(Beyond Pesticides, April 26, 2013) Female agricultural workers experience the same hardships as their male counterparts, but have additional responsibilities and danger at home and in the field, according to a report released by the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP). While women make up only 22 percent of agricultural labor in the U.S., AFOP makes a strong argument that women face disproportionate burdens, while at the same time earning less for their labor: On average they earn  just over $11,000 per year compared to male agricultural workers who earn $16,000.

Through hundreds of interviews and focus groups of female farmworkers in California and Florida, AFOP revealed some of the most dangerous  conditions associated with farm work, among the worst being pesticide exposure. Carmela, a farmworker from Florida, indicated in the AFOP report that, “More than anything else, we have problems with pesticides. Sometimes they put us to work right after they’ve sprayed the pesticides. And this is bad for us because when we go in the field and start working with the plants, it gets in our eyes. It makes your head hurt too.”

According to the EPA’s “Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 2000 and 2001 Market Estimates,” female farmworkers make up 39 percent of acute pesticide poisonings, despite making up only 22 percent of the agricultural workforce. Some of the most common complaints are headaches and eye irritation. In 2012, the American Journal of Industrial Medicine published a study demonstrating that women were are as likely as male farmworkers to suffer from pesticide related injuries and illnesses.

The report continues to highlight the impact of female farmworker exposure to carcinogens, including but not limited to pesticides; oils and fumes of farm equipment, radiation from the sun, and biological agents like human viruses also play a role in the startling cancer rates found in agricultural workers. Poor access to health care contributes to these trends. However, research has undoubtedly tied farmworker pesticide exposures to higher risks of developing leukemia, brain tumors, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to name a few.

Unfortunately, these exposures impact children of farmworkers as well. AFOP cites numerous studies linking agricultural work and pesticide exposure to birth defects, still births, and miscarriages, and provides stories of affected mothers. Several of these studies on US agricultural workers show that children conceived during spring planting, have higher rates of birth defects than those conceived during autumn, summer, or winter seasons. Many of these birth defects are debilitating, such as spina bifida which often leads to lifelong paralysis while others, like anencephaly, often leads to infant death.

Julia, a farmworker in Florida interviewed by AFOP, related a story of a friend exposed during pregnancy to pesticides: “I have a friend who was born without his feet. He was born that way because before they fumigated with a pesticide that was much stronger. Now the company doesn’t allow pregnant women to work.” While many companies do not allow women to work while pregnant, the law prohibits discrimination against women who are pregnant or of child-bearing age so many do continue to work with harmful chemicals.

In terms of regulations, the  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempts to protect farmworkers from pesticide exposure under its Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Under the regulations, growers must not only notify their workers when they are spraying, but also bar entry for a certain amount of time, depending on the chemical. WPS also requires that growers provide pesticide safety training to all farmworkers prior to contact with treated crops, and every five years after.  According to the AFOP report, growers frequently do not comply with the law: according to their research only 32 percent of farmworkers of thousands across the country, had been trained in pesticide safety. Additionally, 80  percent   of those farmworkers did not have the EPA certification to prove that they had been trained in pesticide safety.

On February 14, Beyond Pesticides joined with Earthjustice, Farmworker Justice, and a number of other environmental and farmworker organizations to submit a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson, urging for long overdue revisions to the Workers Protection Standard (WPS) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The letter states that, “EPA’s inaction is unacceptable given farmworkers’ persistent exposure to harmful pesticides and ineffectual enforcement of the current WPS.” This letter comes after a previous petition in 2011 stressed the need for the agency to implement stronger protections for farmworkers. This letter also comes after fears from environmental and farmworker organizations over a recent EPA handout distributed during a November 2012 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) meeting that downplayed the details of a 2010 EPA document released on farmworker safety. EPA has not effectively updated WPS for almost 20 years, leaving farmworkers at risk. See Daily News blog story.

“The pesticides used on the farms are being tested and OK’ed by the EPA,” said Valentina Stacki, author of the AFOP report  “But because there are so many different pesticides being used as the same time, no conclusive research shows the health effects of using so many of them, over a long period of time.”

AFOP concludes by providing policy makers with concrete recommendations for reducing this disparity between male and female workers. They support high living wages, affordable day care, buffer zones between housing, schools and fields, as well as increases to educational and outreach efforts for farmworker health and safety. Most importantly though they recommend that “when policy makers address the risk of pesticides, they should assume chemicals are dangerous to human health”¦integrated pest management and pest control methods that do not involve pesticides, should be promoted”¦”

Consumers too, can have a direct impact on improving working conditions of farmerworkers by choosing carefully what we eat. This is why food  labeled organic is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, and the protection of farmworkers and farm families. See Beyond Pesticides’ guide Eating with a Conscience to see how your food choices can protect farmworkers.

Source: Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 25, 2013) A new report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) finds that nanomaterials added to soil via fertilizers and treated sewage waste used to fertilize fields could threaten soil health necessary to keep land productive. The report, Nanomaterials in Soil: Our Future Food Chain?, draws attention to the delicate soil food chain, including microbes and microfauna, that enable plant growth and produce new soil. Laboratory experiments have indicated that sub-molecular nanoparticles could damage beneficial soil microbes and the digestive systems of earthworms, essential engineers in maintaining soil health. Other recent peer-reviewed scientific research showcasing potentially negative impacts of nano-fertilizers on public health and the food supply has been documented. Last month, Duke University published research which finds that low concentrations of silver nanoparticles in sewage sludge can cause significant disruptions to natural ecosystems. In February, a Dutch study revealed the harmful effects of silver imbued sewage sludge on earthworm health.

“In light of published research, the Obama administration should institute an immediate moratorium on fertilizing with biosolids from sewage treatment plants near nanomaterial fabrication facilities. A moratorium would give researchers time to determine whether nanomaterials in soil can be made safe and to research alternatives to building soil heath, rather than depending on fertilization with biosolids,” says IATP senior policy analyst Steve Suppan, PhD, author of the report.

Biosolids, otherwise known as sewage sludge, are composed of dried microbes previously used to process wastewater in treatment plants. As Beyond Pesticides’ points out in the Fall 2012 issue of Pesticides and You, these materials can be very hazardous to human health and the environment because they can contain high concentrations of toxic contaminants, such as pesticides, detergents, estrogenic hormones, antibiotics, dioxins, PCBs, flame retardants, and heavy metals. According to IATP, several researchers assume that nanomaterials are increasingly present in biosolids used as fertilizer on about 60 percent of U.S. agricultural land. Over time, the report explains, nanomaterials in these agricultural inputs can accumulate and harm soil health.

Nanomaterials are frequently advertised as a component of market-available fertilizers””designed to increase the effectiveness of fertilizers by making them the same size as plant and root pores””but because nanotechnology is an unregulated global industry, there is no pre-market safety assessment. Nanosilver, silver nanoparticles, consists of many silver atoms or ions clustered together to form a particle 1-100nm in size. Due to their small size, these nanoparticles are able to invade bacteria and other microorganisms and kill them. However, the long-term impacts of this new technology to human health and the environment are still unknown. Currently, the chemical testing methodologies for nanotechnology are outdated, manufacturers do not fully disclose the nanoparticles that are incorporated in their products, and there is a critical lack of governmental oversight and regulation. As there are no requirements for labeling nanoparticles in the U.S., consumers are largely in the dark. More research is urgently needed to adequately understand possible long-term impacts of nanotechnology.

“As agri-nanotechnology rapidly enters the market, can soil health and everything that depends on it can be sustained without regulation?” asks Dr. Suppan. “That’s the question regulators, researchers and anyone involved in our food system should be asking themselves.”

The report also details risks specific to farmers and farmworkers applying dried biosolids that incorporate nanomaterials, including inflammation of the lungs, fibrosis and other toxicological impacts. Biosolids, otherwise known as sewage sludge, are composed of dried microbes previously used to process wastewater in treatment plants. The material is increasingly being used in conventional agriculture, but its application is explicitly forbidden in organic production. This is because the sludge can contain high concentrations of toxic contaminants, such as pesticides, detergents, estrogenic hormones, antibiotics, dioxins, PCBs, flame retardants, and heavy metals.

With no regulatory system in place””in the U.S. or elsewhere””for producing, and selling nano-fertilizers, IATP’s report concludes by asking for governments to require robust technology assessments involving biological engineers, soil scientists, public health professionals, farmers and concerned citizens before allowing indiscriminate application by industry.

The only surefire way to avoid nanomaterials is food is to buy USDA organic certified product. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) imposed a  general ban over nanotechnology in its fall 2010 meeting, although USDA’s National Organic Program has never initiated rulemaking on the subject.  Overall, little is being done to review, regulate, or safety test nanotechnology that is currently being used in conventional agriculture and food processing, ingredients and packaging. Additionally, be wary of any lawn fertilizers which claim to be “organic” or “natural” but list ingredients such as “biosolids,” “dried microbes,” or “activated sewage sludge.”

It’s important to point out that the application of nanotechnology techniques to agricultural crop inputs is not necessary to feed the world. Good organic practices work to build the soil and maintain an ecological balance so that chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides are proven unnecessary. Scientific studies show that organic yields are comparable to conventional yields (read abstract) and require significantly lower inputs. Therefore, organic agriculture is not only necessary in order to eliminate the use of toxic chemicals, it is necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of food production. To find out more about the benefits certified organic products and production systems, visit Beyond Pesticides’ organic food program page.

Source: IATP Press Release

Download the full report: Nanomaterials In Soil: Our Future Food Chain?

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2013) Using the aquatic species Daphnia, commonly referred to as “water fleas,” scientists at North Carolina State University (NC State) determined that exposure to the pesticide pyriproxyfen impacted multiple generations, ultimately resulting in more male offspring, and causing reproductive problems in female offspring. Lead author Gerald LeBlanc, PhD, notes, “This work supports the hypothesis that exposure to some environmental chemicals during sensitive periods of development can cause significant health problems for those organisms later in life —and affect their offspring and, possibly, their offspring’s offspring.” The study, published in the journal PLoS One, provides the scientific community with new information on how organisms respond to the environmental signals resulting from pesticide exposure.

Environmental cues normally determine whether the Daphina offspring will be male or female, according to the researchers. This study is part of an investigation to understand the mechanisms involved with these environmental cues. The NC State team had previously identified the hormone methyl farnesoate (Mf) as an important factor in determining the sex of the organisms at the embryotic stage. The scientists exposed Daphnia to varying levels of the pesticide pyriproxyfen, an insecticide that mimics the Mf hormone. The exposure resulted in Daphnia producing more male offspring, and less offspring in general. Higher doses exacerbated the effects.

“At high concentrations, we were getting only male offspring, which is not good. Producing fewer offspring, specifically fewer female offspring, could significantly limit population numbers for Daphnia,” Dr. LeBlanc says.

Even low dose exposures, as low as 71 parts per trillion, had significant impacts on the reproductive capabilities of the organisms. At this concentration Daphnia still produced some female offspring, but those females experienced long-term reproductive effects, and produced significantly lower numbers of offspring even though they had not been exposed to the insecticide since birth.

“We now want to know specifically which genes are involved in this sex determination process,” Dr. LeBlanc says. “And, ecologically, it would be important to know the impact of changes in population dynamics for this species. Daphnia are a keystone species — an important food source for juvenile fish and other organisms.”

This study follows a long line of research showing the propensity for pesticides to affect reproductive and developmental health, even at low levels of exposure. As Dr. LeBlanc notes, pesticide exposures during sensitive periods in an organism’s development can cause long-term impacts. In an April 2012 study, researchers from the University of Pittsburgh detailed how the widely used herbicide Roundup can induce morphological changes in frog tadpoles. The researchers explained that the herbicide may be activating the developmental pathways used for anti-predator responses. This corresponds closely with results from the current study, which showed ability of pesticides to skew the environmental cues the organism would receive in a normal setting.

Evidence of multi-generational impacts from pesticide exposure is not isolated to animals like the water flea. A 2007 scholarly review, entitled “Pesticides, Sexual Development, Reproduction and Fertility: Current Perspective and Future Direction,” written by Theo Colborn, PhD and Lynn Carroll, PhD, pointed to studies linking the legacy chemical DDT to transgenerational health effects. Prenatal exposure to organochlorine pesticides has been linked to ADHD. In-utero exposure of organophosphate pesticides has been linked to brain abnormalities after birth. These chemicals may also affect the length of pregnancy and birth weight of infants.  The herbicide atrazine has been linked to increased incidences of both the congenital disorder gastroschisis and choanal atresia in areas where the chemical is more widely used. The widely applied mosquito repellent DEET has been shown to have the ability to cross the placental barrier, and women who applied insect repellents have an 81% increase of a male child developing the penile birth defect hypospadias.

Unfortunately, the public is not adequately protected by EPA’s current pesticide review process. An enlightened policy approach to proposed or continued toxic chemical use, in an age where the adverse effects have been widely and increasingly documented, is to first ask whether there is a less toxic way of achieving the toxic chemical’s intended purpose. Simply, “Is there another practice that would make the substance unnecessary?” Given the large number of studies in Beyond Pesticides’ “Pesticide Induced Diseases Database” linking pesticides to long term developmental and reproductive effects, lawmakers should consider the benefits of this policy approach.

Source: Science Daily

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April, 23, 2013) A report released by the Surface Water Ambient Montioring Program (SWAP) has found in California that “detection of pyrethroid pesticides in sediment increased from 55 percent of the statewide samples in 2008 to 85 percent in 2010.” The findings are among the results of the Stream Pollution Treads, or SPoT, monitoring program, an annual assessment of pollution in streams in California. The report also found that stream beds in urban areas have higher levels of pyrethroids that those in agricultural areas.

The SWAP report summarizes results of the 2009 and 2010 annual surveys and compares those results to the 2008 SPoT data. Beyond the 30 percent increase of pyerthriods detected in sediment, the percentage of highly toxic samples increased from 6 percent to 67 percent when toxicity tests were conducted at a colder temperature that more closely matched the normal surface water temperature in average watersheds. These results, according to the report, “suggest that current monitoring may underestimate the occurrence of parathyroid-associated toxicity using the standard protocol.”   The report also acknowledges that some pyrethroids, such as bifenthrin, may persist longer than others, and the chronic impacts of these pesticides may be underestimated by some of the sample results.

The report also found that watershed samples in urban areas have a higher concentration of these pesticides. Pyrethriods are in many household insecticides and pet sprays. Pyrethriods are also used in mosquito adulticide programs. The only pesticide that was found in higher concentration on agricultural watersheds compared to urban watersheds is DDT.  DDT is highly persistent and has been banned in the U.S. since 1972.

Synthetic pyethroids are synthesized derivatives of naturally occurring pyrethrins. Synthetic pyrethroids are toxicologically similar to the natural occurring pyrethrins, however, pyerthrins have dramatically shorter half-lives and are extremely sensitive to light, heat, and moisture. Pyrethriods are known irritants and can have a high acute toxicity depending on the specific formulation. Pyrethriods have also been connected to multiple symptoms of acute toxicity, asthma, incoordination, tremors, and convulsions.

Pyrethroids have been linked to chronic health problems. Many pyrethroids have also been linked to disruption of the endocrine system, which can adversely affect reproduction and sexual development, interfere with the immune system and increase chances of breast cancer.

Pyrethriods are highly toxic to aquatic organisms. Lobster shrimp mayfly nynmpsh and zooplankton are the most susceptible non-target aquatic organisms and pyethroids can damage the gill of fish.

This is not the first report to find that California has contaminated water. A 2011 report found increased levels of chemical pollution, including pesticides, in California water bodies. According to the report, which gathered monitoring data for 2008-2010, more than half of the state’s water bodies do not meet existing water quality goals and many still need federal pollution control standards. While federal officials maintain that the increases are due to improved monitoring and not new pollution, the data presents a more accurate representation of real world contamination.

Other states beyond California are battling with the issues that surround contaminated water.   SGS data indicates that U.S. waterways and groundwater are contaminated with toxic substances, including fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other industrial chemicals. Chemicals, even those detected at low-levels, are increasingly linked to serious health and developmental effects, well below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) drinking water standards and levels of concern. According to a Beyond Pesticides report, Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination, over 50% of the U.S. population draws its drinking water supply from groundwater. Once groundwater has been contaminated, it takes many years or even decades to recover.

For more information on pesticides and water quality please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters page.

Source: SWAMP

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 22, 2013) With honey bees suffering a devastating decline as high as 90 percent as Earth Day approaches, national environmental groups, Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety, launch a campaign called BEE Protective to support nationwide local action aimed at protecting honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides. Pollinators are a vital part of the environment, a barometer for healthy ecosystems, and critical to the nation’s food production system. The campaign launches on Earth Day when people and communities across the country come together to affirm the importance of protecting the environment for a healthy population and economy.

This grassroots campaign is part of a larger effort to protect bees from rapid declines spurred by harmful pesticides and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). The launch comes one month after beekeepers, Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, and Pesticide Action Network North America filed against EPA calling for the suspension of certain neonicotinoid pesticides.

“It is time for us as a community to come together and take action to protect our pollinators from bee-killing pesticides,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “We are providing the public with the tools needed to make a difference in communities, schools, and homes one landscape at a time -to nurture pollinators and support the essential services they provide.”

BEE Protective is releasing a variety of educational materials, including a BEE Protective Habitat Guide, providing information on creating native pollinator habitat in communities, eliminating bee-toxic chemicals, and other advocacy tools.  The campaign also encourages municipalities, campuses, and homeowners to adopt policies that protect bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticide applications and create pesticide-free refuges for these beneficial organisms. In addition to scientific and regulatory information, BEE Protective also includes a model community pollinator resolution and a pollinator protection pledge.

“These toxic chemicals are being used without scrutiny in communities across the country, so much so that we’re facing a second Silent Spring. A growing number of concerned citizens are ready to step up to protect bees; this new educational campaign will give them the tools they need to have an impact,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety.

Pesticides, specifically neonicotinoids, have increasingly been linked to bee declines. These chemicals are used extensively in U.S. agriculture, especially as seed treatment for corn and soybeans. Agriculture is not the only concern however, as pesticide applications in home gardens, city parks, and landscaping are also prime culprits in the proliferation of these harmful chemicals. The systemic residues of these   pesticides not only contaminate pollen, nectar, and the wider environment, but have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other species for pollination, the decline of honey bees and other pollinators demands swift action. The groups say that mounting scientific evidence, along with unprecedented annual colony losses at 40 to 90 percent this year, demonstrate the impacts that these pesticides are having on these fragile species.  BEE Protective supports a shift away from the use of these toxic chemicals and encourages organic methods and sustainable land management practices.

With today’s BEE Protective launch, the groups urge the public to take action to protect pollinators from the misuse of pesticides that are threatening our environment and our food supply.

–Read the Press Release
–BEE Protective Habitat Guide
–Sign the Pesticide-Free Zone Declaration
–Model Community Pollinator Resolution
–Check our out new webpage: Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind
-See Center for Food Safety’s Pollinators and Pesticides page

(Beyond Pesticides, April 19, 2013) The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is encouraging farmers to use a new mapping system in order to protect organic crops from pesticide drift, though few legal protections exist to actually stop drift from contaminating organic farmers’ fields. The system, DriftWatch, is meant to facilitate communication between growers and pesticide applicators by helping farmers identify locations of sensitive crops and pastures using Google Maps. Commercial fertilizer and pesticide applicators can then check the database to see where organic land and other sensitive crops/forages are in order to avoid applying chemicals in the vicinity of these crops.

Though the aims registry project are to promote awareness and stewardship activities to help prevent and manage drift effects from spray operations, as a voluntary program it does not provide much incentive for pesticide applicators to actually cut back on pesticide use. Furthermore, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a ruling last summer that initially considered pesticide drift from an adjacent property onto an organic farm a trespassing violation. While organic farmers may still seek relief from crops damaged by pesticide drift, the burden of proof required makes it  more difficult to take these cases to trial, thus making it more difficult for organic farmers to be compensated for their losses.

In Minnesota, growers may register grapes and other fruits, vegetables, Christmas trees, and certified organic crops and pasture. Driftwatch is offered by MDA through a partnership with Purdue University. Minnesota is one of nine Midwestern states participating in the program. Other states include Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. In Minnesota, there are 119 growers and 5,880 acres enrolled in the program; 2012 was the first growing season Minnesota used the system.

The program is not intended for homeowners, and participants must have at least one half acre of a certified organic or other qualifying crop in commercial production. However, pesticide drift is not only a problem for organic growers. Pesticide drift has been suspected in the tree deaths throughout the East Coast and Midwest. A 2011 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) finds that pesticide drift from conventional farming has poisoned thousands of farmworkers and rural residents in recent years. Pesticides can volatilize into a gaseous state and move over long distances fairly rapidly through wind and rain. Documented exposure patterns result from drift cause particular concerns for children and other sensitive population groups. Adverse health effects, such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation, may appear even when a pesticide is applied according to label directions. For more information on pesticide drift, read Beyond Pesticides’ report, Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities.

The best way to reduce pesticide drift and protect sensitive crops is to support organic agriculture at the check-out line. Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. For more information about the pesticides registered for use on foods we eat every day, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience guide, and the Organic Food program page.

Source: Minnesota Public Radio  

Photo Courtesy Ben Alkire

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2013) With hotter and more frequent extreme weather events, scientists say harmful algal blooms caused by pesticides and fertilizer inputs will strike more often in water bodies like Lake Erie, to the detriment of aquatic life and surrounding wildlife. All trends, show that the conditions that caused Lake Erie’s 2011 algal blooms will continue recurring. The algal blooms, which cause bright green scum that completely covers the Western part of Lake Erie, occurs from mid-July to October, in part because of farming practices surrounding the Lake and in part due to climate change.

Ecologist Thomas Bridgeman, Ph.D.  at the University of Toledo contributed to these findings in this month’s publication of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science entitled “Record-setting algal blooms in Lake Erie caused by meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions. “The 2011 bloom was a catastrophe. But it could become the new normal if we don’t do anything” said Dr. Bridgeman.

Importantly, the study concludes that “long-term trends in agricultural practices are consistent with increasing phosphorus loading to the western basin of the lake, and that these trends, coupled with meteorological conditions in spring 2011, produced record-breaking nutrient loads.” In short, Lake Erie’s algal problems are caused by agricultural practices, particularly fertilizer use, which provided nutrients for the blooms to grow. This is compounded by warmer weather, which allows the cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, to grow and multiply, causing  toxic effects.

For example, the species of cyanobacteria Microcycstis produces a liver poison that is toxic to aquatic organisms. While humans are unlikely to drink the water, fish and zooplankton do eat the cyanobacteria, harming their liver and nervous system. Those animals that eat or inhale the off-gas, like nearby shorebirds, are also at risk: “When it gets into the respiratory system, it’s incredibly toxic,” says marine biologist Michael Carvan, Ph.D.  at the University of Wisconsin.

Not only are these blooms toxic, they are also a sink for dissolved oxygen, causing so-called dead zones. Scientists say that the water chemistry of dead zones may also cause sediments that release yet more toxins, such as mercury, that they store in cool, oxygenated waters. While at the same time, the dead zones may store phosphorous and other nutrients in the lake that are recirculated during storms.

The results of the study have implications not just for long term management of Lake Erie itself, but also for farms alongside the lake that are a source of these algal-bloom causing nutrients. The study indicates that, “Three management practices ””autumn fertilizer application, fertilizer being broadcast on the surface rather than injected in the soil, and conservation tillage”” can create conditions for enhanced [phosphorous] runoff.”

While farming will no doubt continue around Lake Erie, so too will climate change. Ecologist and contributor Anna Michalak, Ph.D.  at the Carnegie Institution for Science urges the adoption of prudent farming practices that could save farmers money while simultaneously reducing nutrient loads.

For more information on pesticides and water quality please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters page.

Source: Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences

Photo Source: Great Lakes Echo

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2013)   Beekeepers in Bulgaria are revving up protests calling for a moratorium on the use of pesticides hazardous to bees, with a nationwide demonstration scheduled for Earth Day on April 22. The beekeepers are citing European and Bulgarian studies saying that neonicotinoid pesticides harm the immune systems of bees, shortening their lives and aggravating the mass disappearance of bee colonies.

At an April 10 march, beekeeper Hristo Stoikov told Bulgarian National Television that in the past three years close to 60 percent of the bee population had disappeared. If the government failed to act, Bulgaria would be left with no bees. Separate reports said that about 200, 000 bees died in Bulgaria in 2012, about 20 per cent of the country’s bee population.

The Union of Bulgarian Beekeepers is citing European and Bulgarian studies saying that neonicotinoid pesticides harm the immune systems of bees, shortening their lives and aggravating the mass disappearance of bee colonies. Beekeepers are upset that in the most recent European Union (EU)-level vote on banning the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides — clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, Bulgaria was among countries that abstained.

At the beginning of 2013, the European Commission asked EU member states to prohibit the use of certain pesticides on sunflower, canola, corn and cotton. This was prompted by a recent report by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) which concluded that the neonicotinoid pesticides posed a “high acute risk” to pollinators, including honey bees. However, the EU vote on the two year ban proposal of the three pesticides failed to gain a majority vote. Thirteen countries voted in favor, nine against, and the rest, including Bulgaria, Germany and the UK, abstained. The Commission is expected to redraft its proposals ahead of another vote. There are already some restrictions in place in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia.

While evidence that certain pesticides are devastating bee populations, Bulgarian beekeepers are insisting on the moratorium, saying that Italy had the same problem, but after it introduced a ban bee populations increased. Earlier this month, members of parliament in the United Kingdom (UK) called for support of the two-year moratorium on the bee-killing pesticides, rebuking their government for relying on “fundamentally flawed” studies and failing to uphold its own precautionary principle, saying that the UK must suspend the use of the pesticides linked to serious harm in bees.

Meanwhile, pesticides makers, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience, proposed an action plan to forestall pending EU restrictions on their neonicotinoid products linked to global bee declines. Stating that a ban on their products would not save hives, the plan focuses on implementing agricultural best management practices, planting habitat, and new research and development, all of which fail to seriously address the real problem that their products are highly toxic to bees.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other insects for pollination, the decline of honey bees due to pesticides, disease, pathogens, and a synergistic effect of other variables has prompted action from organizations around the world. Indeed, an abundance of scientific research has been released within the last year that convincingly link neonicotinoids to declines in honey bee health, honey bee deaths, and increases in bee disappearance during foraging.

On March 21, 3013, Beyond Pesticides joined beekeepers, environmental and consumer groups in filing a lawsuit in Federal District Court against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. The coalition seeks suspension of the registrations of insecticides -clothianidin and thiamethoxam, which have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, clear causes of major bee kills, and significant contributors to the devastating ongoing mortality of bees known as colony collapse disorder (CCD). The suit challenges EPA’s oversight of these bee-killing pesticides, as well as the agency’s practice of “conditional registration” and labeling deficiencies. See Press Release. Read the 2013 Lawsuit, Appendix A: Clothianidin, Appendix B: Thiamethoxam.

Source: The Sofia Globe

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2013) The spring meeting of the National Organic Standards Board just recently ended, and Beyond Pesticides is happy to report that the Board voted to stand by a 2014 expiration date for the use of tetracycline in organic apple and pear production. Six members on the Board voted to remove this antibiotic as soon as possible. The Board originally voted in 2011 to set the expiration date, but groups representing apple and pear growers in the northwest petitioned the NOSB for another extension, after years of repeated extensions.

Additionally, the Board voted to set up a public docket to receive year-round communications from the public on issues that the public thinks should be addressed by the NOSB and the National Organic Program of USDA. And, the Board committed to reviewing all sub-ingredients in processed food to determine compatibility with organic standards under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).

Beyond Pesticides has long pursued, as part of our mission, the widespread adoption of organic practices as the alternative to hazardous pesticides typically used in food production. Our organization is dedicated to ensuring the growth of organic through the building of consumer trust in production practices —that’s why we felt especially concerned about antibiotic use in organic apple and pear production.

Antibiotic use in a non-medical setting, such as an apple or pear orchard, represents a serious public health concern. This use contributes to bacterial resistance in human pathogens that are difficult to control with the same antibiotics when they are needed to protect us in life threatening medical cases. Organic is adopting practices and materials that replace antibiotics.

In the same spirit, the Board rejected petitions to allow in organic production new synthetic materials because of health or environmental effects, impacts on beneficial organisms, and questions about their essentiality or need, given the availability of alternatives. The Board rejected a fungicide (polyoxin D zinc salt) and a rooting hormone (IBA), as well as materials proposed for processed foods (sulfuric acid, barley beta fiber, sugar beet fiber, and DBDMH).

Here is a brief overview of select issues that represent a victory for organics -more background information can be found on our Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

Other Ingredients: There should be no such thing as “secret ingredients” in organic food. Thanks to you, all ingredients, even “ingredients within ingredients” in organic food must now meet the criteria under the OFPA.

Polyoxin D Zinc Salt: As a broad spectrum fungicide, Polyoxin D was inherently incompatible with the basic principles of organic production. The Board rejected the petition to allow this hazardous synthetic substance into organic production, where it could have negatively affected non-target organisms, including beneficial fungi, insects and aquatic species.

Indole-3-butyric acid (IBA): IBA, a plant hormone in the auxin family and an ingredient in many commercial horticultural plant rooting products did not meet organic standards. Due to consumer pressure, IBA’s unknown health and environmental effects, and the fact that there was no demonstrable need for the substance, the Board rejected the petition to allow IBA in organic agriculture.

DBDMH: As an antimicrobial wash in meat packing, DBDMH would have compromised organic integrity. This harmful synthetic was shown to endanger worker safety, and was expected to have detrimental impacts on soil microorganisms. Thanks to your comments, NOSB denied the petition to allow this hazardous substance in organic production

You also kept the pressure on regulators concerning contamination from genetically engineered (GE) crops. Preventing contamination of organic crops by GE organisms was an important subject of discussion at the Spring 2013 NOSB meeting. Your comments continue to put pressure on government agencies to respect the right of organic farmers to acquire seeds not contaminated by GE genes.

As the organic movement rapidly grows, we expect to sustain this positive momentum into the Fall 2013 meeting. Stay tuned to Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage for a detailed review of the NOSB decisions in April and for issues on the agenda for the fall meeting, to be held in Louisville, KY, October 22-24, 2013.

Note: One more antibiotic, also slated to be removed by 2014, will be on the agenda for reconsideration in the fall — streptomycin.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2013) British supermarket chain, Waitrose Limited, has made the decision to phase out the use of bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides across its supply chain. This is happening in lieu of strong regulatory changes expected by the European Union (EU).

The company, which has more than 200 branches across the UK, told its fruit, vegetable, and flower suppliers that they would have until the end of 2014 to stop using neonictoinoids, in particular imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam. These restrictions, delineated in Waitrose’s new Seven Point Plan for Pollinators, will eventually extend to some of their commodities, including oil seed and corn; however, the company did not announce any timeline for this phase-out.

The managing director, Mark Price, released a statement that said, “Waitrose aims to be a restorative retailer, putting back more than we take from the environment, and we believe our decision on the three formulations of neonicotinoids is appropriate until conclusive evidence is put forward about the effects of these three chemicals.”

The move follows in the footsteps of other high profile garden centers, hardware stores, and DYI retailers that have already stopped supplying these harmful chemicals on their shelves. Nevertheless, Waitrose’s commitment to the pollinator protection adds strength to the campaign for a full ban on neonictoinoids in the EU, despite current resistance by the British government, and pesticide manufacturers like Bayer and Syngenta.

As it begins the phase-out of neonicotinoids, Waitrose has also committed to fund research on the impact of multiple pesticide uses on pollinators, through the University of Exeter. The goal of this three-year program will be to investigate feasible alternative approaches for pest control, though whether those methods will be least-toxic is unclear.

As businesses like Waitrose take steps against the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, it becomes difficult for policy makers to ignore strong clear research that chemicals are detrimental to the health of bees and other pollinators.

Beyond Pesticides and our partners have petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend the use of these chemicals pending a full review of their effects on pollinators. A recent report issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) states that certain neonicotinoid insecticides pose an unacceptable hazard to honey bees. The EFSA report concludes that systemic contamination of neonicotinoid-treated crops, neonicotinoid dust exposure, and contaminated nectar and pollen contributes to declines in honey bees and weakens their hives. With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other insects for pollination, the decline of honey bees and other pollinators due to pesticides, and other man-made causes demands immediate action. For more on this and what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinators and Pesticides  page.

Source: The Guardian

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 12, 2013) A study released this month on termite pesticide applications reveals that women exposed within a year of pregnancy are almost twice as likely to have a child that develops a brain tumor. Research was led by Professor Elizabeth Milne, PhD., head of the cancer epidemiology group at the Telethon Institute for Child Research.

Published in Cancer Causes and Control, the article, “Exposure to Pesticides and the Risk of Childhood Brain Tumors,” studies whether exposure to pesticides a year prior to conception, during pregnancy and exposure during childhood were likely to augment the risk of brain tumors. Instead of examining household applications by homeowners, the study examines the role of pesticides applied by professional pest control applicators particularly to eradicate termites, spiders, and insects.

“The findings confirm what has been found in previous studies but we have been able to go a little bit further,” Professor Milne said. Interestingly, “The increased risk associated with termite treatments may be as high as twofold, while the increased risk with other pesticides may be about 30 percent.”

The study accounted for 303 cases of those that were exposed to pesticides and 941 families that were not exposed. Data came from across Australia to account for various environmental risks and predispositions.

The results indicate that termites treatment by professional applicators pose a much greater risk than insecticide treatments, with a 50 percent greater risk if mothers and fathers are exposed either in the year before or during pregnancy. While researchers found little evidence that treatments after birth were linked to childhood brain tumors, the study did not account for long term risks of developing tumors past childhood.

The findings support previous studies that indicate maternal pesticide exposure may play a role in childhood leukemia. Prenatal pesticide exposure has been linked to leukemia in older children. Few of these studies have looked at infants and toddlers or considered household pesticide use during the prenatal period. Also, most of the studies focused on occupational exposures.

Another study released by researchers at UC Davis and UCLA on “Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment,”  which found that almost all children with a normal diet in the study exceed the cancer benchmarks for arsenic, dieldrin, DDE and dioxin. Moreover, children exceed the non-cancer and cancer benchmarks by a greater margin than adults for all compounds.

Given such compelling research on the risks associated with childhood exposure to pesticides, the prevalence and persistence of  pesticides in our living environment, particularly in our homes, of concern. A 2009 study from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found the pesticide permethrin in 89% of the 500 homes randomly selected for sampling. Another study conducted by the School of Medicine at The University of Texas San Antonio earlier this year found at least five pesticides in the air of 60% of 29 homes occupied by pregnant Hispanic women. In 2008, researchers at Columbia University’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH) found PBO in 75% of homes occupied by pregnant women in inner-city New York.

To see more scientific research on the effects of pesticides on human health, including birth defects, see our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. For more information on what you can do, see our materials for new parents with tips on food choices and safer pest management, specifically designed for new moms and dads.

 Source: Cancer Causes & Control

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 11, 2013) A report released Tuesday by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) lays out an “Action Plan” to reduce farmer’s reliance on toxic soil fumigants. The plan was created by the Nonfumigant Strawberry Production Working Group, which was made up of scientists, growers, and other specialists. The working group was assembled in April 2012 because of the health and environmental concerns posed by the continued use of soil fumigants in strawberry production. The working group was asked to develop an action plan of research priorities for developing nonfumigant management strategies. However, even as the working group acknowledged the health and environmental risks posed by the continued use of fumigants, the plan remained conservative in its recommendations; it concluded that, “Even with full commitment to implement this action plan, the strawberry industry will need to continue its use of fumigants for years to remain viable in California,” even though growing strawberries organically without the use of fumigants has been shown to be effective.

The working group was most concerned about the continued use of methyl bromide. Historically methyl bromide has been used as a fumigant to eliminate the threat of soil borne pests. Methyl bromide has nominally been banned in industrialized countries by international treaty. The ban, which was included as part of the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances, is legally binding on all signatories to the treaty, of which the United States is one, having signed in 1987. It is also banned under federal law, as outlined in the Clean Air Act. These laws mandate that the substance be phased out according to a precise schedule, with 100% phase-out to be achieved by January 1, 2005. However, due to the “critical use exemption” (CUE) stipulation of the laws, which allows the chemical to continue to be used when there are no feasible alternatives, application rates have remained persistently high.

The report acknowledges that methyl bromide application has severe health impacts. According to the action plan, “Since 2003, DPR has documented hundreds of acute illnesses caused by accidental fumigant exposure to agricultural workers as well as people living near fumigated fields.” Methyl bromide has been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity and developmental problems.

Growers have tried to substitute other fumigants for methyl bromide. However, these substitutes can also have severe negative health and environmental impacts. Methyl iodide, for example, is known to cause miscarriages, thyroid dysfunction, and cancer but was approved by California state pesticide regulators in 2010 as an alternative to methyl bromide. In 2011  environmental groups sued the State of California for approving the agricultural use of methyl iodide. The use of this chemical was short lived and as of January, 1 2013 Arsta Life Science North America is no longer permitted manufacture the product.

The working group has recommended that further research be conducted on expanded breeding for genetic resistance to soil borne pests, soil health, and production methods. The working group found that there is little industry support for genetically engineered strawberries due to negative public perception and limits on exports to many countries. The plan also points out straw berry growers need more economic support to transition to non-fumigant alternatives. The reports suggested this could be done through grants or crop insurance.

The plan also pointed to certain organic production methods. One method that it studied was anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD). This method gives growers the ability to nurture populations of soil borne microbial organisms to favor strawberry growing without fumigants. The plan also called for the evaluation of short and long term crop rotation methods that have been used in organic production.

Though the plan highlights some organic production methods it wrongly argues that fumigants would still be needed for economically viable strawberry production. After reviewing the alternative stand-alone replacement non-fumigant options the working group found these methods lack the cost effectiveness, broad efficacy, and reliability of methyl bromide. According to the plan, “Working group members recommend continuing to research the most promising options that focus on fitting these into an integrated pest management (IPM) program.”

Though this plan is a strong step in moving away from toxic fumigants it does not fully acknowledge the alternatives that already exists in organic production. A 2010 study, entitled Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Strawberry Agro-ecosystems, shows organic strawberry farming results in higher quality fruit and healthier soils. To compare conventional and organic strawberry production researchers selected 13 pairs of conventional and organic strawberry fields in Watsonville, CA, the state’s dominant strawberry growing region. Researchers found organically produced strawberries, while slightly smaller than conventional have higher antioxidant activity, longer shelf life, and fared better in taste tests. Soils on the organic farms are also healthier with higher organic matter concentration and greater microbial biodiversity.

A 2012 study also found that organic farming practices in strawberry production result in much greater pollination success than chemical-intensive methods. The results “suggest that organic farming could enhance the pollination service in agricultural landscapes, which is important for developing a sustainable agriculture. The method made it possible to measure the pollination independent of landscape composition, soil-type and other factors that can affect pollination success.”

The only way to know that you are not being exposed to hazardous soil fumigants is to buy organically produced food. Beyond Pesticides advocates for the national conversion to organic systems planning, which moves chemicals off the market quickly and replaces them with green management practices. To learn more about organic agriculture please visit Beyond Pesticides organic agriculture page.

Source: DPR

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2013) In response to the United Kingdom (UK) blocking attempts to introduce a Europe-wide ban on the world’s most widely used insecticides – neonicotinoids, some members of parliament (MPs) from the environmental audit committee (EAC) chided their government last week for relying on “fundamentally flawed” studies and failing to uphold its own precautionary principle, saying that the UK must suspend the use of the pesticides linked to serious harm in bees.

The UK environment secretary, Owen Paterson, must end his department’s “extraordinary complacency” and suspend the use of pesticides linked to serious harm in bees, according to a damning report from an influential cross-party committee of MPs. The UK is blocking attempts to introduce a Europe-wide ban on the world’s most widely used insecticides, neonicotinoids, arguing that the scientific evidence is inconclusive. But MPs on parliament’s green watchdog, the environmental audit committee (EAC), said the government was relying on “fundamentally flawed” studies and failing to uphold its own precautionary principle.

The EAC report criticizes ministers and the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) for their “extraordinarily complacent approach to protecting bees”. The report calls on the government to impose a ban on imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, suspending their use on flowering crops attractive to pollinators. The report states, “Defra should prepare to introduce a moratorium in the UK on the use of imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam by 1 January 2014, and support such a proposal in the EU. “ It also argues that with several of the UK’s largest garden retailers, including B&Q and Homebase, having voluntarily withdrawn neonicotinoids their shelves the government should impose a full ban on the sale of neonicotinoids for public domestic use, in order to create an “urban safe haven for pollinators”. The report notes that France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia have already imposed partial bans on some neonicotinoids and criticizes the UK government for opposing European Commission proposals for a full moratorium on the three neonicotinoids on all crops attractive to bees.

Earlier this year, European member states failed to reach an agreement on the proposal to suspend neonicotinoid use on flowering crops over the next two years. The EU proposal followed reports released by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which found the continued use of neonicotinoids —clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid— to be an unacceptable “high acute risk” to pollinators, particularly honey bees. Three EU members, including the UK, opposed the plan to suspend, blocking the European Commission from attaining a qualified majority to adopt the proposed suspension. The EU proposal would have suspended the use of the three neonicotinoids from use on flowering crops like corn, oil seed rape, apples, carrots, and strawberries for a period of two years, with a requirement for subsequent review.

“The environment department seems to be taking an extraordinarily complacent approach to protecting bees given the vital free service that pollinators provide to our economy,” said Joan Walley, MP and chair of the EAC. “We believe that the weight of scientific evidence now warrants precautionary action.” Ms. Walley notes that the UK is failing to abide by the EU definition of the precautionary principle, to which the UK is bound through EU law, and which does not allow economic interests to trump protection of the environment. “If we signed up to it, why don’t we act on it,” Ms. Walley said. “They are interpreting the precautionary principle how and when it suits them.”

The report cites that the value of pollination lost because of insect declines could run to hundreds of millions of pounds and that “neonicotinoid pesticides are not fundamental to the general economic or agricultural viability of UK farming.” Ms. Walley went on to criticize the chemical companies that make billions from the sale of the pesticides. “They often try to pick holes in studies linking their products to bee decline, but when pushed to publish their own research and safety studies they hide behind claims of commercial sensitivity. What have they got to hide?”
According to the report, the UK “should strategically support insect pollinators in the UK to preserve biodiversity, protect the environment and sustain a key ecosystem service. We were not encouraged by the Government’s UK National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, which was a missed opportunity. The plan should be revised to make integrated pest management its clear central principle, with targets to reduce reliance on pesticides as far as possible. The promotion of integrated pest management is a key feature of the EU Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, and Member States are required to implement the provisions on integrated pest management by 1 January 2014.”

In addition to a suspension, the report calls for chemical companies to publish all their data and for a national program to be set up to monitor the health of pollinators, about which there is very little information at present. Syngenta and Bayer CropScience recently proposed an action plan to forestall pending EU restrictions on their neonicotinoid products that have been linked to global bee declines. Stating that a ban on their products would not save hives, the plan focuses on implementing agricultural best management practices, planting habitat, and new research and development, all of which fail to seriously address the real problem that their products are highly toxic to bees. Their plan includes the planting of more flowering margins around fields to provide bee habitat and food, as well as reducing agricultural dust emissions, best management practices, and more research into the impact of parasites and viruses. Not surprisingly, the proposed plan does not address the reduction of pesticide applications to fields where bees forage, or any concerns about the toxicity of their products on bee health. Most of the proposed features of the plan are already mandated under European legislation and have done little to reduce impacts to bee.

On March 21, 3013 Beyond Pesticides joined beekeepers, environmental and consumer groups in filing a lawsuit in Federal District Court against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. The coalition seeks suspension of the registrations of insecticides- clothianidin and thiamethoxam- which have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, clear causes of major bee kills and significant contributors to the devastating ongoing mortality of bees known as colony collapse disorder (CCD). The suit challenges EPA’s oversight of these bee-killing pesticides, as well as the agency’s practice of “conditional registration” and labeling deficiencies. See Press Release. Read the 2013 Lawsuit, Appendix A: Clothianidin, Appendix B: Thiamethoxam.

Source: Guardian UK

Photo Source: UC Cooperative Extension

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2013) Last Wednesday, close to a hundred people attended a public hearing at the Riverhead campus of Suffolk County Community College, sponsored by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), to comment on the draft of the Long Island Pesticide Pollution Prevention Strategy. The strategy, which was released in January, is dramatically different than a draft plan DEC had released in 2011. The draft plan had initially received praise from environmental organizations for its “zero tolerance policy”   to ensure certain chemicals did not end up in Long Island’s drinking water. However, the revamped strategy fails to offer any meaningful protective measures or strong pesticide regulations. This is concerning, given trace amounts of metalaxyl, imidacloprid and atrazine have been repeatedly detected in test wells, along with 117 other pesticides detected in Long Island drinking water.

State officials argued that pesticide levels in Long Island’s drinking water are far below federal standards. However, the pesticides that have been found in the drinking water have been linked to several health and environmental problems. Because of these health and environmental risks the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a grassroots organization working in Long Island, has called for DEC to ban the use imidacloprid, atrazine, and metalaxyl.

According to activist Adrienne Esposito of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, “We have 117 toxic pesticides in Long Island’s groundwater. Three million people drink that water, and what we need is a more protective plan. Stop protecting the status quo, and start protecting groundwater.”

Imidacloprid, atrazine, and metalaxyl have all been linked to health and environmental problems. Imidacloprid is a systemic, chloronicotinyl insecticide used for the control of sucking insects. Notably, the chemical is also a neonictinoid insecticide which has played a major role in recent pollinator declines. Neonicotinoids are known to be persistent in the environment, and when used as seed treatments, translocate to residues in pollen and nectar of treated plants, to the detriment of feeding insect pollinators, birds, and other beneficial organisms. Imidacloprid has been detected in Long Island’s ground water for the past eleven years.   Concentrations have been found as high as 407 parts per billion (ppb) which far exceeds the 50 ppb limit for drinking water. Imidacloprid has been found 890 times in 179 locations on Long Island.

Another chemical found in drinking water, atrazine, is used nationwide to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds, primarily in corn crops. It is widely applied in the U.S. and has been found in the drinking water supplies across the country. Atrazine is harmful to humans, mammals, and amphibians at doses below governmental thresholds, causing infertility, low birth weight, and abnormal infant development in humans. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service acknowledges that the chemical may also harm the reproductive and endocrine systems in fish species.

Recently, payments have been sent to 1,085 community water systems across the U.S. in the final phase of a $105 million settlement with Syngenta, the largest manufacture of atrazine. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found atrazine in approximately 75 percent of stream water and 40 percent of groundwater sampled near agricultural areas. Atrazine has been detected 124 times in 51 different locations on Long Island.

Finally, metalaxyl is a commonly used fungicide for food and nonfood crops such as tobacco, ornamental plants, trees, shrubs, and lawns. The environmental prevalence and effects on wildlife and ecosystems, particularly of newer fungicides, are poorly understood. However, 2010 study found metalaxyl and a dozen other agricultural fungicides in the waters and sediments downstream of farms and orchards in western states. It readily leaches in sandy soils, is highly soluble, and is persistent in water. Metalaxyl is acutely toxic, has been linked to kidney and liver damage, and is toxic to birds. Metalaxyl has been detected 1327 times in 546 different locations on Long Island.

Long Island is not alone in its problem with contaminated drinking water. USGS data indicates that U.S. waterways and groundwater are contaminated with toxic substances including fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other industrial chemicals. Chemicals, even those detected at low-levels, are increasingly linked to serious health and developmental effects, well below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) drinking water standards and levels of concern. According to a Beyond Pesticides report, Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination, over 50% of the U.S. population draws its drinking water supply from groundwater. Once groundwater has been contaminated, it takes many years or even decades to recover.

For more information on pesticides and water quality please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters page.

Source: Newsday

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

 (Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2013)  Given the rise of targeted plant and animal pests that are resistant to the tactics of the biotechnology industry, companies that produce genetically engineered (GE) crops have begun producing plants with “stacked” traits. For herbicide resistant crops, this means adding traits that incorporate crop resistance to increasingly dangerous and toxic chemicals, such as 2,4-D, a major component in the Vietnam-era herbicide Agent Orange. For crops engineered to produce their own natural insecticide, namely the toxin Bacillus thuringiensis, this means adding new formulations of the bacterium. Although this practice is widely considered acceptable and effective by the biotechnology industry, a new study from the University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, published in the journal PNAS, casts doubt on this assumption.

Most scientists assume that two-toxin plants will be more durable than one-toxin plants. The extent of the advantage of the pyramid strategy, however, rests on assumptions that are not always met, the study reports. “The pyramid strategy has been touted mostly on the basis of simulation models,” said Yves Carrière, PhD, lead author of the study. “We tested the underlying assumptions of the models in lab experiments with a major pest of corn and cotton.”

One critical assumption of the pyramid strategy is that the crops provide redundant killing, Dr. Carrière explains. “Redundant killing can be achieved by plants producing two toxins that act in different ways to kill the same pest,” he says, “so, if an individual pest has resistance to one toxin, the other toxin will kill it.”

In the real world, things are a bit more complicated, Dr. Carrière’s team documented. “We obviously can’t release resistant insects into the field, so we breed them in the lab and bring in the crop plants to do feeding experiments,” Dr. Carrière says. For their experiments, the group collected cotton bollworm ””also known as corn earworm or Helicoverpa zea”” a  species of moth that is a major agricultural pest, and selected it for resistance against one of the Bt toxins, Cry1Ac. In 2008, researchers found the first evidence of resistance in the cotton bollworm only 7 years after the GE crop was first introduced.

Researchers assumed that caterpillars resistant to the first Bt toxin would survive on one-toxin plants, but die when consuming two-toxin plants because they had not yet developed resistance to the new formulation. As Dr. Carrière explains, “[O]n the two-toxin plants, the caterpillars selected for resistance to one toxin survived significantly better than caterpillars from a susceptible strain.”

These findings show that the crucial assumption of redundant killing does not apply in this case and may also explain the reports indicating some field populations of cotton bollworm rapidly evolved resistance to both toxins.

Moreover, the team’s analysis of published data from eight species of pests reveals that some degree of cross-resistance between Cry1 and Cry2 toxins occurred in 19 of 21 experiments. Contradicting the concept of redundant killing, cross-resistance means that selection with one toxin increases resistance to the other toxin.

According to the study’s authors, even low levels of cross-resistance can reduce redundant killing and undermine the pyramid strategy. Dr. Carrière explained that this is especially problematic with cotton bollworm and some other pests that are not highly susceptible to Bt toxins to begin with.

The team found violations of other assumptions required for optimal success of the pyramid strategy. In particular, inheritance of resistance to plants producing only Bt toxin Cry1Ac was dominant, which is expected to reduce the ability of refuges to delay resistance.

Refuges consist of standard plants that do not make Bt toxins and thus allow survival of susceptible pests. Under ideal conditions, inheritance of resistance is not dominant and the susceptible pests emerging from refuges greatly outnumber the resistant pests. If so, the matings between two resistant pests needed to produce resistant offspring are unlikely. But if inheritance of resistance is dominant, as seen with cotton bollworm, matings between a resistant moth and a susceptible moth can produce resistant offspring, which hastens resistance.

Bruce Tabashnik, PhD, coauthor of the study explains that optimistic assumptions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have led to greatly reduced requirements for planting refuges to slow evolution of pest resistance to two-toxin Bt crops. As Dr. Carrière explains, “We need more empirical data to refine our simulation models, optimize our strategies and really know how much refuge area is required. Meanwhile, let’s not assume that the pyramid strategy is a silver bullet.”

Pest resistance is an inherent part of pesticide use. Farmers do not have to remain stuck on a pesticide treadmill that demands ever greater amounts of synthetic inputs and rewards chemical suppliers at the expense of farm profitability and the environment. A better option is to adopt organic agricultural practices, an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, and mechanical production and natural inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that chemical inputs such as synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics are marketed as solving.

Source: University of Arizona Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides,  April 5,  2013)   Beyond Pesticides’ 31st National Pesticide Forum begins tonight at the University of New Mexico, bringing together leading scientists, local activists, farmers, teachers and students to discuss organic food systems, building resilient communities, and bringing ecosystems back into balance —incorporating regional issues such as water scarcity and food sovereignty. Sustainable Families, Farms and Food: Resilient communities through organic practices will officially kick off with a performance of A Sense of Wonder, the story of Rachel Carson’s   love for the natural world and her fight to defend it, which is written, produced, and performed by Kaiulani Lee.

Recently added to the lineup of amazing speakers is  The Honorable Michelle Lujan Grisham, U.S. Representative for New Mexico’s 1st congressional district. She has done remarkable work incorporating the precautionary principle into state government, by creating an advisory panel which promotes action on human health and the environment. Among the key goals for this effort are indoor air quality, and integrated pest management. We are excited to have her speak!

Check out the schedule and speaker line up here.

Registration is $15 for students, $35 for activists, $75 for non-members (includes a 1-year membership) and $175 for businesses. Registration covers access to all sessions, including organic food and beverage. Online registration is now closed, but walk-ins are welcome!

The forum will be streaming live Friday  evening and all day on  Saturday at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/beyondpesticides.

Other Program Highlights:

Cutting Edge Science
Researchers in endocrine disruption, birth defects, learning disabilities and more. Featured speakers include:

• Joel Forman, MD, on his American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) organic food report
• Tyrone Hayes, PhD, UC Berkeley on frog deformities
• Isaac Pessah, PhD, UC Davis, on his research linking pesticides and autism as well as research which finds that the antibacterial triclosan impairs muscle function
• Lynn Caroll, PhD, senior scientist at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) on recent scientific literature on pesticides end endocrine disruption

Protecting Cultural Food Security and Biodiversity
Food and culture are indelibly linked both to each other and to the biodiversity of a region. Speakers will discuss how to balance the needs of all people to create a sustainable future. Featured speakers include:

• Don Bustos, traditional farmer, IATP Food and Community Fellow and program director for the American Friends Service Committee- New Mexico
• Clayton Brascoupe, founding member and program director of Traditional Native American Farmers Association
• Loretta Sandoval, owner of Zulu’s Petals Certified Organic Produce and Nursery, working to preserve local pepper and corn varieties

Organic Land Management
Researchers and practitioners discuss the most cutting edge approaches to managing land without the use of harmful chemicals.

• Lani Malmberg, board member of Beyond Pesticides and director of Ewe4ic Ecological Services which provides goat grazing service for noxious weed control and land restoration
• Matthew Chew, Arizona State University on non-native species and their ecological roles in nature
• Ann Adams, director of community services at Holistic Management International

Fighting GE Crops
From labeling food to preventing the planting of genetically engineered seeds, experts will discuss national and local policies moving forward. Featured speakers include:

• Andy Kimbrell, Executive Director of Center for Food Safety
• Eleanor Bravo, New Mexico Food and Water Watch
• Isaura Andaluz, Cuatro Puertas

Protecting Pollinators
Protecting against declining honeybee health and colony collapse, featuring:

• Les Crowder, Author of Top-Bar Beekeeping: Organic Practices for Honeybee Health and President of the NM Beekeeping Association
• Loretta McGrath, director of the Pollinator Partners Project at Farm to Table NM

Organic Solutions
Building resilience in our food system and bringing our ecosystem back to balance. Facing climate change, limited natural resources, and deteriorating agro-industrial infrastructures demand we reevaluate and change our dependence upon chemically-intensive agriculture to maintain a sustainable food supply. We will explore the ways in which policy, planning, and community-based organizing are localizing our food systems and making them more adaptable to physical and cultural change. Featured speakers include:

• Jeff Moyer, organic farm and gardening expert at Rodale Institute
• Richard Moore, program director for Los Jardines Institute which advocates for stronger
• Courtney White, founder and creative director of The Quivira Coalition

The conference is convened by Beyond Pesticides, University of New Mexico Sustainability Studies Program (UNM SSP) and La Montanita Food Co-op.Local co-sponsors include: Agri-cultura Network, Amigos Bravos, Cuatro Puerta, Farm to Table, Food and Water Watch NM, Holistic Management International, Mid-Region Council of Governments Agriculture Collaborative, New Mexico Department of Agriculture’s Organic Program, Our Endangered Aquifer Working Group, Skarsgard Farms, South Valley Economic Development Center (SVEDC).

For more information, including a full list of speakers, schedule and logistics,  go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum .

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2013) As drones have entered civilian life through police surveillance, commercial entrepreneurs are increasingly looking into innovative ways that they may be used for agricultural purposes, particularly for early signs of disease detection and aerial imaging of fields for farmers, but also for application of pesticides.

Drone-related legislation has been introduced in more than 30 states, largely resulting from concerns that the technology would be misused, abusing citizens’ privacy. These would prevent police from using drones for public surveillance. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is projected to allow the flight of  “unmanned aircraft systems,” drones, for commercial use by September 2015.

Currently, civilians that are allowed to use drones include only government agencies and public universities that receive permits from the FAA. Despite current restrictions, FAA estimates that with increased public acceptance there could be as many as 7,500 civilian drones in use within the next five years. In full agreement, is the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, which represents drone manufacturers, estimates the total economic impact of the technology to be $13.6 billion within three years of its release as a commercial product.

In part, universities have played a pivotal role in launching these technologies by researching ways that they may be used in the agricultural sector. Land grant universities in particular have become interested in aerial imaging of fields and monitoring of airborne plant pathogens. For plant pathogens, researchers at Virginia Tech have been researching drone use in the field to determine the presence of certain microbes that cause disease. Advocates maintain that learning about the presence of microbes like fusarium, a fungus that decimates wheat and barley, could be instrumental in catching disease before they spread to the entire crop. Similarly, aerial imaging of fields could provide high resolution images to farmers on which parts of their fields require tending.

Unfortunately, it also represents a new way for farmers to apply toxic pesticides to fields. While manufacturers tout the reduction of exposure to farm workers, they do not address the widespread aerial use of pesticides, a technique that is prone to pesticide drift, causing environmental contamination and degradation, with associated human health impacts. Given that pesticides can drift even when applied from a truck or a handheld applicator, it is not surprising that research  finds  that up to 40% of pesticide spray is lost to drift during aerial applications. Even when used correctly, aerial pesticide spraying is notorious for drifting off-site, as many pesticides are easily picked up by wind currents. Pesticide labels also often give inadequate information and unenforceable guidelines for applicators to reduce pesticide drift.

While the use of remotely operated drones certainly has the potential to give farmers better information about the health of their crops and how weeds and disease impact their crops, there is understandable concern that drones might eventually be used as pesticide applicators.

For more information on least-toxic weed management please visit our Invasive Weed Management page.

Source: Co.Exist

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2013)   Last week, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience proposed an action plan to forestall pending European Union (EU) restrictions on their neonicotinoid products that have been linked to global bee declines.   Stating that a ban on their products would not save hives, the plan focuses on implementing agricultural best management practices, planting habitat, and new research and development, all of which fail to seriously address the real problem that their products are highly toxic to bees. This new industry plan comes on the heels of the European Union (EU) stalemate on bee health, and after the EU food safety agency concluded that certain neonicotinoids pose unacceptable risks to bees.

Public and regulatory scrutiny is now focused on the class of chemicals — neonicotinoids— linked to bee health decline. Neonicotinoids have been shown by numerous studies to adversely impact the health of  bees, as well as  birds and aquatic organisms. Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, and Pesticide Action Network North America joined beekeepers and other environmental and public health advocacy groups to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for the suspension of the neonicotinoids, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The science continues to document these chemicals as impairing bee function, navigation and long-term health. Over in Europe, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience released a press release last week to “help unlock the EU stalemate on bee health.” Both companies adamantly state that their products are not the cause of recent bee declines. According to the release, “This comprehensive plan will bring valuable insights into the area of bee health, whereas a ban on neonicotinoids would simply close the door to understanding the problem. Banning these products would not save a single hive and it is time that everyone focused on addressing the real causes of declining bee populations.”

Their plan includes the planting of more flowering margins around fields to provide bee habitat and food, as well as reducing agricultural dust emissions, best management practices, and more research into the impact of parasites and viruses. Not surprisingly, the proposed plan does not address the reduction of pesticide applications to fields where bees forage, or any of the concerns about the toxicity of their products on bee health. Most of the proposed features of the plan are already mandated under European legislation and have done little to reduce impacts to bee. Furthermore, proposing to plant bee-attractive flowering fields adjacent to agricultural areas where pesticide-contaminated dust and pollen can drift for miles may only exacerbate the bee crisis.

According to the press release, Bayer and Syngenta identify parasites and viruses as the major culprit behind bee declines. However, recent studies by U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists find that low level pesticide exposures can in fact impair the immune system of honey bees, making them more susceptible to parasites and viruses which otherwise healthy bees can control. Other recent published  studies conclude that the neonicotinoids, imidacloprid and clothianidin, cause cognitive damage in bees. While the bees are still alive, the lobes of the brain fail to communicate with each other with obvious implications for their survival. Beekeepers across the country have been experiencing above average honey bee losses since 2006, around the time crops treated with neonicotinoids (clothianidin) became popular.

This new statement by the industry giants comes as Europe is at a stalemate over restricting these chemicals. European member states failed to reach an agreement on the proposal to suspend neonicotinoid use on flowering crops over the next two years. The EU proposal followed reports released by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which found the continued use of neonicotinoids —clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid— to be an unacceptable “high acute risk” to pollinators, particularly honey bees. However, three EU members opposed the plan to suspend, blocking the European Commission from attaining a qualified majority to adopt the proposed suspension. The EU proposal would have suspended the use of the  three neonicotinoids from use on flowering crops like corn, oil seed rape, apples, carrots, and strawberries for a period of two years, with a requirement for subsequent review.

EPA, which has federal regulatory jurisdiction over pesticides, has yet to act definitively. Recently, the agency hosted a “Pollinator Summit” which was led and overwhelmingly dominated by industry interests. The summit produced the same measures proposed by Bayer and Syngenta in their recent press release. EPA, taking industry’s lead, seems content to focus on short-term risk mitigation measures, such as reducing contaminated field dust. The agency continues to ignore acute and chronic toxicity, supported by the scientific literature, that neonicotinoids have on bees and other pollinators. EPA continues to fail to uphold its standard that pesticides must have a “no unreasonable adverse effect” on the environment.

Join us this weekend as we convene the 31st National Pesticide Forum in Albuqueque, New Mexico! New Mexican honey bee inspector, president of the New Mexico Beekeepers Association, and a beekeeper for over 30 years, Les Crowder, will address the forum on organic and natural solutions for problems commonly treated with chemicals, and the role beekeepers can play in protecting biodiversity. Join us in Albuqueque, New Mexico for a discussion on strategies that we all can take to protect pollinators!

 Source: Syngenta Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2013) On March 26, President Obama signed into law House Resolution 933, a stop-gap Continuing Resolution(CR) that allowed the U.S. to avoid a government shutdown for six months. The resolution contains the “biotech rider,” or amendment that takes away the authority of federal courts to halt the sale or production of genetically engineered (GE) crops, undermining the courts’ ability to protect farmers and the environment from potentially hazardous GE crops- a major violation of the separation of powers, an essential element of U.S. constitutional governance and law.  It would also 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. The rider, section 735 of the resolution, also dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” for the GE corporate  giant, was never voted on and was written by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), who worked with Monsanto to craft its language. This new rule will be viewed as a challenge for environmental organizations as courts have played an important role in slowing the growth of GE industry due to noncompliance with environmental law.

In early March, Beyond Pesticides reported that a coalition of over one hundred food businesses and retailers, and family farm, consumer, health, environmental and civil liberties groups, lead by Center for Food Safety (CFS) and including Beyond Pesticides, united to oppose the biotech rider and urged the public to contact their Senators and demand that Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski(D-MD) pull this dangerous and unconstitutional rider. Because the rider was adding to a CR that was needed to avoid a government shutdown, members of Congress were reluctant to oppose the resolution.  However, the rider has far reaching implications. According to Senator John Tester (D-MT), who worked to remove the rider and is the only farmer in the Senate, “If the USDA makes a mistake when it issues a permit to plant a genetically modified crop, they can’t go back and pull that crop out of the ecosystem, out of our land. If a court finds that, in this case the USDA, a federal agency, finds this crop is bad, is harmful, the USDA, because of this rider, is required not to comply with that court ruling.” According to CFS the rider will be law for the 6-month life of the CR. Beyond Pesticides, along with other consumer and environmental organizations, will continue to work to ensure this rider is not extended.

The rider also seemed to take some members of Congress by surprise. Many Democratic members of Congress were unaware that the rider had been added to HR933. The chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbra Mikulski released a statement asserting her opposition to the rider after her committee allowed it in the Continuing Resolution, “As Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski’s first responsibility was to prevent a government shutdown. That meant she had to compromise on many of her own priorities to get a bill through the Senate that the House would pass. She will continue to fight for a regular and timely Appropriations process and other valuable priorities, including food safety.” Senators Boxer (D-CA), Gillibrand (D-NY), Leahy(D-VT) , Begich (D-AK) and Blumenthal(D-CT) also worked with Sen. Tester to introduce an amendment to strip the biotech rider and preserve judicial oversight over regulatory decisions for the allowance of GE crops.

The author of the rider, Sen. Blunt, has deep connections to Monsanto, which is based in his state of Missouri. Sen. Blunt has received $70,592 in campaign contributions from Political Actions Committees (PACs) supported by the food and biotech industries which is the most received by any member of the Appropriations Committee and second most by any senator.  

The expansive planting of GE crops in the U.S. has already led to several environmental incidents. A recent study found that the dramatic loss of Monarch butterflies can be tied to the expansion of GE crops. Historically, milkweed has been the key source of food for Monarch butterflies. The weed was typically found in several key states where the butterfly feeds and breeds: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, parts of Ohio and the eastern Dakotas. But now these areas have been planted with more than 120 million acres of corn and soybeans genetically engineered to be tolerant to glyphosate, and many other herbicides, allowing farmers to use glyphosate to kill milkweed in and around farm fields. The widespread use of glyphosate with GE crops has similar effects in eliminating habitat in which honey bees and wild bees forage.

Weeds are also growing increasingly resistant to the herbicides used on GE crops. Farmer dependency on the herbicide glyphosate to solve all of their weed problems has led to the proliferation of so-called “super weeds,” which have evolved to survive the treatments through repeated exposure. The spread of resistance is what has led farmers to increasingly rely on more toxic alternative mixtures. In November of 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted an emergency exemption to allow the unregistered use of the herbicide fluridone on cotton in order to control glyphosate resistant weeds.   Fluridone is an aquatic herbicide used to control large aquatic plants and has not been assessed on endangered animals.

The proliferation of GE crops also poses a risk to a growing organic agriculture industry. Allowing GE crops to be grown close to organic produce increases the risk of cross contamination, as pollen from GE crops has the potential to drift. If organic farmers’ crops become polluted with genetically engineered pollen, they may be subject to financial losses.  In January, a local branch of GMO-Free Oregon filed a petition to ban GE crops in their county because farmers had been forced to throw away seed tainted with GE crops.

This rider is also 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.

Even with the rider setback, consumer, health and environmental organizations are gearing up for campaigns in several different states to require all genetically engineered ingredients in food to be labeled.

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 USDA Certified Organic Seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited.

For a discussion on GE food and biodiversity, join us for our 31^st National Pesticide Forum in New Mexico April 5-6. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety will be joined by local organic farmers and organizers, including: 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 the only member of AC21 to dissent the report on strengthening coexistence among agricultural production methods because of the undue burden it places on organic farmers. For more information and to register, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.

Source: Living on Earth

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2013) Two studies released Wednesday support the findings of the European Food Safety Authority that neonicotinoid insecticides pose an unacceptable risk to bees. The pair of British studies indicate that neonicotinoids and miticides cause brain damage, compromising bee survival.

The study, published in Nature Communications by researchers at the University of Dundee and Newcastle University, concludes that imidacloprid  and clothianidin, a commonly used insecticides on crops and plants, as well as the organophosphate miticide coumaphos, a treatment for Varroa bee mites, cause cognitive damage in bees. The research indicates that within 20 minutes of exposure to pesticides the neurons in the learning center of the brain stop firing, causing “epileptic type” hyperactivity. While the bees are still alive, the lobes of the brain fail to communicate with each other with obvious implications for their survival,

Another study, published in the Journal for Experimental Biology by a team of Newcastle scientists, links imidacloprid and coumaphos to learning and memory impairment. The research indicates that brain damage from pesticides makes it more difficult for bees to forage and find food, and when they find the food they have trouble locating and returning to their hives. In sum, the Queen bee starves as her worker bees fail to provide enough food, adversely affecting long-term colony survival.

Unfortunately, the effects of imidacloprid and coumaphos together are also additive, with bees less likely to learn and remember floral smells associated with sweet nectar stores ””required for survival. Indeed, “Efficient foraging by bees depends on their ability to rapidly learn, remember, and communicate the identity and location of flowers offering nectar and pollen rewards,” according to the researchers.

The shift from organophosphates and carbamates towards systemic neonicotinoid compounds over the past 10 years has brought a slew of concerns. Neonicotinoids are considered systemic, so they are applied to the seed and translocates into all parts of the plant as it grows, including the nectar and pollen that are eaten and collected by pollinators. These non-target organisms have demonstrated marked declines, although pesticides as a cause has been debated and denied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).   Studies such as these further establish the role of pesticides in the decline of pollinators.  EPA’s failure to regulate these pesticides adequately is all  the more troubling since one in every three bites of food is completely dependent on insect pollination.

To learn more about Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Protection Program, visit our website. We invite you to discuss this and other important pesticide issues facing farmers, homeowners, and communities around the nation, at Beyond Pesticides 31^st National Pesticide Forum in Albuquerque, NM on April 5-6. Organic agriculture, beekeeping, resilient food systems, pesticides, and much more will also be discussed. Space is limited, so register now.

Source: The Guardian

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2013) A scathing new report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sheds much needed light on the flaws in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide approval process, noting that in terms of the agency’s ability to offer transparency and rigorously test these inherently toxic chemicals, “the public’s trust is misplaced.” The recent lawsuit brought about by a coalition of beekeepers, consumer, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, emphasizes the harm resulting from EPA’s  abuse of the statutory  “conditional registration” program.  Through this program,  EPA has  allowed  the wide and growing use of the systemic neonicotinoid pesticides that are  linked to the dramatic decline in honey bee health and viability of honey bee colonies.

A startling number of pesticides, nearly 65% of the more than 16,000 pesticides now on the market, were first approved by the process of “conditional registration,” a loophole in which EPA allows new pesticides on the market without the full range of legally mandated toxicity tests. NRDC accuses EPA of misusing the conditional registration process, and their assertions are by no means unfounded. The report cites EPA’s own 2004-2010 internal analysis that ultimately determined the agency had misused the provision “98 percent of the time.”

Beyond the agency’s scurrilous use of the conditional registration provision, NRDC makes the important point that, “EPA’s database is seriously disorganized.” The agency has no tracking system in place to keep a record of the data it has requested as part of the conditional registration process. EPA doesn’t follow up on receiving that data, and when the agency does receive the data there is no notice to the public providing an interpretation of the new information. In fact, EPA provides no public comment period before the agency decides whether to fully register a conditional pesticide.

NRDC explains, “The lack of both tracking and public engagement makes it impossible to know: 1) if the requested studies were submitted in a timely manner; 2) whether the submitted studies were reliably conducted; 3) if the EPA’s conclusions concerning safety were well-founded; and 4) if the EPA should have altered its regulatory decision for any of those pesticides.”

Two conditionally registered pesticides of significant concern to Beyond Pesticides were emphasized by NRDC’s report: nanosilver and clothianidin.(a neonicotinoid pesticide).

Nanosilver, silver nanoparticles, consists of many silver atoms or ions clustered together to form a particle 1-100nm in size. Due to their small size, these nanoparticles are able to invade bacteria and other microorganisms and kill them. Silver nanoparticles (or nanosilver) are now widely impregnated into a wide range of consumer products, including textiles such as socks, sportswear, underwear and bedding, vacuums, washing machines, toys, sunscreens, and a host of others. However, the long-term impacts of this new technology to human health and the environment are still unknown. There are concerns about the material’s ability to travel through the human body and damage brain, liver, stomach, testes and other organs, as well as pass from mother to fetus, notes NRDC. Beyond Pesticides has recently documented the ability of silver nanoparticles to disrupt ecosystems, and harm earthworms by suppressing their immune system.

Beyond Pesticides also covered NRDC’s current lawsuit against EPA’s conditional registration of the antimicrobial pesticide HeiQ AGS-20, produced by the Swiss Company HeiQ Materials Ag and applied to a diverse range of textiles, including clothes, blankets, and pillowcases in efforts to suppress odor and bacterial growth. This material never went through the full range of required tests, even though EPA affirmed that nanosilver is different than silver, and cannot apply under the registration of conventional silver antimicrobials. Despite knowing that people would be in direct contact with this untested material, EPA allowed its conditional registration under the guise that its use would be in the public benefit. The agency explained that it would reduce the overall burden of conventional silver in the environment due to its smaller size. Evidently this was not a well thought out claim, as NRDC notes, “…nanosilver is not only replacing conventional silver uses, but also being sold for new and expanded markets, resulting in the release of far more nanosilver and toxic silver ions into sewage and water treatment systems, and ultimately into rivers, streams, and other receiving waters.”

And what if the necessary tests show that nanosilver is more harmful than conventional silver? Manufactures are not required to disclose whether nanomaterials are in their products. Without a defined labeling system that enables consumers to make an informed choice on purchasing products containing these untested materials, large numbers of people may fall victim to EPA’s failed regulatory system.

Large numbers of honey bees already have. In fact, 2013 may be the year that Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) impacts our food supply, as many commercial beekeepers are reporting that they will not have the colonies necessary to pollinate California’s almond trees. In 2003, EPA granted conditional registration to clothianidin without a field study that is considered core and essential to the issuance of the continued registration.

EPA stated in 2003, “The possibility of toxic chronic exposure to nontarget pollinators through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen has prompted EFED to require field testing (141-5) that can help in evaluating this uncertainty. In order to fully evaluate the possibility of this long term toxic effect, a complete worker bee life cycle study must be conducted . . .”

The registrant, Bayer, conducted these studies and submitted them to EPA in 2007. At first the agency accepted the corporation’s study, which concluded that their chemical had no effect on bees, but upon further review in 2010 changed its position and indicated that the study was deficient, and could only be used as supplemental data. To illustrate, Bayer’s study was so lacking that EPA could not even conduct a statistical analysis of the results, as the company failed to provide the agency with the necessary raw data. EPA indicated that another field study would be required in order to fully register the chemical — this after the pesticide had been in use for 7 years.

But in 2010 EPA gave clothianidin fully registered status. Bayer’s study was deficient and only supplementary, an adequate study had not yet been provided, but clothianidin received full registration. There is no indication to this date that the necessary study has been provided; however, independent scientific studies showing the harmful effects of clothianidin on honey bee colonies show clearly that this chemical is a cause of major bee kills and significant contributor to the devastating, ongoing mortality of bees known as CCD.

NRDC recommends that EPA corrects its flawed practice of conditional registration. The study proposes: “1) Review all previously conditionally registered pesticides and bring them into compliance with the law and with the recommendations of this report; 2) Immediately cancel pesticide registrations with overdue studies or those that are out of compliance for any other reason; 3) Properly document conditional registration actions; 3) Properly document conditional registration actions; 4) Establish a process where the public can comment on new data received to support a conditional registration; 5) Place all submitted data into a publicly accessible, updated database; 6) Use the conditional registration process only in the limited and rare circumstances described by Congress.” (Read the details of the recommendations here.)

Beyond Pesticides endorses the above recommendations, but advocates an approach that relies less on risk assessments in the registration of pesticides. Risk assessments determine “acceptable harm” that considers as  “acceptable”  uses that result in the death of  1 in 1 million people. Additionally, EPA’s risk assessment fails to look at chemical mixtures, synergistic effects, certain health endpoints (such as endocrine disruption), disproportionate effects to vulnerable population groups, and regular noncompliance with product label directions. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real world poisoning.

An enlightened policy approach to proposed or continued toxic chemical use, in an age where the adverse effects have been widely and increasingly documented, is to first ask whether there is a less toxic way of achieving the toxic chemical’s intended purpose. Simply, “Is there another practice that would make the substance unnecessary?” This approach does not preclude and should demand the prohibition of high hazard chemical use, those chemicals that are simply too dangerous.

The alternatives assessment approach differs most dramatically from a risk assessment-based policy in rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, where data shows clear links to 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. Cost comparisons must take into account externalities such as water pollution and water utility expenses, associated with chemical-intensive farming. The same is true for home and garden pesticide use and defined integrated pest management systems with prescribed practices and only specific substances as a last resort.

An improved process for conditionally registering pesticides is not enough. Regulatory restrictions must be tied to an alternatives assessment that moves chemicals off the market or prohibits their marketing as safer approaches and technologies emerge.

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

Source: NRDC

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2013) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in this week to revise a biennial report on impaired rivers and streams across West Virginia, after state officials, under pressure from industry interests, left more than 1,000 miles of polluted waterways off the list. EPA officials stated that the Clean Water Act does not allow the state to ignore evidence that streams are troubled. Water standards and plans for cleanup must be adopted for impaired waterways.

EPA reprimanded West Virginia from shirking its responsibilities under the law to list all of the state’s impaired streams, in spite of industry interference. EPA Region  3 officials are now proposing to add an additional 255 waterway segments where aquatic life is impaired to the state’s 303(d) list, named for the section of the Clean Water Act that requires it be prepared. Section 303(d) requires a listing of impaired streams in the state, and the list is used for water standard development for subsequent cleanup plans and restoration of the impaired waterways. States are required to publish such lists every two years. West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted The West Virginia Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report   to EPA for 303(d) list approval last December, but the agency found more than 1000 miles of polluted waterways left off the list.

Before the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, the Potomac River and other notable rivers in the U.S. were cesspools of sewage and industrial pollution. The Clean Water Act affords waterways across the country some protections from indiscriminate pollution from industrial and some agricultural sources so that waterways are cleaner and safer for drinking, boating, and fishing. However, according to available data, over 50 percent of waterways in the U.S. are contaminated with pollutants, including pesticides, which exceed federal standards.

On March 25, 2013, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved West Virginia’s 2012 303(d) list submittal. The list includes 1,176 waterways previously designated as impaired by the state, and an additional 255 waterways identified by EPA, based on the state’s current water quality standards.  The agency reviewed the information using substantially the same methodology that West Virginia has used to review this type of data in the past. In a news release, EPA acknowledges DEP’s position that it is precluded by a state bill from evaluating waters for aquatic life uses pending adoption of a new methodology for evaluating waterways.   However, EPA states it has an obligation to take action to ensure that the federal requirements of the Clean Water Act are met.

The DEP left many of those streams off the list as a result of a coal-industry-based bill passed during the 2012 legislative session. The bill, signed by Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, ordered the DEP to abandon its existing methods of measuring stream health and come up with a new set of rules to define when streams are considered biologically impaired. EPA in response says that federal law does not allow the state to simply ignore evidence that those streams are troubled while the DEP works on a legislative mandate to come up with a new way of deciding which of those streams belong on the list. DEP has for years used a measure called the West Virginia Stream Condition Index, or WVSCI, to grade waterways to determine if they are “biologically impaired.” EPA has been pushing the state to use another test that it believes is more accurate. State officials and the coal industry, though, oppose the EPA method.

In a letter to the state DEP, EPA regional administrator Shawn Garvin wrote that federal rules require states to “evaluate all existing and readily available water quality information” when preparing their impaired-stream lists. By ignoring available WVSCI score data indicating some streams were impaired, Mr. Garvin wrote that  the DEP did not comply with those federal rules. According to the West Virginia Gazette, EPA officials were facing a potential lawsuit by the Sierra Club and other citizen groups if the agency approved the latest Clean Water Act “impaired” streams list issued by the DEP. The issue focuses on a simmering controversy over the DEP’s failure to include hundreds of streams on a list of waterways that are overly polluted and need to be cleaned up.

Industry lobby groups have been very busy around the country persuading state and federal elected officials to support legislation that weakens the authority   of the Clean Water Act. In Congress, several pieces of legislation have been introduced to strip the Clean Water Act of jurisdiction of direct pesticide discharge into waterways. Under the Clean Water Act, in order to discharge applied pesticides into  the waters of the U.S., one must have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Industry claims the law is too burdensome on pesticide applicators. Additionally, the White House Council on Environmental Quality estimates that the recent sequester could reduce federal funding for state environmental programs by $154 million, which could dramatically affect the safety of U.S. waterways.

Waterways in the U.S. are increasingly imperiled from various agents including agricultural and industrial discharges, nutrient loading (nitrogen and phosphorus), and biological agents such as pathogens. Pesticides discharged into our nation’s rivers, lakes and streams can harm or kill fish and amphibians. These toxicants have the potential to accumulate in the fish we eat and the water we drink.

To keep up to date on Congressional and government agency actions, sign-up for Beyond Pesticides’ action alerts and visit our Threatened Waters page.

Source: EPA News Release,   West Virginia Gazette