(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2013) New research concludes that exposure to a combination of both arsenic and estrogen, at levels U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers ”safe” for humans, can cause cancer in prostate cells. Texas Tech University researchers revealed that humans exposed to a combination of both toxicants were almost twice as likely to develop cancerous cells in their prostate.   The study is published in the peer-reviewed journal The Prostate.

While it is established that both arsenic and estrogen can cause cancer, the research raises concerns about the dangers of chemicals in combination, and the efficacy of regulations that are established by testing one chemical at a time. Kamaleshwar Singh, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at The Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech. “The majority of cancers are caused by environmental influences,” Dr. Singh remarked to Texas Tech Today, “Only about 5 to 10 percent of cancers are due to genetic predisposition. Science has looked at these chemicals, such as arsenic, and tested them in a lab to find the amounts that may cause cancer. But that’s just a single chemical in a single test. In the real world, we are getting exposed to many chemicals at once.”

The study contributes to the growing body of research on the interactive effects of pesticides on human health and the environment.   For example, Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley, conducted research on the interactive effects of atrazine and other pesticides in a study on frogs. His study compared the impact of exposure to realistic combinations of small concentrations of corn pesticides on on frog metamorphosis, concluding that frog tadpoles exposed to mixtures of pesticides took longer to metamorphose to adults and were smaller at metamorphosis than those exposed to single pesticides, with consequences for frog survival. The study revealed that “estimating ecological risk and the impact of pesticides on amphibians using studies that examine only single pesticides at high concentrations may lead to gross underestimations of the role of pesticides in amphibian declines.”

Pesticide products available for sale are often chemical mixtures of active ingredients that create a cocktail of toxins, even though studies on pesticide combinations have demonstrated neurological, endocrine, and immune effects at low doses. For example, research conducted by Warren Porter, Ph.D., professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, examined the effect of fetal exposures to   a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop, and dicamba exposure””frequently used together in lawn products like Weed B Gone Max or and Trillion””on the mother’s ability to succesfully bring young to birth and weaning. Researchers began by testing pesticide concentrations diluted to levels that are considered “safe” by EPA. The results were striking: Dr. Porter found that “this common lawn pesticide mixture is capable of inducing abortions and resorptions of fetuses at very low parts per billion. The greatest effect was at the lowest dose.” For more information on Dr. Porter’s work, read “Facing Scientific Realities, Debunking the ”˜Dose Makes the Poison’ Myth,” published in Pesticides and You.

The new study by Texas Tech researchers on arsenic and estrogen confirms that co-exposures have a greater impact on human health, particularly for the development of prostate cancer. Researchers treated human prostate cells with arsenic, estrogen, and a combination of the two once a week for six months to determine changes in prostate cells. The results have major implications because estrogen mimics are ubiquitous, such as bisphenol A (BPA) used as a liner in food cans. Similarly, while most arsenate pesticides were banned for use in agriculture in the U.S. in the 1980s, monosodium methanearsonate (MSMA), may still be used legally on cotton crops. Copper sulfate fertilizers have been found to be contaminated with arsenic with implications for human health and the environment. Other sources of exposure to arsenic include rice, an arsenic accumulator, and non-organically produced chicken.

Residues of arsenic pesticides once used to fight cotton boll weevil are still found in soils and are present in foods like rice. Indeed, researchers at the Dartmouth College Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program have found that rice pulls arsenic from the soil in the same way it absorbs the chemically similar silicon, calling it a natural arsenic accumulator. While most of the accumulation is sourced from arsenic that naturally occurs in soil and water, and some from fertilizer (such as chicken manure), some is caused by residual contamination from arsenate pesticides used on cotton.

With exposure to both arsenic and estrogen together showing synergistic impacts on human health, the research also highlights the deficiencies of EPA’s risk assessment process, which fail to look at chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, as well as certain health endpoints such as endocrine disruption. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real world poisoning.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for an alternatives assessment approach which rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but are unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, where data shows clear links between pesticide use and cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment-based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical-intensive agriculture in drought years. Regulatory restrictions that account for synergies and that begin to moves chemicals off the market are necessary for the protection of human health and the environment.

For more information on pesticide synergy, see our article, “Synergy: The Big Unknowns of Pesticide Exposure,” published in Beyond Pesticides’ Winter 2004 issue of Pesticides and You. For information on individual pesticide health effects, see the Pesticide Gateway.

Sources: The Prostate , Texas Tech Today

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2013) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to raise the allowable limits of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in certain food commodities like carrots, sweet potato, and mustard seeds. Some of the allowable limits, or tolerances, will more than double! Increasing the levels of Roundup on food will pave the way for an overall increase in the use of this chemical in agriculture. The problem is Roundup is toxic to human and environmental health. In fact, a recent MIT study finds that glyphosate’s interference with important enzymes in the body can lead to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Drinking water contaminated with Roundup can lead to congestion of the lungs and increased breathing rate, as well as kidney damage and reproductive effects.

Given that alternative methods of growing food and managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures to Roundup.

Tell EPA No More Roundup In Our Diet by July 1st!

To have the most impact, EPA needs to hear directly from you with your comment in the docket! You may use the sample text below, however we recommend that you use your own words to have the most impact. Please note that only fields with an asterisk are required, and if you are not affiliated with an organization, you may put your own name in the Submitter’s Representative field. (If you are having problems accessing the docket, click here and we will enter it for you.)

****Sample Letter****

I am very concerned about the increase in the allowable levels of glyphosate in my diet. EPA should not be supporting an increase in human exposures to this herbicide, given the ecological and human health dangers that recent science has shown to be associated with glyphosate. Recent studies have linked glyphosate to endocrine disruption, increased risk of breast cancer, reproductive and liver damage. It also threatens amphibian and fish species, as well as contaminates waterways. Additionally, EPA’s review of the chemical is ongoing and must be completed before any adjustments to allowable food residues are made.

Given the available, sustainable alternatives to growing food in the U.S., including those of organic agriculture, it is unreasonable that EPA would increase human exposures to glyphosate. We urge the agency to reconsider and uphold its statutory authority to protect human and environmental health from glyphosate by not increasing the levels of this chemical in our diets.

Thank you for consideration of my comments.

Organic Solutions Pave a Way Forward

Sustainable, integrated farming solutions and systems must be instituted more broadly –where emphasis on feeding and maintaining healthy soils, cooperating with nature, and moving away from toxic chemical inputs are standard. The underlying standards of organic farming require that practices “maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances.” This is the only viable and sustainable path forward that can take us off the toxic treadmill. Supporting and buying organic produce is the only way to ensure you and your family are protected from the dangers of Roundup in your food.

For more information on this issue, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450. For the future of food, our health, and the environment, tell EPA to say “No” to more Roundup in our food.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2013) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft “State of the Science” report last week acknowledging that low dose responses “do occur in biological systems” while defending its current risk assessment procedures as adequate for evaluating low dose effects. This report comes after EPA’s long running failure to fully implement a 1996 Congressionally mandated program to evaluate endocrine disruptors, and heavy criticism last year from prominent scientists who said EPA’s testing procedures are outdated.

In 1999 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to meet a statutory deadline for implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) required under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, forcing the EPA to make a settlement agreement. As a result of  NRDC et al. v. EPA (No. C-99-03701 CAL) filed in the Northern District of California, EPA agreed to start requiring screening and testing of certain chemicals varying by date, using a tiered system.

EPA’s two-tiered screening and testing system, requires that EPA will identify which chemicals are able to interact with the endocrine system in Tier 1. Tier 2 screening process was designed to go one step further, requiring EPA to determine endocrine effects at various doses. EPA is currently developing Tier 2 tests as well as selecting chemicals for screening. Despite the statutory mandate to screen chemicals for potential endocrine disrupting effects, EPA has yet to regulate endocrine disruptors through a finalized Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) and testing procedures.

In its draft report, EPA acknowledges for the first time that low dose responses to hormone altering chemicals “do occur in biological system but are generally not common.” The report states that low dose responses observed in endocrine endpoints may be biologically relevant and should be evaluated in contest with the totality of the available scientific data, including epidemiologic and human studies. While this is a great step forward for advancing science at the agency, especially when it comes to evaluating endocrine disrupting effects, the agency defended its current risk assessment procedures saying: “There currently is no reproducible evidence [that low dose responses] are predictive of outcomes that may be seen in humans or wildlife populations for estrogen, androgen or thyroid endpoints.”

The report is written by EPA, with input from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as input from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the National Institute of Child Health and Development, both of which review the science on endocrine-disruptors. The report will also be peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences.

Last year, a team of 12 scientists who study hormone-altering chemicals, led by Laura Vandenberg, PhD,   Tufts University’s Levin Lab Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology, criticized EPA ”˜s outdated testing methodologies . The scientists focused on the importance of “non-monotonic dose response” which demonstrates that some chemicals can act irregularly with greater health impacts at low doses. Generally, EPA tests the impact of high doses on humans and the environment and then extrapolates the results for exposure at lower doses. Currently, EPA uses high dose testing to predict low dose safety despite the research that shows many hormone altering chemicals do not act according to normal dose curves.

EPA’s report was praised by the American Chemistry Council, an industry-led group representing 135 chemical companies that has periodically launched campaigns to delay the release of EPA’s chemical risk assessment.Meanwhile many scientists have given EPA faint praise and much criticism. Dr. Vandenberg acknowledged that EPA’s admission that non-monotonic responses exist was a step in the right direction. However, the conclusion that high dose responses can predict for safety standards at low doses, “flies in the face of our knowledge of how hormones work,” said Dr. Vandenberg to Environmental Health News. Endocrine disruptors “are overtly toxic but act like hormones with completely different actions at low doses.”

Dr. Vandenburg also criticized EPA for using outdated science on atrazine, rather than using the multitude of current and new publications that show the, “consistent, low-dose effects of this chemical on amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds and mammals.” Similarly, the reports’ discussion of low-dose effects of bisphenol A””a common additive to plastic containers, toys, and receipts””on prostate, “are also about a decade out of date, and give credence to industry funded studies that had flawed experimental designs and failed positive controls,” she added.

Putting these chemicals through more rigorous testing that include low dose responses is in the interest of protecting human health and the environment.  “Accepting these phenomena should lead to paradigm shifts in toxicological studies, and will likely also have lasting effects on regulatory science,” wrote Dr. Vandenberg’s team.

On June 14, 2013, EPA made available the list of commercial chemicals identified for endocrine screening, which include 109 chemicals, 41 of which are pesticide active ingredients.   However, it remains unclear whether low dose effects of hormone altering drugs has been or will be integrated into the screening process. On June 25, 2013 they made that list open to a 30 day public comment period after which the OMB will initiate a review.   The review is the final step before EPA can actually begin issuing orders to chemical and pesticide manufacturers. See EPA’s EDSP webpage.

The annoucnment follows a May 2011 Inspector General report, EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Should Establish Management Controls to Ensure More Timely Results, that found that EPA had missed all its deadlines to implement the law. The report found that, “Fourteen years after passage of the FQPA [Food Quality Protection Act] and Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, EPA’s EDSP has not determined whether any chemical is a potential endocrine disruptor.

For more information on the effects of pesticides on human health, including endocrine disruption, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

Source: Environmental Health News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2013) After years of lobster decline, a new law in Connecticut seeks to protect and revive the crustacean population by banning the use of toxic mosquito pesticides in coastal areas. With the support of Connecticut’s remaining lobsterman, Governor Dannel Malloy last Friday signed into law  House Bill 6441,  which bans two chemicals, methoprene and resmethrin. Declines in the   sound’s lobster population have been alarmingly common for the past 15 years, devastating fishermen and the local economy that depends on them. The pesticides have long been suspected in killing off the lobsters; however last summer, it was officially linked when those chemicals were detected in lobster tissue last summer. Connecticut legislators say that they were convinced that banning the two mosquito pesticides after learning that Rhode Island and Massachusetts had enacted similar bans with successful results.

“The fisheries of Long Island Sound have been devastated by this lobster die-off, which has been terrible for our local economy and all the families that relied on this industry,” State Senator Bob Duff (D-Norwalk, Darien) said in a statement. “We should be doing everything we can to reverse the trend and bring the lobster population back to a healthy level. I am confident that spraying fewer pesticides in coastal areas will help accomplish that.”

Methoprene has a tendency to sink to the bottom of the ocean water, where lobsters live and feed. Additionally, lobsters are a distant cousin of mosquitoes, and the methoprene acts on them in much the same way that it does the insects. Finally, the western part of the sound was the hardest hit. Not only is this the area that is closest to New York, but it is also one of the areas more protected from ocean currents that would normally help to wash the chemical out into the open sea. In 2003, it was determined by researchers at the University of Connecticut that methoprene was deadly to lobsters at concentrations of only 33 parts per billion. The research was seized upon by the lobstering community as part of its quest to seek legal recourse against chemical companies whose pesticides they blamed for widespread lobster deaths in 1999.

A pilot program will be set up in September that will prohibit the use of methoprene or resmethrin in any storm drain or water system within the coastal boundary. Though the law is being met with resistant by some who worry about the increased risk of West Nile Virus (WNv) and Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE), the law explicitly allows the use of the chemicals if there is a documented case of WNv in a community with a population of over one hundred thousand residents, or per the recommendations of state environment and health officials if mosquito-borne disease is found or suspected. However, there are safer and effective options for dealing with mosquitoes and insect-borne diseases. The ideal mosquito management strategy comes from an integrated approach emphasizing education, aggressive removal of standing water sources, larval control, monitoring, and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness. Beyond Pesticides advises communities to adopt a preventive, health-based mosquito management plan, and has several resource publications on the issue, including the Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy: For Decision Makers and Communities.

Around the country, communities have consistently proven that dangerous pesticides are not necessary to effectively control mosquitoes and prevent outbreaks of West Nile virus. Prevention strategies, such as removing standing water and using least-toxic larvicides only as a last resort, have been adopted in such densely populated regions from Lyndhurst, OH to Marblehead, MA, Nashville, TN and the District of Columbia. To learn more about safe and effective mosquito management strategies, visit Beyond Pesticides page on Mosquitoes and Insect Borne Diseases.

Source: The Daily Voice

Photo Courtesy: Darien Patch

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2013) Pesticide use has sharply reduced the regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates, such as mayflies and dragonflies, finds a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. While previous research has shown similar decreases in individual streams, this new study analyzes the effects of pesticides over broad regions. This is one of several recent findings that show pesticides pose a long-term threat to important ecosystems.

The study, entitled Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates, notes that losses of biodiversity caused by anthropogenic activities during the past 50 years are unprecedented in human history. A team of researchers sampled 23 streams in the central plains of Germany, 16 in the western plains of France, and 24 in southern Victoria, Australia. Researchers classified streams according to three different levels of pesticide contamination: uncontaminated, slightly contaminated, and highly contaminated. Utilizing a model-based approach to account for other environmental variables, the team observed that losses in taxonomic diversity were, to a large degree, determined by the loss of species specifically vulnerable to pesticides. Overall, they found that there were up to 42% fewer species in highly contaminated than in uncontaminated streams in Europe. Highly contaminated streams in Australia showed a decrease in the number of invertebrate families by up to 27% when contrasted with uncontaminated streams. The pesticides analyzed from the streams sampled in the study include several organophosphates, organochlorines, pyrethroids and other pesticides currently banned in these countries.

Furthermore, the researchers note that  species losses were detected at pesticide concentrations that current legislation considers environmentally protective. This means, according to the authors, that current ecological risk assessments of pesticides falls short of protecting biodiversity, and new approaches linking ecology and ecotoxicology is needed. “If the aims of slowing the biodiversity loss rate   and minimizing the effects of contaminants on biodiversity are to be achieved, the existing pesticide registration, methods of application to fields, and mitigation practices (e.g., buffer zones near waterways) should be developed toward more protective standards,” the researchers state.

This study reinforces the findings of biologist Dave Goulson, PhD, of the University of Sussex, UK, who notes that bees, butterflies, moths, carabid beetles and birds (the groups for which good data are available) all show significant overall declines in recent years, particularly in agricultural regions. Dr. Goulson in his paper, An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides, discusses the impact of the environmental persistence of neonicotinoid pesticides on a broad range of non-target species including pollinators, and soil and aquatic invertebrates, which threatens a range of ecosystem services. This paper also notes that consumption of small numbers of neonicotinoid-treated seeds offers a route to direct mortality in birds and mammals. Similarly, a recent report by Pierre Mineau, PhD. finds that the major contributor to the decline in farmland and grassland birds is pesticide use. This report finds that the best predictor of bird declines is the lethal risk from insecticide use modeled from pesticide impact studies. In 2012, one study reported that widely used herbicides adversely impact non-target invertebrate organisms including endangered species. Researchers found that adult numbers of the Behr’s metalmark butterfly dropped by one-fourth to more than one-third when its larvae were exposed to herbicides applied in the vicinity of the butterfly’s preferred food source, the naked stem buckwheat plant.

Research strongly indicates that biodiversity promotes environmental productivity, stability, and resilience. In general, communities with greater biodiversity generate more biomass (the combined weight of all organisms), are more resistant to environmental disturbances, such as drought, and bounce back more quickly after being affected by such disturbances. Beyond Pesticides’ report, Preserving Biodiversity, As if Life Depends on it, notes that by targeting individual species — both as commodities to produce and pests to attack— chemical-intensive practices sacrifice the benefits of biodiversity and jeopardize the very species that comprise it. While causing harm to biodiversity, chemical-intensive strategies in agriculture are not proven to be necessary in light of effective organic practices.

The conservation of biodiversity is both a core premise of organic land management. For more on how organic management preserves biodiversity visit the organic program page. Read Do-it-yourself biodiversity, for backyard gardening tips.

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

Source: Nature News

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2013) Traditional Chinese herbs, widely regarded for their medicinal properties, may not be as therapeutic as they seem. In fact, according to a new report released by Greenpeace East Asia, they may be toxic to your health. This news isn’t just disturbing for the Chinese people who live and work around where these toxic herbs are produced, but also for the entire global export market for Chinese alternative medicines, valued at $1.46 billion in 2010.

The Greenpeace report found pesticides in 48 out of their 65 samples of traditional Chinese herbs, which included plants such as wolfberries, honeysuckle, the San Qi flower and chrysanthemum. Of these samples, the researchers discovered 51 different kinds of pesticide residues, with 32 of the samples tested containing traces of three or more different pesticides. In 26 samples, residues from pesticides that have been banned for use in agriculture in China were found, including phorate, carbofuran, fipronil, methamidophos, aldicarb and ethoprophos.

This report isn’t the first where Chinese exports have been singled out for presence of pesticide contamination. In April 2012, Greenpeace released a report found that Unilever’s Lipton tea bags made in China contain pesticide residues that exceed the  European Union’s (EU) maximum levels; three of these pesticides were banned for use in tea production by the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture, and seven of them were prohibited in the European Union, including the cancer-causing insecticide endosulfan and the harmful synthetic pyrethriod bifenthrin. Of the tested teas, 13 pesticides were found in green and tieguanyin tea and residues from nine were found in jasmine tea, according to Greenpeace.

China has also been active in pushing the United States to accept the country’s toxic imports. In February of this year, Beyond Pesticides reported on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) allowance of endosulfan on imported Chinese teas until July 31, 2016. EPA had  originally issued an immediate revocation of the allowance of endosulfan on tea sold in the U.S., however the Chamber of Commerce of the Zhejiang International Tea Industry filed a complaint indicating that it would need five years or less to find feasible alternatives to the chemical. It also indicated that it was unable to provide comment on the tolerance revocation ruling as the EPA did not provide proper notice to the World Trade Organization. In acknowledging this oversight, EPA is allowing endosulfan residues of 24 parts per million (ppm) in imported Chinese tea, until July 31, 2016. Despite the risks posed by endosulfan residues, EPA sees the decision as “appropriate,” raising questions about whether EPA is putting economic interests ahead of public health.

As the Greenpeace report states, “Unfortunately, this situation is only the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger problem: the general failure of chemical-intensive agriculture to feed people safely, while preventing environmental degradation.” This statement applies both to China and the U.S., as the repeated failures of conventional agriculture are beginning to come into global focus. Organic agriculture represents a way forward from poisoned landscapes and pesticide-laden food. This ecologically-based management system prioritizes human safety and environmental health through cultural, biological, and mechanical production and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, beneficial organisms, and biodiversity, organic farmers avoid the production challenges that chemical inputs, such as synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics, are marketed as solving.

For more information on the pesticides that could be present in the food we eat, and why food labeled organic is the right choice, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating With A Conscience (EWAC) webpage. EWAC has recently been updated with over 30 new foods, and also includes the impacts the growth of this food has on farm workers, water, and our threatened pollinators.

Source (including image): Greenpeace Asia

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2013) Just as Pollinator Week began last week, an estimated 50,000 bumblebees, likely representing over 300 colonies, were found dead or dying in a shopping mall parking lot in Wilsonville, Oregon. Authorities confirmed Friday that the massive bee die-off was caused by the use of a neonicotinoid pesticide, dinotefuran, on nearby trees. Then on Saturday, it was reported by The Oregonian that what could be hundreds of bees were found dead after a similar pesticide use in the neighboring town of Hillsboro.

According to the Xerces Society, this is the largest known incident of bumblebee deaths ever recorded in the country. Bumblebees, which are crucial to pollination of multiple berry and seed crops grown in the Willamette valley, have recently experienced dramatic population declines, a fate that is similar to other pollinators. Dan Hilburn, Director of plant programs at the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), told Oregon Live that he’s “never encountered anything quite like it in 30 years in the business.” The incident highlights the difficulty of permitting in commerce such a highly toxic material that indiscriminately kills beneficial insects.

A recent study, An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, documents that neonicotinoid persistence in soil and water can cause broad and far-reaching impacts on ecosystem health, much of which have undergone little scientific scrutiny. The author asserts that world leaders have failed to meet their commitment made at the 2002 Convention on Biological Diversity — to achieve a significant reduction in the rate biodiversity loss. He points to neonicotinoids as a potential cause of this failure, due to their long-term persistence in soil and water. He specifically points to soil dwelling insects, benthic aquatic insects, grain-eating vertebrates, and pollinators as being in particular danger from the use of these chemicals.

The ODA and Xerces Society had been working together to investigate the pesticide poisoning. After interviewing the landscaping company that maintains dozens of ornamental trees around the parking lot, ODA investigators learned that Safari, a pesticide product with the active ingredient dinotefuran, had recently been applied on Saturday, June 15 to control aphids. Dinotefuran is a neonicotinoid pesticide that is highly toxic to bees; the product’s label strictly forbids its use if bees are in the area.

Scott Black, executive director of the Xerces Society, noted that the pesticide was applied to the tree while it was flowering, an action that violates the product’s instructions. “Beyond the fact that a pesticide was applied to plants while they were attracting large numbers of bees, in this case the pesticide was applied for purely cosmetic reasons. There was no threat to human health or the protection of farm crops that even factored into this decision.”

Neonicotinoids, including dinotefuran, can be broadly applied as a spray, soil drench, or seed treatment, however, the ability of these chemicals to translocate through a plant as it grows has led to the creation of a large market within chemical-intensive landscaping and agriculture. Once these systemic pesticides are taken up by a plant’s vascular system, they are expressed through pollen, nectar and guttation droplets from which pollinators such as bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids kill sucking and chewing insects by disrupting their nervous systems. Beginning in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides also began to take over the seed treatment market. Clothianidin and imidacloprid are two of the most commonly used neonicotinoid pesticides. Both are known to be toxic to insect pollinators, and are lead suspects as causal factors in  honey bee colony collapse disorder. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of neonicotiniods on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows webpage.

Several different crops in the Willamette valley of Oregon rely heavily on the pollination services provided by bumblebees. Blueberries, raspberries, blackberries and crop seed production, which are grown in Oregon, all rely on bumblebees for pollination. Mace Vaughn, pollinator conservation program director with the Xerces Society, told Oregon Live, “Bumblebees are the single most important natural pollinator in Oregon.”

In the midst of the all the attention that is focused on the loss of honey bees and colony collapse disorder, wild pollinator losses are often overlooked. Pesticide risk mitigation measures intended to protect honey bees do not always constitute risk mitigation for other pollinators like bumblebees because they have different foraging practices, social structures, and genetics. Minimal research has also been done on pesticide toxicity for wild pollinators.

This massive bee death marked an unfortunate beginning to National Pollinator Week, which was first declared in 2006 by Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to raise awareness about the global decline of many pollinator species. During Pollinator week and year round, Beyond Pesticides urges communities to come together to highlight the importance of pollinators through public education, the creation of pollinator friendly habitats, and other important activities, while hundreds of actions to support pollinators took place across the U.S. Though pollinator week is over, there are still many ways that you can get involved and help protect pollinators, from providing bee habitat in your yard, to keeping bees in your backyard, or simply choosing to eat organic foods.

Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective campaign has all the educational tools you need to help pollinators. Sign the  Pesticide Free Zone Declaration and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly, or use our model resolution to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective webpage.

Source: Oregon Live
Xerces Society Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2013) A scathing new investigative report shows that atrazine manufacturer, Syngenta Crop Protection, launched an aggressive multi-million dollar campaign in response to a class action lawsuit that threatened to remove the controversial herbicide atrazine  from the market. The report reveals that the pesticide giant routinely paid “third-party allies” to appear to be independent supporters, keeping a list of 130 people and groups it could recruit as experts without disclosing ties to the company. The company, the report finds,  also purportedly hired a detective agency to investigate scientists on a federal advisory panel, looking into the personal life of a judge and commissioning a psychological profile of Tyrone Hayes, PhD, one of the leading scientists critical of atrazine, whose research finds that atrazine feminizes male frogs.

Recently unsealed court documents reveal a corporate strategy to discredit critics and to strip plaintiffs from the class action case. 100Reporters, a nonprofit investigative journalism group, obtained the documents from the lawsuit in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The campaign is spelled out in hundreds of pages of memos, invoices, and other documents from the  Illinois’ Madison County Circuit Court, which were initially sealed as part of a 2004 lawsuit filed by Holiday Shores Sanitary District. The new documents open a window on the company’s strategy to defeat a lawsuit that could have effectively ended sales of atrazine in the United States.

The lawsuit originally sought to force Syngenta to pay for the removal of atrazine from drinking water in Edwardsville, Ill., northeast of St. Louis. The case ultimately grew into a class action lawsuit, which was settled in 2012, after eight years of litigation. While not admitting culpability, Syngenta agreed to pay $105 million last year for more than 1,000 community water systems in 45 states that have had to filter the toxic chemical from its drinking water.

According to the report, Syngenta defended its actions, describing the suit as an attempt to end atrazine sales in the United States. The demands of plaintiffs to receive reimbursement of their cleanup costs, the company wrote in an email, “would have effectively banned the use of this critical product that has been the backbone of safe weed control for more than 50 years.”

Payments to Third Party Allies

According to memos and emails between Syngenta and the public relations firms it hired, the company secretly paid a handful of seemingly independent academics and other “experts” to extol the economic benefits of atrazine and downplay its environmental and health risks. Court documents obtained through the FOIA include a “Supportive Third Party Stakeholders Database” of 130 people and organizations the company could count on to publicly support atrazine, often for a price. Perhaps most troubling is that financial ties to the company were not disclosed. Some examples, cited in the report,  include:

• According to an April 25, 2006, email, Don Coursey, Ameritech Professor of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, and affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a libertarian nonprofit focused on environmental regulations, collected $500 an hour from Syngenta to write economic analyses touting the necessity of atrazine. Syngenta supplied the data he was to cite, edited his work, and paid him to speak with newspapers, television and radio broadcasters about his reports, without revealing the nature of his arrangement with the corporation.
• Syngenta  paid  $100,000 to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH),  a nonprofit with a long history of promoting pesticides and downplaying pesticide hazards, for support that included an Op-Ed piece criticizing a New York Times article on atrazine. Charles Duhigg of the New York Times wrote a story on atrazine as part of its toxic waters series in 2009, which ACSH president and founder Elizabeth Whelan derided as “All the news that’s fit to scare.”
• Steven Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com and president of Citizens for the Integrity of Science requested a grant of $15,000 for the nonprofit Free Enterprise Education Institute for an atrazine stewardship cost-benefit analysis project in a December 3, 2004 email. In a letter dated Aug. 6, 2008, Mr. Milloy requested a $25,000 grant for the nonprofit Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. According to documents, in an email on that date, he wrote, “send the check to me as usual and I’ll take care of it.”

Stifling the Science

Dr. Hayes began his atrazine research in 1997 with a study funded by Novartis Agribusiness, one of two corporations that would later form Syngenta. When he got results Novartis did not expect or want, he received backlash from the industry. Attempts were made to stall his research, and funding was withheld. It was a critical time, as EPA was close to making a final ruling on atrazine. Hermaphroditic frogs would not help the chemical company’s cause. Dr. Hayes continued the research with his own funds and found more of the same results, whereupon Sygenta offered him $2 million to continue his research “in a private setting.” A committed teacher with a lab full of loyal students, Dr. Hayes declined the offer and proceeded with research that he knew had to remain in the public domain. With other funding secured, he replicated his work and released the results: exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion (below allowed regulatory limits), turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites — creatures with both male and female sexual characteristics. When his work appeared in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sygenta attacked the study, starting an epic feud between the scientist and the corporation

The court documents show that the company conducted research into the vulnerabilities of a judge and Dr. Hayes’ personal life. Syngenta’s former head of communications, Sherry Duvall Ford, ranked strategies that Syngenta could use against Dr. Hayes in order of risk, according to her notes from Syngenta meetings in April 2005. One possibility: offering “to cut him in on unlimited research funds.” Another: Investigate his wife. The company even commissioned a psychological profile of Dr.  Hayes. In her notes taken during a 2005 meeting, Ms. Ford refers to Hayes as “paranoid schizo and narcissistic.”

In response to a question about why it commissioned a psychiatric profile on Dr. Hayes, the company issued a statement saying:

“In its defense of atrazine Syngenta focused on the science and the facts. And the scientific facts continue to make it clear that no one ever has been or ever could be exposed to enough atrazine in water to affect their health. Despite eight years of litigation, the plaintiffs were never able to show that atrazine ever caused any adverse health effects at levels to which people could be exposed in the real world. Most water systems involved in the litigation had never detected significant amounts of atrazine in their water.”

However, research has found that atrazine can spike at extremely high levels that go undetected by regular monitoring. Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers an annual average atrazine level of below 3 parts per billion to be acceptable for human consumption, although studies have shown adverse health impacts below EPA’s “safe” levels. In a 2009 analysis by National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), atrazine was discovered in 90% of the time in 139 municipal water systems tested; of these water systems, 54 had at least one spike above 3 parts per billion. Furthermore, a 2009 study by Paul Winchester, MD linked birth defects to time of conception, with the greatest impact on children conceived when concentrations of atrazine and other pesticides are  highest in the local drinking water.

A more recent 2012 study reveals that even minute doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals, such as atrazine, can have significant effects on human health. Several of the report’s authors have been criticized by industry representatives, other scientists, and even politicians because they have become outspoken advocates for testing, regulating, and replacing endocrine disrupting compounds. The scientists, however, say they feel compelled to speak out because regulatory agencies are slow to act and they are concerned about the health of people, especially infants and children, and wildlife. As Dr. Hayes succinctly states: “I went to Harvard on scholarships. I owe you! I did not go to school to let someone pay me off to say things that are not true.”

Dr. Hayes recently spoke at Beyond Pesticides’ 31^st National Pesticide Forum in Albuquerque, NM. Watch him discuss his research on the impact of pesticides on frog deformities and its implications for human and environmental health, along with first-hand accounts of his hurdles with the pesticide industry in his keynote presentation, Protecting Life: From Research to Regulation.

Read the full report: Syngenta’s campaign to protect atrazine, discredit critics

Source: Environmental Health News and 100Reporters

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

Update 4:08 PM: Earlier today the House Farm Bill was defeated by a vote of 234 to 195. Many Democrats were moved to vote against the bill after several amendments were accepted yesterday that would make it more difficult for individuals to receive food stamp benefits. The House bill already included more than $20 billion dollars in cuts to food stamp programs over five years before the amendment process began. 62 Republicans also opposed the bill, arguing that bill did not go far enough in its cuts.

This failure of the Farm Bill is an opportunity for environmental organizations to push for stronger legislation. Beyond Pesticides found several sections of the latest House Farm Bill to be particularly alarming. Section 10013 of the Farm Bill, commonly referred to as the “Reducing Regulatory Burden Act of 2013,” would have eliminated the requirement for pesticide applicators to file Clean Water Act (CWA) permits for application where pesticides could be discharged into water. Section 10014 would have limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate the importation of genetically engineered pesticide incorporated seeds. Beyond Pesticides would also like to   thank all those who stood with our organization and took action on these issues.

The failure of the House Farm Bill also will be an opportunity to strengthen organic agriculture. The failed House Farm Bill undercut several major organic programs. Amendments were filed to restore organic funding but none were allowed a vote on during the amendment process. The Senate Farm Bill, already passed, contains several provisions that strengthen organic agriculture and do not include the Clean Water Act permit repeal language, the limitation on EPA oversight of genetically engineered pesticide incorporated seeds, or another controversial amendment that would have reversed a decision by EPA to reduce fluoride intake through water, food, and toothpaste (as urged by the National Academy of Sciences) by banning sulfuryl fluoride’s use in agriculture (a study amendment on this issue was in the House Farm Bill that failed – Sec. 10016. Study on proposed order pertaining to sulfuryl fluoride, H.R. 1947, p534, line7).

(Beyond Pesticides, June 20, 2013) The U.S. House of Representatives last night during Pollinator Week passed an amendment to the House Farm Bill, which is now on the House floor for a vote, that requires more federal attention to the loss of honey bees and other pollinators. The amendment, Protection of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,  creates a federal task force, requires research, and provides for an allowance for beekeepers to use federal forest lands. The amendment passed on a vote of 270-146 with 79 Republicans and 191 Democrats voting in favor.  If a final House Farm Bill passes the House, it will head to a conference  with the Senate, which earlier this month passed a Senate Farm Bill that does not contain a similar  provision.

Other amendments to support organic agriculture that are part of the Senate Farm Bill were not given a floor vote by the House Rules Committee, which manages the amendments allowed to reach the House floor during the Farm Bill debate.

The pollinator vote, with bipartisan support, indicates increasing public awareness that honey bees and pollinators are in serious decline, requiring increased attention and action. Advocates would like more dramatic action than the Hastings amendment represents, including the end to EPA’s conditional registrations of pesticides unless pollinator studies first indicate that they are adequately protected, but see this effort as effecting more focused attention on the problem. The research linking pesticides to colony collapse disorder (CCD) and bee health decline has been growing in the last couple of years, with the European Union in April adopting a two-year moratorium on the use of the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid. The decision comes after the report by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), which concluded that the neonicotinoid pesticides posed a “high acute risk” to pollinators, including honey bees. The insecticides would now be restricted from use on crops which attractive to bees and on certain cereal grains. The moratorium will begin no later than December 1 this year.

The amendment to the Farm Bill requires USDA, Department of the Interior and EPA “to protect and ensure the long-term viability of populations of honey bees, wild bees, and other beneficial insects of agricultural crops, horticultural plants, wild, plants, and other plants. An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides, by David Goulson, Ph.D, of the University of Sussex, UK, provides a detailed overview of the current literature on the economic and environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides.  The literature concerning the danger that these systemic pesticides pose to pollinators is reviewed in detail in Dr. Goulson’s study. It is determined that there is strong evidence that the concentration of neonicotiniods found in agricultural fields have the potential to cause catastrophic sublethal impacts on colony level success for honey bees and bumblebees. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of neonicotiniods on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows webpage.

Amendment #129, Protection of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators, authored by Alcee Hastings (D-FL), will help pollinators in several ways:

1. Requests the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to consult with the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect and ensure the long-term viability of pollinators.

2. Requests USDA to provide formal guidance on permitting managed honey bees to forage on National Forest Service lands, and planting and maintain managed honey bee and native pollinator forage on National Forest Service lands.

3. Requires a task force to coordinate and assess federal efforts to mitigate pollinator losses, and report to Congress federal efforts to reduce pollinator losses.

4. Supports collaboration honey bee research.

During pollinator week, this week and every week, Beyond Pesticides hopes you will consider doing what you can in your own backyard, neighborhood, and community to create a safe space for these imperiled species. For the latest information on pollinator week events and the steps you can take to BEE Protective of pollinators see Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage.  Thanks to all those who participate in the campaign to save pollinators.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2013) The Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Linda Birnbaum, PhD, is being criticized by some Republicans for authoring an article that describes linkages between endocrine disrupting chemicals and the onset of disease, as well as the need to understand and monitor the effects of these chemicals. Instead of encouraging efforts for greater understanding of these chemicals, the members of Congress instead blasted the article as a potential breach of National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy. NIEHS, a program of NIH, seeks to reduce the burden of human illness and disability by understanding how the environment influences the development and progression of human disease.

The short article entitled, “When environmental chemicals act like uncontrolled medicine,” published online on May 7, 2013, in Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, lays out the case that environmental chemicals can produce unwanted endocrine effects, leading to an increase in certain diseases.  It states, “In the same way as physicians endeavor to understand and monitor the effect of medicines on endocrine pathways, we ought to achieve the same understanding and control of the effects on environmental chemicals.” Dr. Birnbaum also notes, “The proliferation of inadequately tested chemicals in commerce may be contributing to the skyrocketing rates of disease. . .  A new protocol to detect endocrine disruption in early stages of chemical design may provide a useful tool to remove hazards from future chemicals. . .[and] A population-based, public health approach may provide the best perspective in understanding the effect of this problem.”

Endocrine disruptors can change the function(s) of the body’s hormonal system, increasing the risk of adverse health effects. Chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties linked to disease outcomes in laboratory studies have been identified. Many pesticides, industrial solvents, flame retardants, and other chemicals found in electronics, personal care products, and cosmetics have been identified as endocrine disruptors. Dr. Birnbaum’s article echoes that of a 2013 report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) that also identifies endocrine disrupting chemicals as having significant health implications for the global population and calls for more research and collaboration. This UN report, which is the most comprehensive report on endocrine disruption to date, highlights some association between exposure to endocrine disruptors and health problems, including the potential for such chemicals to contribute to the development of non-descended testes  in young males, breast cancer in women, prostate cancer in men, developmental effects on the nervous system in children, attention deficit /hyperactivity in children   and thyroid cancer.

However, in a surprising attack on Director Birnbaum, Reps. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.) target her article as a potential breach of NIH policy. In a letter sent to NIH Director Francis Collins, they argue that Dr. Birnbaum should attach a disclaimer to the article clarifying that it expresses her personal views and not those of the administration.  “[S]ome of Dr. Birnbaum’s statements sound less like a presentation of scientific data and more like an opinion –which may be construed as a position of NIH,” they write.  Rep. Broun is chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. In their letter, Reps. Broun and Bucshon argue that Dr. Birnbaum’s recent article makes “broad and general statements” that are opinion, not fact. Her assertion that chemicals are inadequately tested, they write, implies that NIH does not think U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing its job.  The lawmakers also say that the lack of a disclaimer on Dr. Birnbaum’s article calls into question NIH’s commitment to transparency.   “We expect Dr. Birnbaum to be accurate and transparent in the presentation of scientific data and in describing peer reviewed studies.”

However, what these Representatives fail to recognize is that while EPA is mandated to screen chemicals for potential endocrine disrupting effects, the agency has yet to finalize its screening and testing procedures since mandated by Congress to do so in 1996. The tests to be used by EPA were first recommended in 1998, but since then the science has made progress and become more sophisticated, while EPA’s toxicological testing protocol has not been updated, according to some critics. Unlike the European Union, which as a matter of precaution, categorizes chemicals for endocrine disrupting potential, the U.S. has failed to do so. Therefore, Dr. Birnbaum is correct in stating that many chemicals in use today in the U.S. are “inadequately tested” for endocrine disruption. Dr. Birnbaum article’s not only echoes the call by the UNEP and WHO for greater understanding of how these chemicals impact the human body, but also suggest a need for preventative action to control the onset of disease.

Similarly, a 2012 study from a group of renowned endocrinologists finds that even low doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals can cause certain human disorders, highlighting various epidemiological studies that show that environmental exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals are associated with human diseases and disabilities. The authors here conclude that the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses, and therefore recommend fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination to protect human health.

Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Disease Database  features a wealth of studies that have linked pesticide exposures to adverse impacts on the endocrine system. These studies explore outcomes and mechanisms for several health effect endpoints including cancer, developmental and learning disorders, Parkinson’s disease, reproductive health.

For more on endocrine disrupting chemicals, download Beyond Pesticides’ Endocrine Disruption brochure (bi-fold), or read Beyond Pesticides article, Pesticides That Disrupt Endocrine System Still Unregulated by EPA.

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

Source: Greenwire

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2013) Neonicotinoid pesticides have broad ranging negative impacts not only on beneficial pollinators, but on overall biodiversity and ecosystem health, according to a new study published in the Journal of Applied Ecology. The study, conducted by David Goulson, Ph.D, of the University of Sussex, provides a detailed overview of the current literature on the economic and environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides. Dr. Goulson’s work draws stark and disturbing conclusions about the environmental fate of these systemic insecticides.

First introduced in the early 1990’s as an alternative to the acutely toxic organophosphate and carbamate classes of  pesticides, neonicotinoids are now the most widely used insecticides in the world. They can be broadly applied as a spray or soil drench, however, the ability of these chemicals to translocate into a plant as it grows has led to the creation of a large market within conventional agriculture for seeds coated with these pesticides. As Dr. Goulson notes, global acceptance of treated seeds has undermined the adoption of alternative methods of conventional pest control, even  integrated pest management (IPM), which can reduce pesticide reliance  through monitoring and biological, structural, and cultural strategies. Instead, the treated seed market pushes farmers toward the prophylactic use of these insecticides before any information is available about pest populations in the upcoming year. The chemicals are prohibited in organic production.

The study calls into question the economic benefits of neonicotinoids, noting how yield increases in developed countries have been modest over the past 20 years despite their widespread use. Dr. Gouslon references numerous studies that show that yield increases resulting from using these chemicals, if there are any in the first place, are outstripped by the up-front cost of purchasing these products. He notes, “Studies from the US suggest that neonicotinoid seed dressings may be either entirely ineffective or cost more than the benefit in crop yield gained from their use. We seem to be in a situation where farmers are advised primarily by agronomists involved in selling them pesticides.”

Dr. Goulson’s study provides the public with its first look at Bayer’s own data on the persistence of neonicotinoids in soil. Shockingly, this information shows that the soil half-life of the most commonly used seed treatments can range from 200- 1000 days. In the case of clothianidin, a chemical that Beyond Pesticides and other organizations  are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend, it is revealed that the chemical has the potential to remain in soil for 6,931 days (nearly 19 years!) before degrading. One study referenced by Dr. Goulson shows that thiamethoxam can persist for nearly a year.* A breakdown product of thiamethoxam is clothianidin; thus, even when these chemicals do begin to degrade, their breakdown products have the potential to be just as toxic as the parent chemical.

Dr. Goulson’s review also highlights a 2005 study which randomly sampled farmland soil in France for the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. While no soil on the organic farms’ sampled contained the chemical, nearly all conventional farmland soils contained detectible levels – even those that had not applied the chemical in the previous year. Of the 67 samples from conventional farms, 9 contained between 10 and 100 ppb imidacloprid, and 3 exceeded 100 ppb.

Once in soil, neonicotinoids have a high propensity to leach into groundwater, streams, and ponds. Dr. Goulson references a 2012 study that found 89% of water samples taken from rivers, creeks and drains in California contain imidacloprid, with 19% of those samples at levels above EPA guidelines.

After neonicotiniods are applied to farmland, their persistence in soil and water can cause broad and far-reaching impacts on ecosystem health; many of which have undergone little scientific scrutiny.   Dr. Goulson explains, “Any pesticide that can persist for many years, build up in soil, and leach into waterways is likely to have effects far beyond the pest insects it intends to target. This is particularly so when the pesticide is highly toxic to non-target organisms. For example, less than one part per billion of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid in streams is enough to kill mayflies.”

Dr. Goulson’s also reviews the potential for birds and small mammals to consume lethal doses of neonicotiniods after they are sown into fields. The spillage estimated after a typical sowing for maize and oilseed rape has the potential to kill 100 partridge or 167 mice for every hectare sown, he explains.

The literature concerning the danger that these systemic pesticides pose to pollinators is reviewed in detail in Dr. Goulson’s study. It is determined that there is strong evidence that the concentration of neonicotiniods found in agricultural fields have the potential to cause catastrophic sublethal impacts on colony level success for honey bees and bumblebees. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of neonicotiniods on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows webpage.

Dr. Goulson asserts that world leaders have failed to meet their commitment made at the 2002 Convention on Biological Diversity — to achieve a significant reduction in the rate biodiversity loss. He points to neonicotinoids as a possible cause of this failure, due to their long-term persistence in soil and water. He specifically points to soil dwelling insects, benthic aquatic insects, grain-eating vertebrates, and pollinators as being in particular danger from the use of these chemicals.

Lastly, it is noted that, given these findings, the EU’s recent 2-year ban on these chemicals may not be enough to truly protect pollinators. As Dr. Goulson explains, “”Neonicotinoids will still be widely used on cereals, so the broader environmental impacts are likely to continue. Given the longevity of these compounds, they would be in our soils for years to come even under an absolute ban, so two years is far too short to produce any benefit, even if there were any clear plan to monitor such benefits — which there is not. It is entirely unclear what this two-year moratorium is meant to achieve.”

While there may be doubts as to the efficacy of EU’s neonicotinoid moratorium on certain crops, the 2-year ban represents a step forward towards protecting pollinators — a step EPA has yet to take. As we ponder these findings and reflect on the importance of pollinators during pollinator week, Beyond Pesticides hopes you will consider doing what you can in your own backyard, neighborhood, and community to create a safe space for these imperiled species. For the latest information on pollinator week events and the steps you can take to BEE Protective of pollinators see Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage.

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

Source: Phys.org, Journal of Applied Ecology

Image Source: The Guardian

*This change was made to reflect the original journal article. The half life of thiamethoxam was corrected: from 46-3001 days to 46-301 days. *

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2013) Today Beyond Pesticides and the BEE Protective campaign kicks off National Pollinator Week in the United States as hundreds of actions to support pollinators take place across the country. This week we urge communities to come together to highlight the importance of pollinators through public education, the creation of pollinator friendly habitats, and other exciting activities. Beyond Pesticides invites you to take a real pledge to support pollinators and pollinator-friendly habitat, even as several pesticide companies, including Bayer and Syngenta, are using this week as an opportunity to “Bee-Wash” their image and to distance themselves from the toxic effects of their products on pollinators.

BEE Protective

Beyond Pesticides’ recently launched campaign has all the educational tools you need to actually help pollinators. We urge you to sign our Pesticide Free Zone Declaration and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly.  In honor of all the benefits pollinators provide, and in light of the plight of honey bees worldwide, we are offering free organic pollinator-friendly seed packets from now until June 23rd to those who sign the pledge (supply is limited, so sign today). Help us reach our summer goal of 10,000 acres!

Another great way to get engaged is by becoming a backyard beekeeper. Attracting and keeping bees in your backyard can be easy, especially if you already enjoy gardening. By providing bee habitat in your yard, you can increase the quality and quantity of your garden’s fruits and vegetables. The BEE Protective Habitat Guide has information on creating native pollinator habitat in communities, eliminating bee-toxic chemicals, as well as other advocacy tools. For additional helpful tips on how to BEE Protective visit Beyond Pesticides’ “What Can You Do?” page.

Go Organic

Pollinators are threatened by, among other environmental stressors, the neurotoxic effects of several different pesticides, which is why it is crucial to go organic. Seeds and agricultural commodities undergo intensive foliar and systemic applications of pesticides that translocate through plants, even to the pollen and nectar. Pesticides have sublethal effects on bees that can diminish their sense of smell and foraging patterns, and alter their reproductive cycles.  Recent studies  have indicated that exposure to minute amounts of neurotoxic pesticides such as neonicotinoids  (e.g.  imidacloprid  and  clothianidin) severely impair the immune systems of bees, making them more susceptible to pathogens and disrupting their foraging, navigating and learning behavior.

Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience Database has been recently updated to include information on pollinators. Click through the crops to find out which ones are dependent on or foraged by pollinators, see which chemicals are toxic to bees, and learn about the importance of going organic. Choosing organic food is not only good for your health, but it helps protect honey bees and wild pollinators. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, the protection of honey bees and wild pollinators, as well as whether we are contributing to healthy working conditions and communities for farmworkers and farm families.

Bayers’ “Bee-Washing”

As the evidence continues to grow that neonicotinoid pesticides are major contributors to the dramatic loses of pollinators around the world, pesticides companies are scrambling to build their image by “bee-washing” their products. Bayer CropScience, manufacturer of the neonicotinoid pesticides imidacloprid and clothianidin, has taken several actions to this effect. Bayer is building a 5,500-square-foot “bee health center” in North Carolina. The company has also pledged to donate $1 to the Pollinator Partnership for each individual that requests a free packet of seeds (which are NOT organic, by the way). The Pollinator Partnership is a non-profit organization that has several major agrochemical companies as funders. Their 2012 National Pollinator Week Sponsors included Bayer, Syngenta, Orkin, and CropLife America. Bayer recently launched a “Bee Care Tour” which will travel to university agricultural schools and farm communities across Corn Belt states. The company claims the tour will, “Foster education and cooperation among growers, beekeepers, researchers and others interested in honey bee health.”

Bayer has worked with Syngenta, another agrochemical manufacturer of neonicotinoid pesticides, to develop a “comprehensive action plan” for bee health. Sygenta is also a major partner of the Pollinator Partnership. Monsanto, which uses Bayer neonicotinoids as a seed treatment for its genetically engineered (GE) corn, recently hosted a “first-of-its-kind” Bee Health Summit attended by industry associations.

These agrochemical giants have continually dismissed claims linking their products to bee deaths. However, sound science has produced dozens of studies in the  independent peer reviewed scientific literature that links neonicotinoid pesticides to bee health decline and colony collapse disorder (CCD). These efforts by Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto are not only hypocritical and misleading, they also fail to acknowledge the rapid decline that other wild pollinators, such as butterflies and birds, are also experiencing.

Pollinator Week Events in Washington, DC

Beyond Pesticides’ office is buzzing about all the great pollinator-friendly events  in the Washington D.C. area. Today, a free screening of the acclaimed film Vanishing of the Bees will begin at 7pm at the historic Hill Center on Capitol Hill. After the film, an exclusive discussion with the film’s director, Maryam Henein, will cap the night. There will also be free packets of organic pollinator friendly seeds, the newly published BEE Protective Habitat Guide, and additional educational materials on the importance of pollinators and the plight of the honeybee. At the end of the week, June 21^st, Beyond Pesticides will also participate in the fourth annual pollinator festival at the People’s Garden and USDA Farmers Market. We’ll be there to distribute educational materials and answer any questions you might have about pollinators. Both events are free and open to the public!

Vanishing of the Bees Film Screening:
Location:
Abraham Lincoln Hall
Hill Center at the Old Naval Hospital
921 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
When: Monday, June 17, 2013 – 7:00pm to 9:00pm
Cost: Free!

Fourth Annual Pollinator Festival:
Location:
USDA People’s Garden and Farmers Market
12th Street & Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington DC, 20001
When: Friday, June 21, 2013 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Cost: Free!

Pollinator Week History

First declared in 2006 after Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) unanimously passed resolution S580, Pollinator Week provides an opportunity to show respect for the numerous benefits pollinators provide to agriculture and the environment. It also acts to raise awareness about the global decline of many pollinator species, particularly domesticated honey bees, and the diverse threats both honey bees and other wild pollinators are now confronting.

Don’t get stung by Bayer’s “bee-washing;” catch the buzz on Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Week activities, and for more information on how to truly BEE protective visit Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective page and sign our pollinator pledge.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2013) Researchers based out of Australia have found that pigs fed genetically engineered (GE) soy and GE corn are more likely to have severe stomach inflammation and higher uterine weight. Although the study, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems, has been criticized  for its methodology, it underscores the need for more research on the long term impacts of GE consumption, especially considering the pig digestive system is physiologically similar to humans.

The study, “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed   combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet,” led by Judy Carman, PhD., associate professor in health and the environment at Flinders University, Australia, found that GE-fed pigs had much higher rates of stomach inflammation. Researchers fed 84 pigs GE soy and corn and 84 pigs non-GE feed for a period of 22.7 weeks, approximately the lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. While there were no differences in terms of other organ weight, feeding changes, mortality and blood biochemistry, 32% of GE-fed pigs contracted severe stomach inflammation in comparison to only 12 percent of pigs fed with non-GE feed. Interestingly, male pigs fed GE crops were much more likely to contract severe stomach inflammations: male GE-fed pigs were four times more likely to have stomach inflammation compared to non-GE fed pigs while GE-fed females were only 2.2 times more likely to have stomach inflammations than non-GE fed pigs.

Researchers also found that GE-fed female pigs had on average a 25% heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, which is a possible indicator of uterine diseases, including “endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma, endometritis, endometriosis, adenomyosis, inflammation, a thickening of the myometrium, or the presence of polyps.”

The results have implications in the U.S., as GE soy now constitutes 94% of the soy planted, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The proteins Cry3Bb1 and Cry1AB, which are inserted into crops to exhibit insecticidal properties, are called out by researchers as the likely culprit for the number of pigs with inflamed stomachs. The proteins effectively work by disintegrating gut tissues of grubs that attack corn. While many have argued that the proteins do not impact the intestinal tract of mammals, this study as well as others have shown otherwise.

Researchers conclude, “Given the widespread use of [GE] feed for livestock as well as humans this is a cause for concern”¦Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these [GE] crops are widely consumed by people, particularly in the USA, so it would be prudent to determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans.”

The study’s methodology, however, has received harsh criticism from largely industry sources. Some have indicated the need to ensure that the two groups of pigs were fed completely equivalent diets except for their GE content, while others have pointed out that their statistical techniques to identify “severe” stomach inflammation did not account for the possibility of random chance occurrences. However, even critics of the study  have conceded that the study was rigorously conducted, and that the results indicate the need for further research on the long-term health effects of GE crops.

In the meantime, using a precautionary approach to protect against the potential threats that GE crops may pose to human health is prudent.   The best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the  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.

Source: Journal of Organic Systems

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2013) On June 4, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber signed into law the State Integrated Pest Management Act (HB 3364) which strengthens and improves coordination among state agency programs that implement Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on state-owned and leased properties. The bill passed in the Oregon House on a 51-9 vote and went on to pass in the Oregon Senate on a 24-6 vote last month. According to Beyond Toxics, the statewide environmental health organization that  helped to draft  the bill, though the new law does not outright ban pesticides, the state will see less pesticide use as well as more accountability and public input regarding state pesticide policy. It is an important step toward ending toxic dependency on harmful pesticides, and it joins other states seeking to reduce pesticide use. See  Beyond Pesticides’ report Ending Toxic Dependency:  The State of IPM. Organizers in Oregon also hope that the new law will set the stage for future improvements to forest practices and riparian restorations.

Chief bill sponsors include Senator Chris Edwards (D-Lane County) and Representative Alissa Keny-Guyer (D-Multnomah County). Dr. Paul Jepson, Oregon’s State IPM Coordinator and a professor at Oregon State University was also a key champion of the bill; he was able to convince OSU’s School of Agriculture to pledge $25,000 towards IPM implementation for state agencies.

“The passage of the bill shows strong bi-partisan support for better management of both pests and pest control strategies, as well as tracking and measuring the effectiveness of pesticides on public land,” said Lisa Arkin, Executive Director of Beyond Toxics. “IPM programs consistently reduce pesticides while simultaneously solving pest problems.”

Beyond Toxics introduced the bill, initially called the Safe Public Places Act, after examining hundreds of herbicide spray records for tax payer funded projects and found that millions of dollars are regularly spent to reduce pests and that it is common for state agencies to spend public money on some products that contaminate ground water, harm fish or are human carcinogens. The legislation builds on a 2012 executive order by Governor Kitzhaber encouraging the use of environmentally-friendly materials and avoiding toxic chemicals, as well as a 2009 bill requiring IPM for schools.

According to The Oregonian, the first version of the bill allowed the use of “low-impact” pesticides only as a last resort if nonchemical pest control measures were not effective, and barred routine use of carcinogenic pesticides and those with high toxicity to fish, animals and beneficial insects, such as bees. The law that passed eliminates those details and includes “selective use of pesticides” among a list of techniques to be considered. It calls for both preventing “unacceptable levels of pest damage” and for pesticide use that “poses the least possible risk to people, property, resources and the environment.”

“It’s not a ban on pesticides,” Ms. Arkin told The Oregonian. “But, hopefully, (pesticide use) will be more selective and we’ll look at alternatives first.”

“I think there is a lot more awareness, and more data that have been done, to link the consequences of pesticides and harmful chemicals to cancers,” Representative Keny-Guyer  told Beyond Toxics.

Beautiful landscapes do not require toxic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes webpage provides information on pesticide hazards and information on organic management strategies. The site also provides an online training, Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers, to assist in going pesticide-free. With the training, landscapers can learn the practical steps to transitioning to a natural program. Or, you can order Pesticide Free Zone yard signs to display to your neighbors. For assistance in proposing a policy to your city council (or its equivalent), contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected].

Source: Beyond Toxics Safe Public Places Project

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2013) A three-judge panel  of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Monday that a group of organic and otherwise non-GE farmer and seed company plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents after Monsanto made binding assurances that it will not take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently be contaminated with traces of Monsanto biotech genes.

Organic farmers and others have worried for years that they will be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement if their crops get contaminated with Monsanto genetically engineered (GE) material from GE crops. Organic and non-GE farms get contaminated when pollen or seed migrate from neighboring GE farms. Even though wind or insect transfer of pollen is a natural process, Monsanto has been suing farmers for infringing on their patents if contamination is found on their farms. Monsanto’s history of aggressive investigations and lawsuits brought against farmers is a major source of concern for organic and non-GE agricultural producers since Monsanto’s first lawsuit brought against a farmer in the mid-”˜90s. As of 2012, Monsanto has filed 142 alleged seed patent infringement lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in 27 states. Beyond Pesticides joined farmers, seed organizations, and other environmental groups across the country to appeal a 2012 court ruling which dismissed Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto — a case where the plaintiffs sued preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crop ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s GE seed. An appeal was filed soon thereafter.

However, in the ruling issued Monday, the Court of Appeals judges affirmed the previous court’s 2012 decision that the plaintiffs did not present a sufficient controversy to warrant adjudication by the courts. The court decision was informed by Monsanto’s repeated commitments during the lawsuit that they would not sue farmers with “trace amounts” of contamination of crops containing their patented genes.

Plaintiffs’ attorney, Dan Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), views the decision as a partial victory. “Before this suit, the Organic Seed plaintiffs were forced to take expensive precautions and avoid full use of their land in order to not be falsely accused of patent infringement by Monsanto,” said Mr. Ravicher. “The decision today means that the farmers did have the right to bring the suit to protect themselves, but now that Monsanto has bound itself to not suing the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals believes the suit should not move forward.”

The plaintiff farmers and seed companies began their legal battle in March of 2011, when they filed a complaint against agricultural giant Monsanto asking for a declaration that Monsanto’s patents on GE seed were invalid or unenforceable. The plaintiffs felt compelled to file the suit because Monsanto’s patented seed can contaminate neighboring fields through various means including wind and insects, and the owners of those fields, such as plaintiffs, can then be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement.

The Organic Seed plaintiffs’ complaint details Monsanto’s abusive business and litigation tactics that have put several farmers and independent seed companies out of business. They also detailed Monsanto’s history of ruthless patent enforcement, going so far as investigating as many as 500 farmers each year for patent infringement by trespassing onto their land. The plaintiffs further detailed the harms caused to society by Monsanto’s GMO seed, including the proliferation of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” and environmental pollution. The plaintiffs set forth in their legal filings how the patents were legally deficient in several ways including that the covered technology has no beneficial social use and that the dozens of patents issued to Monsanto have illegally extended and entrenched its monopoly.

“Even though we’re disappointed with the Court’s ruling not to hear our case, we’re encouraged by the court’s determination that Monsanto does not have the right to sue farmers for trace contamination,” said Maine organic seed farmer Jim Gerritsen, president of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. “However, the farmers went to court seeking justice not only about contamination, but also the larger question of the validity of Monsanto’s patents. Justice has not been served.”

While the court is relying on Monsanto’s promise not to sue farmers for unintentional contamination, a growing number of America’s farmers and consumers are concerned about genetic contamination of our food supply by Monsanto’s transgenic crops. While this lawsuit seeks to protect contaminated farmers from being accused of infringing Monsanto’s patents, the decision allows farmers who are contaminated to sue Monsanto and Monsanto’s customers for the harm caused by that contamination without fear of a retaliation patent infringement claim against them by Monsanto.

“Today’s ruling may give farmers a toehold in courts regarding the unwanted contamination of their crops, but it does not protect our food supply from the continued proliferation of Monsanto’s flawed technology,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. “The real threat of continued contamination of our nation’s food supply was only highlighted last week when Monsanto’s unapproved GMO wheat was discovered in an Oregon farmer’s field more than 10 years after it was legally planted in that state.”

The recent discovery of GE contamination of wheat sent shockwaves through the Western wheat growers community and resulted in Japan and South Korea temporarily halting the acceptance of American wheat imports. Several lawsuits have now been filed against Monsanto. The lawsuits allege that the presence of GE wheat crops spurred top wheat importers, such as Japan, South Korea, and the European Union, to enact damaging restrictions on American wheat. These restrictions could lead to lower wheat imports and will cause devastating economic effects to wheat farmers.

Despite this Court of Appeals’ decision, the plaintiffs still have the right to ask the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision and ultimately reinstate the case. Mr. Ravicher said the Organic Seed plaintiffs are considering doing so.

Source: Public Patent Foundation

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2013) Several different lawsuits have been filed against the agrichemical giant Monsanto after the recent discovery of illegal Genetically Engineered (GE) glyphosate-resistant wheat plants  in an Oregon wheat field. The GE wheat was first found in early May when field workers in eastern Oregon noticed a volunteer patch of wheat that survived a dousing with glyphosate.

Ernst Barnes, a Kansas wheat farmer, brought the first lawsuit against Monsanto. Soon after, a separate lawsuit was filed by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of Pacific Northwest wheat farmers. The lawsuits allege that the presence of GE wheat crops spurred top wheat importers, such as Japan, South Korea, and the European Union, to enact damaging restrictions on American wheat. These restrictions could lead to lower wheat imports and will cause devastating economic effects to wheat farmers.

While the world’s largest wheat importer, Egypt, has not signaled it would stop importing U.S. wheat, Japan has cancelled its order to buy U.S. western white wheat. Meanwhile, the European Union has prepared to begin testing shipments for the Roundup Ready gene. In 2012, U.S. exported wheat was valued at $18.1 billion, with 90% of Oregon’s wheat sent abroad.

Since 1994, Monsanto has conducted 279 field trials of Roundup Ready wheat over more than 4,000 acres of land in 16 states. Tests have been conducted in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. After facing intense opposition from farmers and consumers, Monsanto reportedly stopped its efforts to introduce GE wheat, but restarted extensive field trials again in 2011 in Hawaii and North Dakota.

Though Monsanto has claimed this was an “isolated incident” and that it may be the result of “sabotage,” researchers at Oregon State University were not satisfied by these claims. According to Carol Mallory-Smith, PhD, a weed science professor at Oregon State University who tested the initial wheat plants and determined they were a genetic variety Monsanto had tested. “I don’t know how Monsanto can declare anything. We obviously had these plants in the field.” Though wheat is commonly  self-pollinating, it can be wind pollinated, with some studies showing the crop cross pollinating up to 2.75 km.

This is not the first instance of GE crop contamination leading to litigation. Warren Burns, an attorney representing Kansas wheat farmer Ernest Barnes, said this case reminds him of similar litigation that arose from the contamination of the U.S. rice crop from test fields of GE rice. The contamination led to a Bayer CropScience announcement in 2011 that it would pay up to $750 million to settle claims, including those from farmers who say they had to plant different crops that yield lower profits.

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.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle, Center for Food Safety

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

(June 10, 2013, Beyond Pesticides) The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) on June 6 rejected a petition by Thurston County Commissioners to restrict sale, use and application of neonicotinoid insecticides. On April 8, 2013, the Commissioners requested the action by WSDA because of concerns about the effect of neonicotinoid insecticides on honey bee colony health. The Commissioners were acting on “substantial bee colony loss in 2012” reported by the Olympia Beekeepers Association. In its request, the Commissioners asked the state to implement a “restriction on the purchase, sale, distribution and application of the neonicotinoid class of insecticides for ornamental use to persons or entities with a valid WSDA pesticide applicator license” and indicated that “immediate action on a local level is appropriate and necessary.” Beyond Pesticides wrote a letter of support in favor of the petition.

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 paralysis and death. They include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. According to the EPA, uncertainties have been identified since their initial registration regarding the potential environmental fate and effects of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly as they relate to pollinators. Studies conducted in the late 1990s show that because these chemicals are systemic and are taken up by the vascular system of the plants neonicotinic residues accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants and represent a hazard to pollinators.

In rejecting the Thurston County request, WSDA director, Bud Hover, said, “WSDA shares your concerns about honey bee colony health and is acutely aware of the importance of honey bees and other pollinators to the economy and the environment of Washington. In 2011, the value of the crops pollinated by bees in Washington was in excess of $2.75 billion. Bees are also important for the pollination of fruit and vegetable gardens, as well as native plants. Certainly I am willing to take steps within my authority to protect pollinators when the evidence clearly shows that the neonicotinoid insecticides are a significant factor in their decline. I’m sure that you can understand and appreciate that I must consider the potential consequences of any rules that are adopted, and that I must make my decisions based upon sound science.”

Sound science does not include, apparently, consideration of dozens of studies in the independent peer reviewed scientific literature that link neonicotinoid pesticides to bee health decline and colony collapse disorder (CCD). Instead, Mr. Hover said that the only thing that WSDA does know is that, “Varroa mites have a major negative impact on honey bee colony health.” Advocates point to this lack of attention to the science in the name of “sound science” that represents a failure and state regulation of pesticides and ultimately puts beekeepers, farmers, and consumers at serious risk. If U.S. regulators evaluated the science as has been done by the European Union, advocates believe that there would be similar action to stop use of neonicotinoids.  Instead, state agriculture departments, like WSDA, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have  adopted policy that increases dependency on pesticides and genetically engineered plants that have hurt farmers because of insect and weed resistance and increasing pesticide reliance. Advocates are left to wonder who is being protected, the chemical companies or farmers, beekeepers, and consumers. And, they ask, at whose expense?

Acknowledging some reason for concern, WSDA wrote the Thurston County Commissioners the following:

1. Urge EPA in their reassessment of neonicotinoid insecticides (esp. the nitroguanidine subclass) to fully consider whether additional use restrictions are needed to protect bees when these products are applied to ornamental plant that are attractive to bees. Also, to make users more aware of potential risksfrom systemic uses, request that EPA require registrants to include advisory statements on neonicotinoid labels that have systemic uses (soil drench or tree injection) on ornamental plants that are ttractive to bees.

2. Independent of any required changes by EPA, request that registrants of neonicotinoid insecticides voluntarily add pollinator protection statements to theirlabels to address the potential risk of systemic uses on ornamental plants.

3. Request that WSU include presentations on pollinator protection in their pesticide licensing recertification courses, especially those courses that focus on urban and non-agricultural pesticide uses.

4. Provide technical assistance to all pesticide applicators who are licensed to apply insecticides to ornamental plants reminding them of their responsibility to protect pollinators.

5. Provide outreach to consumers by:
Ӣ Assisting major retail trade organizations in creating point-of-sale brochures on pollinator protection that they can make available to their members to post at retail outlets.

Ӣ Encouraging the news media to print timely articles on pollinator protection in their home and garden sections.

What the Science Shows

A. Neonicotinoids are toxic to bees
Neonicotinoids, like imidacloproid and clothianidin, have sublethal effects in honey bees, which include disruptions in mobility, navigation, and feeding behavior. Lethal and sublethal exposures have been shown to decrease foraging activity, along with olfactory learning performance and decreased hive activity. Bees living and foraging near agricultural fields are exposed as a result of multiple mechanisms throughout the spring and summer, and are exposed to foliar and systemic pesticides that studies are reporting cause feeding, navigation and learning behavior disruptions in bees. In fact, a 2013 study reports that sublethal doses of imidacloprid have cytotoxic effects on bee brains and that optic lobes are more sensitive to the insecticide than other regions of the brain of these insects. In a study looking at the acute effects of sublethal doses of clothianidin under field-like conditions at 0.05 -2 ng/bee, a significant reduction of foraging activity and longer foraging flights at doses of ≥0.5 ng/bee during the first three hours after treatment were recorded. A study by Yang et al. reports that honey bees exposed to sublethal doses of imidacloprid show abnormalities in revisiting the feeding site, with some going missing. Returning bees also exhibit a delay in their return trips. A University of California (San Diego) study observed that sublethal doses of imidacloprid induce neurological effects (impaired waggle dancing at colony) that reduce communication and feeding. According to the researchers, waggle dancing can significantly increase colony food intake, and thus a sublethal dose of imidacloprid (0.21 ng bee—1) may impair colony fitness.

B. Neonicotinoid residues contaminate the entire plant
Neonicotinoids are systemic pesticides which mean that their residues are expressed in all parts of the plant, including leaves, pollen and nectar. A 2012 study by entomologist Christian Krupke, PhD, of Purdue University, clarifies some of the mechanisms by which honey bees are exposed to neonicotinoid pesticides. According to the study, in addition to agricultural sources, pesticide residues are found in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive, in the soil of fields sampled, including unplanted fields, and in other flowering plants (dandelions). According to Dr. Krupke, clothianidin in/on the dandelions could have resulted from translocation from the soil to the flower, from surface contamination of the flowers from dust, or a combination of these two mechanisms. Guttated water of seed-treated plants, which provides a source of water for bees, can also be a source of contamination and exposure. Reetz et al. finds that corn seeds treated with clothianidin resulted in neonicotinoid concentrations up to 8,000 ng/ mL in the guttated fluid. Guttation drops from plants obtained from commercial seeds coated with thiamethoxam, clothianidin, imidacloprid and fipronil taken from young plants contained high levels of the neonicotinoid insecticides: up to 346 mg/L for imidacloprid, 102 mg/L for clothianidin, and 146 mg/L for thiamethoxam, according to a 2011 study. These residues remain and can expose foraging bees to significant levels of the insecticide.

C. Exposures to neonicotinoids leads to higher susceptibility to pathogens and parasites
Studies have also reported that bees exposed to sublethal does of pesticides are highly susceptible to pathogens that lead to their decline. One 2012 study by USDA researchers discovered that newly emerged bees exposed to sublethal levels of imidacloprid during larval development and indirectly from brood food from nurse bees had higher levels of the gut parasite Nosema spp. which is known to adversely affect colony health. According to the study, this suggests that being exposure to pesticides contributes to weakening bees by making them more susceptible to infection. Alaux, et al. reported that the combination of both imidacloprid and Nosema caused the highest individual mortality rates and energetic stress, suggesting a synergistic interaction between these agents and, in the long term, a higher susceptibility of the colony to pathogens. Similarly, Vidau, et al observed a significant increase in honeybee mortality when Nosema ceranae-infected honeybees were exposed to sublethal doses of insecticides.

D. Neonicotinoids also harm other beneficial organisms
Recent data also supports the harmful effects of neonicotinoids on other beneficial organisms. Imidacloprid residues in surface waters lead to a decline in macro-invertebrate abundance, according to a 2013 study. This study notes that short-term tests with the aquatic worm Lumbriculus variegatus, a high mortality was observed at the highest concentrations of imidacloprid in the sediments (1 to 5 mg/kg). At lower concentrations (0.05 to 0.5 mg/kg) effects were observed on growth and behavior of L. variegatus. In other tests with the aquatic invertebrates Chironomus tentans and Hyallella Azteca, chronic low-level exposure (>1.14 μg l−1 for C. tentans) to imidacloprid reduced the species survival and growth. Imidacloprid has also been observed to be lethal to earthworms,16 with larger consequences for soil health and fertility.

Other bees such as bumble bees saw a significant reduction in growth rate and a reduction in the production of new queens when exposed to environmentally relevant levels of imidacloprid. One study observed that bumble bee micro-colonies exhibited a dose-dependent decline in fecundity, with a 33% reduction in brood production environmentally realistic dosages of imidacloprid.

For information on what you can do to protect the bees, go to Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective Campaign page.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2013) U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has announced her intent to oppose an extension of the “Monsanto Protection Act,” or “Biotech Rider.” Senator Stabenow announced her opposition in a conversation (“colloquy”) with Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) on the Senate floor. Senator Merkley had been pushing for a vote on an amendment to the Farm Bill that would have repealed the Biotech Rider, which was surreptitiously added to the House’s 6 month continuing resolution (H.R. 933 -Sec. 735) earlier this year. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), who wrote the provision and whose state is home to Monsanto’s headquarters, blocked the Senate’s vote on the measure, and shortly thereafter the Senate moved to end debate on the Farm Bill and move towards final passage. As The Huffington Post reports, all hope is not lost; “While Merkley was unable to get a repeal vote, the colloquy is a significant concession, with Stabenow promising she will oppose any attempt to extend the Monsanto Protection Act in backroom negotiations.”

The existence of the provision came as a surprise even to members of Congress, as many were unaware that the rider had been added to H.R. 933. Senator Merkley voiced his stern opposition to the deceitful procedural tactics of Senator Blunt, Monsanto, and the biotech industry, saying,

“In an accountable and transparent legislative system, the Monsanto Protection Act would have had to be considered by the Agriculture Committee, complete with testimony by relevant parties. If the committee had approved the act, there would have been a subsequent opportunity to debate it on the floor of this Chamber. Complete transparency with a full opportunity for the public to weigh in is essential.

Since these features of an accountable and transparent legislative system were not honored and because I think the policy itself is unacceptable, I have offered an amendment to the farm bill which would repeal this rider in its entirety. To this point, my efforts to introduce that amendment have been objected to, and it takes unanimous consent. This type of rider has no place in an appropriations bill to fund the Federal Government, and a bill that interferes with our system of checks and balances should never have become law.”

The Monsanto Protection Act undermines the basic tenants of the U.S. constitution. It takes away the authority of federal courts to stop the sale or production of genetically modified crops, a blatant attack on the American system of checks and balances as the Senator indicates. In addition, the provision would compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately grant any requests for permits to allow continued planting and commercialization of unlawfully approved GE crops.

This is a concern for consumer health and environmental organizations because they have used court decisions to help slow down the advance on GE crops. In October 2012, a federal court ruled in favor of halting cultivation of GE crops in all national wildlife refuges in the Southeastern U.S. The suit, filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), CFS, and Beyond Pesticides, was a part of a series of legal actions taken against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (FWS) for entering into cooperative farming agreements for GE crops on wildlife refuge sites without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and refuge management laws.

In August of 2012, the Oregon Court of Appeals ordered a temporary halt to the state’s plan to allow genetically engineered (GE) canola to be planted in parts of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. The order is in effect until the court rules on a lawsuit filed by opponents of GE canola planting who say it threatens the state’s $32 million specialty seed industry.

Passage of the Monsanto Protection Act preceded the recent discovery of Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready wheat in Sen. Merkley’s home state of Oregon, complicating issues of liability for the company, despite the economic harm the discovery has caused to the U.S. wheat export market.

Across the country, citizens have stood up for their food rights by voicing their opinions directly to their elected leaders. Beyond Pesticides’ list of issues of concerns associated with the Farm Bill includes the following with just 5 easy clicks:
1.  OPPOSE Senator Joe Donnelly’s (D-IN) amendment to the Farm Bill that will reverse our efforts to take the hazardous fumigant sulfuryl fluoride out of our food supply
2.  OPPOSE amendments SA 1100 and SA 1103 would remove commonsense protections from pesticide applications directly into our nation’s waterways
3.  OPPOSE amendment SA 984 that will repeal a section of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that authorizes EPA to evaluate and restrict imported seeds that are treated with pesticides
4.  SUPPORT Amendment SA 1027 to protect pollinators
5.  SUPPORT Amendments 1093, 1080, and 1088 to advance organic food

The Senate passed a cloture motion (places a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcomes a filibuster) yesterday morning cutting off debate on the Farm Bill, with the majority leader Senator Harry Reid setting Monday, June 10, 2013 for the Farm Bill vote. This means that amendments for which there is not agreement should not be considered for adoption in the Farm Bill when the vote takes place on June 10.

For more information on the environmental hazards associated with GE technology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering webpage. As always, best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the USDA Certified Organic Seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited.

Source: The Huffington Post

Image Source: Food Democracy Now!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2013) Last week Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. plead guilty in cases filed by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act by illegally handling and disposing of hazardous materials at its retail stores across the United States, including pouring pesticides down the drain. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company also plead guilty in Kansas City, MO to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by failing to properly handle pesticides that had been returned by customers at its stores across the country.

As a result of the three criminal cases brought by the Justice Department,  and the  related civil case filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Wal-Mart will pay approximately $81.6 million for its unlawful conduct. Coupled with previous actions brought by the states of California and Missouri for the same conduct, Wal-Mart will pay a combined total of more than $110 million to resolve cases alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws. According to the Kansas City Star, the company stated that the fines and penalties would “not be material to its financial position.”

“By improperly handling hazardous waste, pesticides and other materials in violation of federal laws, Wal-Mart put the public and the environment at risk and gained an unfair economic advantage over other companies,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Today, Wal-Mart acknowledged responsibility for violations of federal laws and will pay significant fines and penalties, which will, in part, fund important environmental projects in the communities impacted by the violations and help prevent future harm to the environment.”

FIFRA Violations

From 2006 to 2008, the company sent more than 2 million pounds of damaged containers of pesticides and other hazardous products to a third-party management company, Greenleaf, in Neosho, Missouri. The products were then mixed together and offered for sale to customers without the required registration, ingredients, or use information, which constitutes a violation of FIFRA. Greenleaf was under contract with Walmart to recycle pesticide products, but lacked the necessary FIFRA registrations to mix, repackage, and relabel some of the pesticides. Greenleaf also did not have the capacity to handle all the products sent to it by Walmart, resulting in significant releases of hazardous substances. Greenleaf was also convicted of a FIFRA violation and paid a criminal penalty of $200,000 in 2009.

Pursuant to the plea agreement filed in Missouri and accepted by U.S. District Judge John T. Maughmer, Wal-Mart agreed to pay a criminal fine of $11 million and to pay another $3 million to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which will go to that agency’s Hazardous Waste Program and will be used to fund further inspections and education on pesticide regulations for regulators, the regulated community and the public. In addition, Wal-Mart has already spent more than $3.4 million to properly remove and dispose of all hazardous material from Greenleaf’s facility.

“This tough financial penalty holds Wal-Mart accountable for its reckless and illegal business practices that threatened both the public and the environment,” said Tammy Dickinson, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri. “Truckloads of hazardous products, including more than 2 million pounds of pesticides, were improperly handled under Wal-Mart’s contract. Today’s criminal fine should send a message to companies of all sizes that they will be held accountable to follow federal environmental laws. Additionally, Wal-Mart’s community service payment will fund important environmental projects in Missouri to help prevent such abuses in the future.”

In conjunction with the company’s guilty pleas in the three criminal cases, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay a $7.628 million civil penalty that will resolve civil violations of FIFRA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In addition to the civil penalties, Wal-Mart is required to implement a comprehensive, nationwide environmental compliance agreement to manage hazardous waste generated at its stores. The agreement includes requirements to ensure adequate environmental personnel and training at all levels of the company, proper identification and management of hazardous wastes, and the development and implementation of Environmental Management Systems at its stores and return centers. Compliance with this agreement is a condition of probation imposed in the criminal cases.

Clean Water Act Violations

In California, Wal-Mart plead guilty to six misdemeanor counts of negligently violating the Clean Water Act. According to documents filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, from a date unknown until January 2006, Wal-Mart did not have a program in place and failed to train its employees on proper hazardous waste management and disposal practices at the store level. As a result, hazardous wastes, including pesticides, were either discarded improperly at the store level —including being put into municipal trash bins or, if a liquid, poured into the local sewer system— or they were improperly transported without proper safety documentation to one of six product return centers located throughout the United States.

The six criminal charges were filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles and San Francisco (each office filed three charges), and the two cases were consolidated in the Northern District of California, where the guilty pleas were formally entered before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. As part of a plea agreement Wal-Mart was sentenced to pay a $40 million criminal fine and an additional $20 million that will fund various community service projects, including opening a $6 million Retail Compliance Assistance Center that will help retail stores across the nation learn how to properly handle hazardous waste.

“As one of the largest retailers in the United States, Wal-Mart is responsible not only for the stock on its shelves, but also for the significant amount of hazardous materials that result from damaged products returned by customers,” said Melinda Haag, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California. “The crimes in these cases stem from Wal-Mart’s failure to comply with the regulations designed to ensure the proper handling, storage, and disposal of those hazardous materials and waste. With its guilty plea today, Wal-Mart is in a position to be an industry leader by ensuring that not only Wal-Mart, but all retail stores properly handle their waste.”

Wal-Mart owns more than 4,000 stores nationwide that sell thousands of products which are flammable, corrosive, reactive, toxic or otherwise hazardous under federal law. The products that contain hazardous materials include pesticides, solvents, detergents, paints, aerosols and cleaners. Once discarded, these products are considered hazardous waste under federal law.

These criminal cases are a result of investigations conducted by the FBI and the EPA, which received substantial assistance from the California Department of Substance and Toxics Control, and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. In Missouri, the case was prosecuted by Deputy U.S. Attorney Gene Porter and ENRD Senior Trial Attorney Jennifer Whitfield of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division. In California, the cases were prosecuted in Los Angeles by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph O. Johns and in San Francisco by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stacey Geis.

The Consent Agreement and Final Order can be read here.

Source: EPA Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2013) Connecticut passed a bill on Monday that requires food manufacturers to label products that contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredient, but only  if other states do the same. This means people in Connecticut and other parts of the country will still have to wait to see GE labeling on their food.

On Monday, the state House of Representatives passed an amended version of a labeling bill that the state Senate approved two weeks ago, and Gov. Dannel Malloy has said he will sign it. House Bill 6527 — An Act Concerning Genetically-Engineered Food, will require producers to label genetically engineered food in Connecticut. The bipartisan bill passed unanimously in the Senate and 134-to-3 in the House. The bill will go into effect when, “Four states, not including this state, enact a mandatory labeling law for genetically-engineered foods that is consistent with the provisions of this subsection, provided one such state borders Connecticut; and (2) the aggregate population of such states located in the northeast region of the United States that have enacted a mandatory labeling law for genetically-engineered foods that is consistent with this subsection exceed twenty million based on 2010 census figures.”

Connecticut will now become the first state in the country that requires the labeling of GE organisms. However, the final version of the Connecticut bill includes quite a crucial catch or trigger clause: the labeling requirement would not actually go into effect until similar legislation is passed by other states in the New England region (including one state bordering Connecticut) with an aggregate population of 20 million.

“This bill strikes an important balance by ensuring the consumers’ right to know what is in their food while shielding our small businesses from liability that could leave them at a competitive disadvantage,” Gov. Malloy said in a statement issued over the weekend after negotiations on the necessary provisions.

According to the Connecticut Post, the “trigger clause” is meant to allay fears that Connecticut could suffer negative economic impacts by going it alone -higher food prices and lawsuits from major food companies. Lawmakers are counting on safety in numbers, and hoping their state’s precedent will encourage others to follow suit. “Somebody has to go first and say it’s OK to do it with some kind of trigger,” Senate Minority Leader John McKinney (R-Fairfield) said. “This gives great momentum for advocates in Pennsylvania and New York, for example, for [GE] labeling, because if they’re successful in New York we’ll probably see it along the entire East Coast.”

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety (CFS), called Connecticut’s move an “important first step,” and “a reminder of where the tide is going on this issue.” Mr. Kimbrell goes on to state that, “While Connecticut has set the stage for wide-ranging action on GE food labeling, it is not a perfect bill. CFS opposes the late addition of the trigger clause, which unnecessarily puts on hold what consumers and lawmakers have already validated as important legislation.” The Connecticut legislation was adopted from language written by CFS attorneys, and state legislators incorporated many changes proposed by CFS.

The New York Times notes that more than 20 other states are considering labeling laws, including New York, Maine and Vermont. Early polling suggests widespread support for a ballot initiative that would require labeling in Washington, as concern spread about the impact of GE salmon and apples on two of the state’s marquee businesses. In 2005, Alaska passed a law requiring the labeling of all GE fish and shellfish, but Connecticut would become the first state to adopt labeling broadly. Additionally sixty-four nations including China, South Africa, and all countries in the European Union currently require GE foods to be labeled. Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) recently introduced federal legislation that would require nationwide labeling of GE products.

The bill’s success is certainly an important victory for the GE-labeling movement, which seems to have been motivated, not discouraged, by last year’s unsuccessful  but close vote on Proposition 37 in California. Industry giants like Monsanto and Dow spent tens of millions of dollars to help defeat the ballot measure in California that would have required labeling. Supporters of Prop 37 are regrouping, focusing on the 4.2 million Californians that voted yes and building a grassroots movement with 10,000 volunteers.

In the meantime, the best way to avoid food with GE ingredients is to buy organic. Under organic certification standards, GE organisms and their byproducts are prohibited.  For many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers.

Join the Just Label It campaign. The JUST LABEL IT: We Have the Right to Know campaign is dedicated to the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, also referred to as genetically modified, or GMOs. The JUST LABEL IT message is simple: consumers have a right to know what is in our food so we can make informed choices about what we eat and feed our families.

Watch the video from the Genetically Engineered Food Workshop at Beyond Pesticides’ 31^st National Pesticide Forum at the University of New Mexico for a discussion on federal and local GE labeling efforts, including strategies to move forward. The video features Andrew Kimbrell, Eleanor Bravo of Food and Water Watch—NM, who helped with New Mexico’s labeling bill, and Isaura Andaluz, executive director of Cuatro Puertas and member of a federal panel on GE food issues (AC21, the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology  and 21st Century Agriculture). Additional videos from the forum, including keynote speeches, panel discussions, and other workshops, are available on Beyond Pesticides’ YouTube channel.

For more information, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering and Organic pages.

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

Sources: NYTimes, Center for Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2013)  We all know the problems we’re having with Congress these days, and all this turmoil comes together this week as the Senate returns to debate amendments to the 2013 Farm Bill.The country’s environmental and public health is under attack in the current bill — but at the same time there are some encouraging signs.

The fate of these proposals will have a profound impact on the future of food in the United States, as well as the health of people and the broader environment.

Beyond Pesticides has singled out several issues below that we urge you to act on today, before the Senate votes, in order to both maintain important safeguards for human and environmental health, advance organic, and develop critical protections for pollinators. Because these issues are complex, we are asking you to send separate letters on 5 key topics, which we’ve prepared with just 5 easy clicks!

1. OPPOSE Senator Joe Donnelly’s (D-IN) amendment to the Farm Bill that will reverse our efforts to take the hazardous fumigant sulfuryl fluoride out of our food supply
2. OPPOSE amendments SA 1100 and SA 1103 would remove commonsense protections from pesticide applications directly into our nation’s waterways
3. OPPOSE amendment SA 984 that will repeal a section of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that authorizes EPA to evaluate and restrict imported seeds that are treated with pesticides
4. SUPPORT Amendment SA 1027 to protect pollinators
5. SUPPORT Amendments 1093, 1080, and 1088 to advance organic food

More Information:

Keep Hazardous Sulfuryl Fluoride Out of Our Food Supply!

Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN) is introducing an amendment (SA 1122) to the Farm Bill that will reverse our efforts to take the hazardous fumigant sulfuryl fluoride out of our food supply. Sulfuryl fluoride has been linked to cancer as well as neurological, developmental, and reproductive damages. It seems clear that Dow AgroScience, the chemical’s manufacturer, is pushing this amendment.

We are on the verge of getting this hazardous material banned because even EPA agrees that public exposure exceeds acceptable standards. In the European Union, the chemical has been banned from any food contact.

This amendment would undercut alternatives. Sulfuryl fluoride is not necessary for the safe storage and handling of our food supply, so there is no need to block the currently mandated phase out. Moreover, the chemical is a potent greenhouse gas, with the ability to trap 4,000 to 5,000 times the infrared radiation as carbon dioxide.

There are many viable alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide fumigation, and neither fumigant is permitted in organic food production and handling. Please, tell your Senator we do not have to trade our health for those who want to use hazardous pesticides in food production.

Stand Up for Clean Water!

Senators Hagan (D-NC) and Johanns (R-NE) have both introduced legislation (SA 1100 and SA 1103 respectively) that would remove commonsense protections from pesticide applications directly into our nation’s waterways.

These highly controversial amendments would undermine the Clean Water Act and put our health and the environment at risk. If passed, these proposals would strip away critical protections from our nation’s rivers, lakes, and streams, leaving you to swim, fish, and boat on waters that are contaminated with carcinogens, hormone disruptors, and neurological toxicants without monitoring from state or federal officials. The environmental and health programs that are put at risk from this legislation have been in effect since October 2011 without any adverse impact on farmers.

Without the Clean Water Act, there are no commonsense backstops requiring applicators to at least consider alternatives to spraying toxic pesticides directly onto waterways.

These amendments would:

• Undermine federal authority to protect U.S. waters under the Clean Water Act;
• Allow spraying of toxic chemicals into waterways without local and state oversight;
• Not reduce claimed burdens to farmers since there is no burden as there is no real economic cost and agricultural activities are exempt, and;
• Contaminate drinking water sources and harm aquatic life.

Notification of Imported Treated Seeds

Senator Fischer (R-NE) has introduced a Farm Bill amendment (SA 984) that will repeal a section of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that authorizes EPA to evaluate and restrict imported seeds that are treated with pesticides.

This amendment would eliminate EPA’s authority to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment from pesticides that, by virtue of their incorporation into seeds, can find their way into soil, food, waterways, and the environment generally. EPA must be authorized to consider the potential adverse effects associated with residues of the pesticides in pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets.

Unless imported seed treated with pesticides are subject to review by EPA, the agency in the interest of protecting farmers, consumers, and the environment will not be able to evaluate potentially toxic chemicals that may not be allowed to be used for this purpose in the U.S. This is a critical authority, given that the reach of EPA does not extend to use patterns in the country where the seeds are treated before being imported. Therefore, EPA must be able to evaluate the pesticides on seeds, or treated seeds, once they reach U.S. borders.

Protect Pollinators!

Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) amendment (SA 1027) would be a step in the right direction towards protecting honey bees and other pollinators. In the wake of another winter of record losses (over 30%) for U.S. beekeepers, and with one in three bites of food depending on honey bees, it is critical that Congress adopt these pollinator protections.
Senator Boxer’s amendment would:

• Establish an interagency dialogue about pollinator health between the Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
• Create a task force on bee health and commercial beekeeping;
• Direct the government to regularly monitor and report on health and population status of pollinators (including bees, birds, bats, and other species);
• Compel agencies to utilize the best available peer-reviewed science on environmental and chemical stressors to pollinators, including international efforts addressing pollinator declines, and;
• Assess the feasibility for new public bee research labs.

Advance Organic Agriculture!

We are urging the support of important amendments that would advance organic agriculture and ensure investment in sustainable practices. Three amendments stand out: Senator Leahy’s amendment (SA1093) will improve organic funding through the environmental quality and incentives program. Senator Tester’s (D-MO) amendment (SA1080) supports classical plant and animal breeding, which will reduce reliance on toxic inputs. Senator Brown’s (D-OH) amendment (SA 1088) provides grants for local food systems and community programs.

Thank you for working with us on all of these important actions for the 2013 Farm Bill! In addition to sending letters, we urge you to call your Senators in Washington, D.C. at 202-225-3121. If you’d like more information, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or email [email protected].

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2013) A new study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, found that genetically engineered (GE) AquaBounty AquaAdvantage salmon can successfully cross-breed with brown trout, a closely related species. GE salmon, created by the biotech company AquaBounty, are designed to reach maturity faster than their wild counterparts and would be the first GE animal approved for human consumption in the United States. As a result of this study, the authors “…suggest that interspecific hybridization be explicitly considered when assessing the environmental consequences should transgenic animals escape to nature.”

The study not only found that GE salmon can cross-breed with brown trout, but also that their GE hybrid offspring could outgrow wild salmon, non-GE hybrid offspring, and even GE salmon. The GE hybrids also out-competed wild salmon and GE salmon in simulated stream environments, further stunting the growth of other fish. According to Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety, “This study highlights yet another ecological risk of these hazardous genetically engineered fish. The FDA’s [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] attempt to approve these gene altered fish without even analyzing these irreversible impacts on our native salmon and trout populations is unlawful and a gross abuse of their regulatory duties.”

In order to create the transgenic fish, Aquabounty genetically engineered an Atlantic salmon by inserting a Chinook salmon growth-hormone gene, as well as a gene sequence from an ocean pout. The company claims this engineering causes the GE salmon to undergo an increase in growth rate that allows the fish to reach market size in half the normal time. Consumer groups Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch and Consumers Union submitted a  formal petition to the agency in February 2012 to classify and evaluate the GE salmon as a food additive.

In December of last year, FDA announced its release of a  Draft Environmental Assessment  (EA) and  Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact  on GE salmon. This action was widely viewed as confirmation that FDA was prepared to quickly approve GE salmon. FDA then accepted public comments on the draft EA and Finding of No Significant Impact, and received nearly 2 million public comments opposing its plan to approve GE salmon. One of the obvious problems with the draft environmental assessment was that it limited the assessment to only reviewing the environmental impacts of the Canadian and Panamanian facilities proposed in the application. Documents discovered through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request indicated that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already received a request to import AquaAdvantage Salmon eggs into the U.S. for commercial production.

AquaBounty claims that the company’s process for raising GE fish is safer than traditional aquaculture, yet documents released by the Canadian government show that a new strain of infectious salmon anemia, a deadly fish flu that has been devastating fish stocks around the world, contaminated their Canadian production site. This information was not included in the FDA’s review.

Several food retailers have already promised they will not stock GE salmon if it is approved for sale by the FDA. Whole Foods Market Inc, Trader Joe’s, Aldi, and other food retailers representing more than 2,000 U.S. stores have committed not to sell GE salmon. “Our current definition of sustainable seafood specifies the exclusion of genetically modified [GE] organisms,” said a spokeswoman for Aldi.

For more information on the environmental hazards associated with GE technology, and national and local efforts to label GE food, 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.

Source: BBC, Center for Food Safety

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2013) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that unapproved genetically engineered (GE) wheat was found growing in an Oregon wheat field. The discovery has implications for U.S. trade as Japan has already indicated it would stop purchasing U.S. wheat exports.

According to USDA officials, an Oregon farmer sprayed his wheat field, intending it to lay fallow for the next year. Despite multiple sprays of RoundUp, the farmer found so-called “volunteer” crops unexpectedly persisted, just as GE crops are engineered to do. The discovery prompted him to send samples to Carol Mallery Smith, scientist at Oregon State University, who determined that the crops were infused with the RoundUp Ready gene. USDA confirmed the results but officials have declined to comment on how the seeds ended up in this farmer’s field to begin with considering Monsanto has not conducted field trials in Oregon since 2001 when it reportedly withdrew from the state.

Since 1994, Monsanto has conducted 279 field trials of RoundUp Ready wheat over more than 4,000 acres of land in 16 states. Tests have been conducted in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. After facing intense opposition from farmers and activists, Monsanto reportedly stopped its efforts to introduce GE wheat, but restarted extensive field trials again in 2011.

Contamination of non-GE crops, particularly for USDA certified organic crops, is a serious concern. Worries about harm to human health and the environment have prompted several state legislatures to consider bills that would require labeling of products with GE ingredients so consumers know what they are  eating. Additional legislation proposed by Senator Bill Bowman (R-ND) in 2002 would have allowed farmers in North Dakota the right to sue Monsanto if wheat was found to be contaminated with genetically modified crops. The discovery is likely to prompt similar legislation if not litigation.

USDA regulates GE herbicide-tolerant plants under the Plant Protection Act, however its scrutiny of the full range of potential human health and environmental effects has been  challenged by environmental groups as inadequate.  GE wheat is not approved to be grown in the U.S. or anywhere world-wide.

While the world’s biggest wheat importer, Egypt, has made no move to stop importing U.S. wheat, Japan has cancelled its offer to buy U.S. western white wheat. Meanwhile the European Union has prepared to begin testing shipments for the RoundUp Ready gene. These discoveries may have major implications for the U.S. economy, In 2012, exported wheat represented a gross sum of $18.1 billion, with 90% of Oregon’s wheat exported abroad.

“Nobody’s going to want to buy wheat from the PNW (Pacific Northwest) for a while,” said Roy Huckabay, analyst with the Linn Group in Chicago.

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.

Source: Reuters

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