as possible causes, because the most affected areas are not those where the consumption of tobacco and alcohol are highest, and said genetic factors could not explain the rapid rate of decline.

Instead, exposure to pesticides used throughout these regions where agriculture provides substantial portions of the local economy and are some of the largest agricultural regions for the entire country of France, are the likely culprit.

A Problem for All Men

We suggest U.S. men (and all nationalities) take heed as recent scientific literature reviews came to similar conclusions regardless of where a man calls home.

In a U.S. review, 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; and, while morphological changes were not strongly associated in studies””only two indicated any changes to sperm shape.

The French findings build on the now growing body of evidence that pesticide exposure at environmental or occupational levels diminishes sperm health. For many, the connection is an obvious one: endocrine disruption. Sperm production is regulated by the endocrine system, a highly sensitive form of hormone regulators. Pesticides in both high and low doses are potent endocrine-disruptors, meaning that they disturb the highly-sensitive endocrine system that regulates many other bodily systems.

While the endocrine-disrupting effects of many pesticides have been documented, U.S. regulators have been extremely slow to move forward with the statutorily-mandated review of pesticides for the previously unevaluated risk of potential endocrine disruption. Yet, findings like Dr. Moal’s studies and many others highlight the importance of generating strong pesticide regulations that take into consideration endocrine disrupting effects when evaluating safety standards for worker protection and human health impact.

Until better protections are in place, Beyond Pesticides recommends supporting organic agriculture as method of avoiding exposure to these dangerous pesticides.

Want to continue the conversation and learn more about what independent and, ground-breaking scientists are discovering about the dangers of pesticides and what we can all do to protect ourselves and the environment?   Join us at  Beyond Pesticides’ 32nd National Pesticide Forum, Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators and Practices, April 11-12, 2013, Portland State University, Portland, OR to discuss organic solutions for protecting our environment. This years’ forum will focus on solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficials; strengthening the organic food production system; regulating and right-to-know genetically engineered food; improving farmworker protection and agricultural justice; and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes.

Source: The Daily Beast, The Connexion, Le Monde

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2014) As many as 700 birds have been found dead in a wildlife reserve in New South Wales, Australia. Preliminary tests reveal that the pesticide, fenthion, was the cause of death for many little correlas, galahs and sulphur-crested cockatoos found over the past two weeks. Certain uses of fenthion for home gardens and a range of agricultural uses were scheduled for suspension by the Australian Government, but a few months ago fenthion use, long associated with bird kills, was extended for another year. For the past two weeks, dead birds have been found all along a mile of Troy Reserve on the Talbragar River, in New South Wales, Australia. Testing of samples from the dead birds indicated fenthion, an organophosphate insecticide highly toxic to birds, as the most likely cause of the deaths. Volunteers helped gather the carcasses to prevent raptors, such as whistling kites and tawny frogmouths, from feeding on the poisoned carrion. About 30 sick birds, including two kites, have been so far been rescued.

Locals found the first deaths on February 27 but were initially prevented from collecting the carcasses out of concern about possible bird flu. About 200 dead birds were found on the first day of cleanup alone. The predominantly affected species is the little corella and with the number of deaths so high, ecologists and environmentalists believe this will have an impact on the local population. “We’ve got fantastically beautiful bird populations out here,” said Ann Mara, chairwoman of the Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service (WIRES) wildlife rescue group. “This is a significant loss.” According to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), the agency which oversees pesticide registration in Australia, in September 2012 a proposal was announced to suspend the use of fenthion products in certain horticultural situations, as well as in the home garden, on the basis of concerns regarding residues in food crops. Information relating to residues on certain fruit was assessed and it was concluded that the potential dietary exposure resulting from the use of fenthion on peaches and apricots was unacceptable. APVMA issued new instructions for use prohibiting the continued use of fenthion on certain horticultural crops, and modifying or restricting the use of fenthion on other crops including fruit fly treatments of many fruits and vegetables. Use of fenthion on food producing plants in the home garden was prohibited. However, in October 2013 the APVMA delayed the suspension of these fenthion uses until 30 October 2014. Unfortunately, had fenthion been suspended as first initiated in 2012, there may have been a different outcome for these bird populations.

Fenthion is very highly toxic to birds and highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates and non-target organisms. In the U.S., fenthion was registered to control adult mosquitoes only. In 2002, American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Florida Wildlife Federation filed a law suit in Federal District Court against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop the continued use of fenthion in Florida. The suit  said  the registration of the pesticide, sold under the name Baytex   to kill mosquitoes in several counties in the state, violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In 2003, the registrant, Bayer, voluntarily canceled all its fenthion product registrations. Over the years the chemical was implicated in several bird kill incidents, including bird kills on Marco Island, Florida. According to the American Bird Conservancy, other incidents involving bird mortality from the use of fenthion for mosquito control have been reported. In California, American goldfinch, gulls, ducks, shorebirds, green-backed heron, egrets, and many other species of passerine birds have been found after fenthion sprays for mosquito and/or midge control. In 1970 in Louisiana, more than 1,000 birds were reported dead after a fenthion application. In Massachusetts and Idaho, robins, sparrows, catbirds, and sandpipers have also been killed. With the bird kill in Australia, there is concern about higher-order birds, such as eagles, that may prey on poisoned birds, as well as concerns about long-term effects on bird populations. It is still unknown how the birds came into contact with the pesticide and the local authorities are asking for public information on the possible misuse of pesticides in the region. Water samples from the nearby Macquarie River have also been tested and preliminary results indicate that no pesticides have been detected. Birds face challenges from the widespread use of pesticides.

A 2013 study led by a preeminent Canadian toxicologist, Pierre Mineau, Ph.D.,  identifies acutely toxic pesticides as the most likely leading cause of the widespread decline in grassland bird numbers in the U.S. The report finds that the best predictor of bird declines is the lethal risk from insecticide use modeled from pesticide impact studies. Organic solutions to pest control and land management are the best ways to protect of bird and non-target wildlife populations.

Join us and continue the conversation with Dr. Mineau at Beyond Pesticides’ 32nd National Pesticide Forum, Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators and Practices, April 11-12, 2013, Portland State University, Portland, OR to discuss organic solutions for protecting our environment. This years’ forum will focus on solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficials; strengthening the organic food production system; regulating and right-to-know genetically engineered food; improving farmworker protection and agricultural justice; and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Source and Photo: The Sydney Morning Herald All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2014)  Virtually all lice in the U.S. have developed resistance to over-the-counter and prescription shampoos containing the toxic chemical permethrin. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs  considers permethrin, part of the synthetic pyrethroid class of chemicals, “likely to be carcinogenic.” However, when used as a lice shampoo the chemical is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and allowed for use on infants over two months old. The latest study on lice resistance, published in the Journal of the Entomological Society of America, shows that harsh chemical treatments not only are not necessary given effective least-toxic alternatives, but also are not able to provide the lice control that manufacturers claim.

“In the UK and Europe, they don’t even use pyrethroids anymore. Virtually everyone but the United States and Canada has given up using these over-the-counter products,” said Dr. John Clark, PhD, a professor of environmental toxicology and chemistry at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and co-author of the new study.

In an interview with the Detroit Free Press,  Eric Ayers, MD of the Children’s Hospital of Michigan noted that lice that are not killed by the chemical treatment not only survive, but become stronger. “The more a product is used within a community, the more lice in that community become resistant,” said Shirley Gordon, PhD, director of the Head Lice Treatment and Prevention Project at Florida Atlantic University. “We don’t like to use the term super lice, because it’s sensational and frightening. It’s not a superbug, but a louse that has become resistant.” According to the latest study, 99.6% of lice tested between 2007-2009 would be considered “super.”

A greater concern than “super” lice resistant to these chemicals is the use of these harsh products in the first place, especially on infants and children. A 2009 study, Pesticide exposure resulting from treatment of lice infestations in school-aged children in Georgia, found that children treated with common chemical lice shampoos containing permethrin and the organophosphate lindane showed levels of the chemical’s metabolites up to seven days after the first treatment. This is especially concerning given that environmentally relevant levels of pyrethroids are also common in many homes, where they are used as a household insecticide. Young children who play on the floor can come into chronic contact with these chemicals through skin or hand to mouth activities. A 2013 study, Urinary metabolites of organophosphates and pyrethroid pesticides and behavioral problems in Canadian children, found that high levels of pyrethroid metabolites correlated with a two-fold increase in parent-reported behavioral problems, including inattention and hyperactivity. These chemicals can also damage children before they are born.   A 2013 study, In utero pesticide exposure and leukemia in Brazilian children less than 2 years of age,” found that a mother’s exposure to permethrin at any time raised the cancer risk for infants. A 2006 study, Household exposure to pesticides and risk of childhood acute leukaemia, also found an association between the use of lice shampoo and childhood leukemia. A 2012 study, Prenatal exposure to pesticide ingredient piperonyl butoxide and childhood cough in an urban cohort, indicated that exposure to synthetic pyrethroids like permethrin in combination with piperonyl butoxide, a chemical often added to pesticide formations and lice shampoos as a synergist to enhance the toxicity of active ingredients, “”¦may be a factor in a very common problem for children — cough,” according to co-author Rachael Miller, MD.

There are a number of alternative lice treatment methods that do not include the use of toxic chemicals. According to researchers on alternative lice treatments, one method for eliminating head lice that will not lead to resistant strains of lice is the use of hot air, which desiccates the insects and eggs, killing them. In fact, recent research shows that the extra chemicals in lice shampoo are completely unnecessary. Ordinary conditioners are just as effective at removing lice. “There were no significant differences in measured forces between the ordinary conditioner and the commercial nit removal product,” authors of a study published in the Journal of Medical Entomology write. “The commercial nit removal products tested in the current study do not seem to have an additional effect.”

For additional information on controlling head lice without toxic chemicals, see Beyond Pesticides’ Head Lice Factsheet or Getting Nit Picky About Head Lice.

Source: Detroit Free Press

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2014) New data finds that organic farmers are growing increasingly concerned with genetically engineered (GE) crops cross-pollinating and contaminating their fields. This contamination can lead to serious economic losses for organic farmers and has created tension between neighbors. The data comes at a critical time as USDA is advancing the notion that “coexistence” between GE and non-GE growers  presents no problems for the  organic market.  USDA has been widely criticized in organic circles because its decisions to deregulate numerous GE crops  place  the burden of reducing contamination on non-GE growers.

A survey,released by Food and Water Watch and Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing (OFARM), finds that a third of U.S. organic farmers have experienced GE contamination in their fields due to the nearby use of GE crops, while over half of these growers have had loads of grain rejected because of unwitting GE contamination. These rejections can lead to big income losses for farmers, with a  median cost of approximately $2,500 per year, according to the  survey. Additionally,  several farmers report annual losses of over $20,000 due to the need to establish buffer zones, while limit the threat of contamination from their neighbors by taking contiguous farmland out of production.

In the survey, organic farmers also express their frustration that efforts to reduce  contamination fall squarely on their shoulders. Nearly half (45 percent) of respondents say that they would not purchase crop insurance intended to cover costs associated with GE contamination. Of the 35 percent of respondents who answered that they would purchase insurance for GE contamination-related losses, more than three-quarters of them (78 percent) believe that the added premium for coverage should be paid by GE patent holders or GE patent holders and GE users.

One farmer responded to the survey, “If [GE] was not here this would not be going on. It’s their contamination that’s the problem but we have to guard against something we have no control over. How do you even get a patent on something you can’t control? The whole object is control and that is not our [organic farmers’] problem.”

Organic farmers are also concerned that GE contamination has led to strained relationships with neighbors and that they do not feel respected in the agricultural community. Several responses to the survey describe strains between GE and non-GE farmers. One farmer wrote that, “[E]very time I walk into the local co-op they grit their teeth.” Others wrote that “conventional farming neighbors do not respect us,” that non-organic “neighbors feel that our farm is a thorn in their sides or a nuisance,” and that they “are considered to be a problem to them because we are not GMO like the rest of them.”

This survey was conducted in response to the recent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) report on enhancing coexistence between GE and non-GE farmers.  The AC21  report was strongly condemned by the National Organic Coalition (NOC), of which Beyond Pesticides is a member, for recommending that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay for crop insurance or self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination.

Beyond Pesticides, submitted comments in August 2012  expressing concerns about the report’s definition of “coexistence.” Beyond Pesticides wrote that the definition in the draft report fell far short of any true understanding of what it is to coexist and lacked any assurance that the involved parties would receive the necessary protection required in order to effectively coexist. Specifically, it was suggested that USDA stipulate that all parties are entitled to assurances against trespass from genetic drift.

There have been several recent high profile contamination cases. In May of 2013, USDA announced that unapproved GE wheat was found growing in an Oregon wheat field. After this discovery Japan cancelled its order to buy U.S. western white wheat. Monsanto has not conducted field trials in Oregon since 2001 when it reportedly withdrew from the state. In September of 2013, USDA refused to take action or investigate after it was confirmed that GE alfalfa contaminated non-GE alfalfa in Washington State. USDA claimed the contamination is a “commercial issue” and should be addressed by the marketplace and not the government.

Organic farmers have continued to fight for their rights against GE contamination but it has been an uphill battle. A 2011 lawsuit, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al. v. Monsanto, sought to protect farmers from GE trespass. A District Court dismissal (2012), followed by a U.S. Court of Appeals decision (2013) upholding the lower court, entered under the rules of evidence an assurance from Monsanto that it would not sue farmers with “trace amounts” (less than 1%) of GE crop contamination for patent infringement. According to Reuters, between 1997 and 2010 the agrichemical giant filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers that it said made use of its seed without paying royalties.  The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

For more information on the environmental hazards associated with GE technology, visit Beyond Pesticides’  Genetic Engineering webpage. The best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)  Certified Organic Seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited.  For many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers.

Continue the conversation at Beyond Pesticides’  32^nd  National Pesticide Forum,  “Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators, and Practices,”  in Portland, OR April 11-12. Among the featured speakers, George Kimbrell, senior attorney at Center for Food Safety, will  speak on his spearheading  litigation on  USDA’s deregulation of genetically engineered crops and the campaign to label food with GE ingredients.  The Forum will focus  on improving farmworker protections along with solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, strengthening organic agriculture, and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Space is limited so  register now.

Source: Inter Press Service

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2014) Forty Minnesota beekeepers have called on the state’s Department of Agriculture to suspend the use of corn seeds treated with bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides, now one of the most ubiquitously used insecticides nationwide. Their move follows a commitment by two Minnesota state agencies to study the impact of neonicotinoid pesticides, which””given mounting research implicating neonicotinoids in bee declines””beekeepers claim do not go far enough.

Minnesota beekeeper Steve Ellis, owner of Old Mill Honey Co., expressed the petition’s rationale to MPRNews, “Beekeepers in Minnesota last year and in years previous have been reporting mortality events at corn seeding time,” said Mr. Ellis, who has about 2,500 hives in Barrett, Minn. “Apparently the dust is getting off of the corn seeding and going off site and causing poisoning of honey bees on flowers and around their hives.”

The petitioners represented more than 10 percent of managed honey bees in the state with a total of 40,000 hives. But many, like Mr. Ellis, are contracted to provide pollinator services to crops around the nation, not just in Minnesota. These crops include cherries, blueberries, pumpkins, apples, and almonds. In California, the $3-billion almond industry spends $239 million annually to rent more than 1 million honeybee colonies required for almond production. Honey bee health then not only impacts the livelihood of beekeepers in Minnesota, but the entire national food system.

Seeds treated with neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides that includes clothianidin and imidicloprid, pose a major risk to bees from  fugitive dust off of seed planters, which EPA has recognized as a causing bee kills nationwide. They are particularly dangerous because, in addition to being acutely toxic in high doses, their use also results in serious sublethal effects when insects are exposed to chronic low doses, as they are through pollen and water droplets laced with the chemical, in addition to  dust that is released into the air when coated seeds are planted with automated vacuum seed planters. These effects cause significant problems for the health of individual honey bees as well as the overall health of honey bee colonies. Effects include disruptions in bee mobility, navigation, feeding behavior, foraging activity, memory and learning, and overall hive activity.

The robust evidence of the wide ranging harm neonicotinoids cause to pollinators led the European Union to ban the use of these chemicals in agriculture for two years. Late last year, agrichemical giants Syngenta and Bayer announced that they would be suing the E.U. over its decision.

Here in the U.S., Representatives John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) introduced the Save American’s Pollinators Act in 2013, which will suspend the use of neonicotinoids on bee-attractive plants until EPA reviews all of the available data, including field studies. Please tell your member of Congress to support the Save American’s Pollinator Act.

Take Action: Join Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective campaign

• Use our model resolution to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health.
• Join us in asking Lowe’s and Home Depot and other leading garden centers to take action and stop the sale of neonicotinoids and plants treated with these chemicals.
• Tell your member of Congress to support the Save America’s Pollinators Act.  
• Sign the  Pesticide Free Zone Declaration and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly.
• Use our model resolution to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health.

Continue your commitment to helping pollinators by joining us April 11-12 for Beyond Pesticides’ 32^nd National Pesticide Forum, “Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, pollinators, and practices,”   in Portland, OR. The Forum will focus on solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, strengthening organic agriculture, improving farmworker protection and agricultural justice, and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Space is limited so register now.

Source: MPRNews
Photo Source: KPCC

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2014)  Yesterday, Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, and Physicians for  Social Responsibility, represented by Earthjustice, filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to complete rulemaking that would require pesticide manufacturers to disclose  the inert ingredients on  their pesticide product labels. An inert ingredient is any ingredient that is “not active,” or not targeted to killing a pest.

“Consumers and users of pesticide products have a right to know all the ingredients that are in products they purchase so that they can make more informed choices in the marketplace,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides. EPA’s 2010 proposal noted public disclosure “may lead to less exposure to”¦ hazardous inert ingredient[s] because consumers will likely choose products informed by the label.” In turn, “pesticide producers will likely respond by producing products with less hazardous inert ingredients.”

Billions of pounds of pesticides are dispersed throughout the U.S. and enter our food supply, homes, schools, public lands and waterways. The public knows very little about the chemicals contained in most of these pesticides because under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), pesticide manufacturers are only required to list “active” ingredients that target a pest and not “inert” ingredients, despite the fact that many inerts are hazardous or suspected toxic chemicals

In general, inert ingredients are minimally tested despite state, federal and international agencies’ knowledge that they may be hazardous to human health. For example, the U.S. government lists creosols as a “Hazardous Waste” under Superfund regulations, yet allows these chemicals to be listed as inert ingredients in pesticide products. Creosols are known to produce skin and eye irritations, burns, inflammation, blindness, pneumonia, pancreatitis, central nervous system depression and kidney failure. The pesticide naphthalene is an inert ingredient in some products and listed as an active ingredient in others

Pesticide labels only identify the weight percentage of inert ingredients, which often comprise 50 to 99 percent of a formulation, and mislead the public into thinking that these other “inert” ingredients are safe. In 1997, EPA’s own studies found that “many consumers have a misleading impression of the term ”˜inert ingredient’ believing it to indicate water or other harmless ingredients.”

“Pesticides are in the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. Pesticide companies should not be able to keep us in the dark about the identity and toxicity of these chemicals,” said Caroline Cox, Research Director of Center for Environmental Health.

Back in 2009, EPA  responded  to two petitions, one by  led by the Northwest Centers for Alternatives to Pesticides  (joined by Beyond Pesticides and 20 other organizations), and a second by 15  State Attorneys General, that identified over 350 inert pesticide ingredients as hazardous. The petitioners asked EPA to require these inert ingredients be identified on the labels of products that include them in their formulations. This action only happed after the Center filed a lawsuit in 2009 to compel EPA to begin the rulemaking process.

On December 23, 2009, EPA took another promising step forward with an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), anouncing its intention to seek public input on developing an inert ingredient disclosure rule. Putting forth two proposals, one would require listing of all ingredients already identified as hazardous and the other would require listing of all ingredients. The comment period for the proposals closed in April 2010, but EPA has taken no further action since then.

“EPA said that these inert ingredients should be labeled to protect consumers, but has done nothing to require such labeling. In the meantime, families and children exposed to these chemicals are suffering illnesses their doctors can’t adequately treat because they have no idea what chemicals they are dealing with,” said Wendy Park, attorney at Earthjustice. “The fact is that the EPA has identified hundreds of these ”˜inert’ chemicals as hazardous or potentially hazardous. We need a safeguard in place to protect communities.”

Public comments in favor of the rule included support from doctors. “When pesticide producers refuse to identify all the ingredients in pesticides, doctors are compromised in their ability to treat patients,” said Barbara Gottlieb, Director of Environment and Health at Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Immediate access to information on inert substances in pesticides can make a critical difference in patient outcome.

Together with its allies, Beyond Pesticides hopes to move EPA forward on this important issue and establish public access to important information about the chemicals used around them.

Source: Earthjustice

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2014) The City of Eugene, Oregon became the first community in the nation to specifically ban from city property the use of  neonicotinoid pesticides, which have scientifically linked to the decline of honey bee colonies.  The passage of the resolution came just one week after the Oregon state legislature passed a pollinator protection  bill that removed language requiring the restriction of neonicotinoid pesticides, and includes instead a weaker requirement to set up a task force that will examine the possibility of future restrictions. In addition to neonicotinoid restrictions, the City’s resolution also expands Eugene’s pesticide-free parks program and now requires all departments to adopt integrated pest management (IPM) standards.

The Eugene City Council action was taken unanimously on February 26 with the passage of  Council Resolution,   “Enhancing Current Integrated Pest Management in Parks,”  Resolution 5101. The resolution also includes clear goals on children’s health,  expands the current Parks and Open Space Division’s  Pesticide-Free Parks program from 10 to potentially 40 parks, and requires IPM on all city property.

The resolution notes that “children and infants may be especially sensitive to health risks posed by pesticides for several reasons: (a) their internal organs are still developing and maturing; (b) in relation to their body weight, infants and children eat and drink more than adults, possibly increasing their exposure to pesticides in food and water; and (c) certain behaviors, such as playing on floors or lawns or putting objects in their mouths, increase a child’s exposure to pesticides used in homes and yards.” On neonicotinoids, the resolution refers to recent research suggesting a possible link between pesticides that contain neonicotinoids and the die-off of plant pollinators, including honey bees, native bees, butterflies, moths, and other insects.

In 2003, the City of Eugene adopted and implemented an ”˜environmental policy’ cementing the City’s commitment to protecting, preserving, and restoring the natural environment. To that end, the City’s decision-making is to be guided by the goals of increasing environmental benefits and reducing or eliminating negative environmental impacts in all aspects of the City’s activities, while maintaining the City’s fiscal integrity and the community’s economic vitality.   Soon after in 2006, the City initiated a Pesticide-Free Parks Program to maintain City parks without the use of registered pesticides unless there is a threat to public health or safety. Currently, there are nine parks in the Pesticide-Free Parks Program, which include Awbrey Park, Berkeley Park, Brewer Park, Friendly Park, Gilbert Park, Rosetta Park, Scobert Gardens Park, Shadow Wood Park, and Washington Park.

One week before the new resolution was passed in Eugene, the Oregon Legislature passed a new law, HB 4139, requiring anyone applying for a pesticide license to take a course on pollinators and pesticides and pass the exam. HB 4139 also requires the Governor to establish a Task Force directed to continue the research on bee health and pesticides for legislative action in 2015. While the legislation fell short of the original bill that would have restricted the neonicotinoids; dinotefuran, imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, many advocates in Oregon see this as a step forward for bee protection considering the lack of action by the EPA and other states.

Several bee-kill incidents occurred in Oregon last summer, including one that killed more than 50,000 bumblebees after a licensed pesticide applicator sprayed blooming linden trees,  a violation of  the pesticide  label. After a preliminary investigation, the Oregon Department of Agriculture confirmed that the massive bee die-off was caused by the use of the neonicotinoid insecticide,  dinotefuran. But the incident only resulted in a small fine of under $3,000, just 6 cents per bee, infuriating beekeepers, environmentalists, and advocates, but spurring legislative action.

Like Eugene, there are other states and communities that have been trying to pass local policies relating specifically to neonicotinoids, bees and other pollinators. In California, beekeepers and local advocates are supporting a bill that would force the state of California to complete its evaluation of neonicotinoid pesticides, years ahead of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review which is not scheduled to be completed before 2018. In Maryland, a bill containing language to restrict neonicotinoid pesticides was unfortunately recently withdrawn, after an “unfavorable report” by the environmental committee. In New York and New Jersey language has been drafted in the state legislature to restrict neonicotinoids in various ways.

Meanwhile in Congress, The Saving America’s Pollinator Act, H.R 2692, introduced by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Earl Blumenauer (D- OR), is gaining bipartisan support in the House. The bill seeks to suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until a full review of scientific evidence and a field study demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators. The bill has been endorsed by several environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice and others.

Join us in Portland, Oregon to hear Rep. Jeff Reardon (D-Portland), who introduced HB 4139, the Save Oregon Pollinators Act, discuss the future of legislative efforts in the state surrounding pollinators, at Beyond Pesticides’ 32nd National Pesticide Forum, Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, pollinators and practices, April 11-12, 2013, Portland State University, Portland, OR. This years’ forum will focus on solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficials; strengthening the organic food production system; regulating and right-to-know genetically engineered food; improving farmworker protection and agricultural justice; and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes.

Source: Beyond Toxics

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2014) The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently committed to providing financial assistance to farmers and ranchers in five Midwestern states to improve and create bee-friendly habitat. This project comes as American beekeepers have continued to experience rapid colony declines with losses over the winter over 30 percent per year. The creation of pollinator-friendly habitat is an important step to slowing pollinator losses, however this project does not challenge the expansion of agriculture into current pollinator habitat, the use of systemic pesticides that are linked to pollinator decline, or the widespread adoption of genetically engineered crops with elevated use of herbicides that kill habitat.

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will provide $3 million in technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to create and improve bee friendly habitat in five Midwestern states. Ranchers can qualify for assistance to reseed pastures with alfalfa, clover and other plants that bees forage.  NRCS will also assist ranchers in building fences, installing water tanks and other changes to better move cattle between pastures so as not to wear down vegetation. Farmers can also qualify for funds to plant cover crops, and bee friendly forage in boarders and edges of fields. Beyond creating honeybee habitat, these programs could help improve soil health and create habitat for other pollinators.

The five Midwestern states —Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin— were chosen because 65 percent of commercially managed beekeepers use these states as resting grounds from June to September. According to the NRCS, with limited funds this project would allow for the greatest payoff for the investment.

NRCS hopes this program will create more bee-friendly habitat that will provide a more nutritious food source that in turn leads to healthier bees. There has been growing concern over current bee-feeding practice where keepers supplement bee diets with corn syrup over the winter. Some scientists argue that this nutrition deficit diet leads to honey bees being more susceptible to disease.  This program will allow bees to gather nectar and pollen over the summer before they are shipped around the country and used for their pollinating service which could lead to healthier bees going into the winter season.

Though this program will hopefully help create more bee-friendly habitat, the benefits of this project may be offset by growing levels of commodity crops in the Midwest. High corn prices, among other factors, have led to rapid expansion of farmland ””more than 25 million new acres in the U.S. since 2007”” and has eaten away grasslands and conservation reserves that supplied habitat for pollinators like the Monarch butterfly.

Tim Tucker, the president of the American Beekeeping Federation, was quoted in a New York Times article saying, “There used to be a lot of small farms in our area that had clover and a variety of crops, whereas in the last 20 years it’s really been corn, soybean and cotton and a little bit of canola, those crops don’t provide a lot of good nectar and pollen for bees.”

The Bigger Problem: Pesticides

This project also avoids taking on the largest factor affecting bee health, pesticides. A growing body of independent science links a class of pesticides called  neonicotinoids to bee declines, both alone and in combination with other factors like disease and malnutrition.  Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in disorientation, paralysis and death. Neonicotinods can also be persistent in the environment, and when used as seed treatments, translocate to residues in pollen and nectar of treated plants.

Recent studies have found that “near infinitesimal” exposures to neonicotinoids causes a reduction in the amount of pollen bumblebees are able to collect for their colony. Researchers found that the effects of neonicotinoid intoxication persist for a least a month after exposure, underscoring the long-term damage these chemicals can cause to bee colonies.

Neonicotinoids are also acutely toxic to pollinators. Oregon officials  determined that  the neonicotinoid dinotefuran  was the cause of  two massive bee kills  in the state last year. In a letter submitted last week, groups asked that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) not allow greater use of this pesticide.

Continue the conversation at Beyond Pesticides’  32^nd  National Pesticide Forum,  Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators, and Practices, in Portland, Oregon, April 11-12. The Forum will focus  on improving farmworker protections along with solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, strengthening organic agriculture, and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Space is limited so  register now.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2014) Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, pollinators and practices, the 32nd National Pesticide Forum, will be held April 11-12, 2014 at Portland State University, in Portland, OR. This years’ forum will focus on solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficials; strengthening the organic food production system; regulating and right-to-know genetically engineered food; improving farmworker protection and agricultural justice; and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Join top scientists, local and national activists and grassroots organizers to strategize on solutions that protect health and the environment. For more information and to register, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

In addition to the program, people,  science, sharing and strategizing, you won’t want to miss the  food! Organic food and beverages will be served for breakfast, lunch and dinner Saturday, and we will have organic hors d’oeuvres, beer and wine for receptions on Friday and Saturday night.

Speaker highlights include:

• Longtime leader in sustainable and organic agriculture, Fred Kirschenmann;
• “Maverick” Scientist Michael Skinner, Ph.D., author of the landmark study that links exposure to DDT with multi-generational effects, ultimately contributing to obesity three generations down the line;
• Goat herder Lani Malmberg, who uses her heard of over 2,000 goats to manage invasive plants and land organically;
• George Kimbrell, who is leading litigation on neonicotinoids and honey bees as well as the deregulation of genetically engineered food;
• Lead author of American Academy of Pediatrics’ landmark policy statement and report on the effects of pesticide exposure in children, James Roberts, MD, MDPH, FAAP;
• World renowned environmental toxicologist who has studied the impacts of pesticides on bees and birds, Pierre Mineau, Ph.D.;
• Rep. Jeff Reardon (D-Portland), who introduced HB 4139, the Save Oregon Pollinators Act.;
• Mace Vaughan, pollinator program director for The Xerces Society;
• Nelson Carassaquillo, national coordinator,  El Comité de Apoyo a losTrabajadores (CATA-The Farmworkers’ Support Committee), who is working on an agricultural justice food label;
• And so much more! Click here for the speaker lineup.

Registration Information

Registration fee includes access to all forum sessions, including workshops and tour (separate RSVP is required for tour, please email [email protected]). Register by March 15 to receive our early bird discount rate!

• General Admission/Non-Members: $75 (includes 1-year membership and 100% organic tote-bag);
• Members/Grassroots Activist Rate: $40 before March 15, $45 after March 15;
• Students (with current ID): $20 before March 15, $25 after March 15;
• Business Rate: $175 (includes 1-year subscription to Pesticides and You).

Register online today  or call 202-543-5450 to register by phone.

We encourage you to register in advance to ensure your space and food, but walk-ins are welcome as long as space is available.

The conference is convened by Beyond Pesticides, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), and Portland State University’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions. Local and regional co-sponsors include: Beyond Toxics, Center for Food Safety, Friends of Family Farmers, John A Green MD III The EverGreen Center, Healthy Bees-Healthy Gardens, Lewis and Clark Law School, Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oregon Tilth, Pesticide Action Network North America, PCUN (Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste), Portland Urban Beekeepers, University of Portland’s Environmental Studies Department, and The Xerces Society.

###

(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2014) A report released last week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) considers the trends of genetically engineered (GE) crops over the past 15 years, since they were first introduced. Responding to increasing GE use, USDA also points to major concerns such as increasing herbicide resistance and higher levels of herbicide use as major potential threats to human health and the environment.

The report comes as USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are poised to  approve  new forms of GE corn and soybeans designed to be resistant to 2,4-D products,  one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange and a known carcinogen. Released  by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) on February 20, the report not only details the trends in GE use but also the known and unknown threats that GE crops pose.

The number of GE varieties approved by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) grew exponentially between 1984 and 2002, the report said. Today the majority of GE crops, corn and soy, are grown on the nation’s largest farms. In 2013, more than 169 million acres of GE crops were planted in the U.S., comprising half of all cropland.  Approximately 93 percent of all soybean crops planted across the nation were GE crops designed to be herbicide tolerant (HT), while HT corn and cotton constituted 85 and 82 percent of acreage.

These crops are design specifically to be sprayed with herbicides. Glyphosate is one of the most popular weed killers in both the U.S. and the world and also the active ingredient in Roundup ””the leading glyphosate product developed by Monsanto. Known as “Roundup Ready,” GE soybeans, corn, cotton, and other crops have been genetically altered and patented by Monsanto to be glyphosate-tolerant. Although GE crops are claimed by manufacturers to reduce pesticide use overall, the report documents a progressive rise in herbicide use over the past fifteen years on GE crops. According to the report, in 2002 farmers sprayed on average 1.5 pounds per planted acre, by 2010 the average had risen to more than 2.0 pounds per planted acre. One reason for increases in herbicide use is the rise herbicide resistant weeds.

Glyphosate resistance among weed populations in recent years may have induced farmers to raise application rates. Thus weed resistance may be offsetting some of the economic and environmental advantages of HT crop adoption regarding herbicide use. Moreover, herbicide toxicity may soon be negatively affected (compared to glyphosate) by the introduction (estimated for 2014) of crops tolerant to herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D.

Additionally, USDA researchers did not find any definitive yield increases over the past 15 years of GE production: “In fact, the yields of herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the yields of conventional varieties.” The report details “no significant differences” between yield of conventional seeds and GE seeds.

Do We Need to Worry About Glyphosate?

If readers are wondering whether glyphosate is really a problem pesticide, then the answer is a short and simple, “Yes.” A dangerous pesticide, glyphosate has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risks, neurotoxicity, and  birth defects, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. Inert ingredients in Roundup pose significant risks as well, with studies linking polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) to the killing of human embryonic cells. In 2013, researchers   at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) also concluded after an extensive review of the large body of scientific literature on the toxics effects of glyphosate that the herbicide can enhance the negative effects of other environmental toxicants on the body and that this has been a critically overlooked component in research on glyphosates’ toxicity to mammals.

USDA’s report underlines the problems associated with GE crops and gives credence to the organic movement. Because certified organic products cannot use GE crops or most pesticides, it is important to Keep Organic Strong and buy organic to show consumer support for the standards and benefits organic practices maintain.

Sources: USDA ERS, Reuters

All unattributed comments and positions are those of Beyond Pesticides