(Beyond Pesticides, October 17, 2023) In the past month, Paris, France has witnessed a surge in bed bug populations. From public transportation to hotels, hostels, and movie theatres, bed bugs are posing a threat to the city’s two million residents and potentially a broader global population as the infestation spreads.  

This resurgence of bed bugs in Paris is not unique. For centuries, these pests have been both adaptable and persistent, presenting an enduring challenge to pest control. However, the current surge in bed bug infestations is not merely a revival of a longstanding problem; it is a complex issue intertwined with the development of resistance to insecticides, mainly through a mechanism known as knockdown resistance. This mechanism, along with three other main resistance mechanisms, has enabled these insects to defy chemical-intensive control methods 

Knockdown resistance is a significant factor contributing to the resistance exhibited by bed bugs to insecticides, especially pyrethroids. The mechanism plays a central role in countering the action of these insecticides, which target the nervous system of bed bugs, causing paralysis and eventual death. Knockdown resistance provides the genetic adaptation that provides bed bug populations with resistance to insecticides. It inhibits the effectiveness of certain insecticides. Bed bugs with the mutation have a genetic advantage that allows them to survive exposure to these chemicals. 

Insecticide has been utilized to quell bed bug populations for over a century, with DDT initially used to combat these pests before the 1950s. By 1956, the effectiveness of DDT in controlling bed bug populations began to diminish, as the insects developed resistance to the once-potent chemical. The repetitive exposure of bed bugs to DDT led to the survival of bed bugs with genetic mutations that allowed them to survive DDT exposure, giving rise to newer generations with the same mutations.  

The banning of DDT in 1972 compelled the United States to turn to organophosphates and, more recently, the commonly used pyrethroids–synthetic insecticides widely used for residential pests. However, there was an unforeseen consequence of DDT resistance: bed bugs with DDT resistance demonstrated resistance to other pesticides, including pyrethroids, even if they had never encountered pyrethroids. This phenomenon, known as cross-resistance, paved the way for a global resurgence of bed bugs and posed challenges for pest control worldwide.  

Knockdown resistance is linked to the voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSC) within a bed bug’s nervous system. These channels serve as conduits for transmitting electrical signals, enabling nerve cells to communicate and control the bug’s movements. Knockdown resistance arises from mutations within the VGSC gene.  

Scientists have identified three specific mutations in the common bed bug, Cimex lectularius: V419L, L925I, and 1936F. In modifying the function of sodium channels, these mutations make the insect less responsive to the effects of pyrethroid insecticides. As a result, the nerve cells of resistant bed bugs can continue to function despite exposure to these chemicals.  

Research has revealed that knockdown resistance is prevalent in bed bug populations, particularly those closely linked to human environments. Most bed bug populations associated with human environments exhibit the L925I mutation, which equips them with resistance to pyrethroids.  

This widespread distribution of knockdown resistance raises concerns about the continued use and efficacy of pyrethroids in treating infestations. Bed bugs with knockdown mutations possess the capacity to withstand exposure to insecticides, reducing the effectiveness of these treatments. As a result, infestations persist, inflicting discomfort, economic burdens, and health concerns upon those affected.  

Moreover, the insecticide resistance exhibited by bed bugs extends into other classes of insecticides. The developing resistance of bed bugs to neonicotinoid insecticides raises similar questions about chemical-dependent control strategies for infestations. Research has found that neonicotinoids, once thought by the pest control industry to be the silver bullet solution for bed bug infestations, are losing their efficacy as bed bugs from different regions are becoming resistant to them.  

In a study led by Alvaro Romero, PhD, and Troy Anderson, PhD, bed bugs collected from homes in Cincinnati and Michigan were exposed to four different neonicotinoids: acetamiprid, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam. The study also tested these neonicotinoids on bed bugs that had never been exposed to insecticides.  

They found that bed bugs previously exposed to neonicotinoids show higher levels of resistance to these insecticides. This resistance was elevated when compared to the levels of resistance exhibited by the bed bugs that had never been exposed to the neonicotinoids. It took over a thousand times more acetamiprid to kill half of the bed bug population with prior exposure to neonicotinoids, as opposed to the population that had never been exposed to neonicotinoids. This means the bed bugs in the Michigan and Cincinnati study proved to be hundreds or even thousands of times more resistant to neonicotinoids compared to the lab control group.  

As insecticide usage continues in response to growing issues of invasive species migration and insect infestations, the infestation problem will only grow worse. The situation in Paris is just one example of what is to come if pesticide dependency continues. The best method for handling infestations is by skipping the chemicals and following a defined integrated pest management system that prioritizes ecologically balanced solutions, and only allows organic-compatible products.  

Beyond Pesticides is committed to providing organic pest management solutions—including treatments for bed bugs–that hold health and environment central. If you find yourself dealing with a bed bug infestation, please visit the Beyond Pesticides webpage to access the ManageSafe Database, which offers the least-toxic control of pests. Also see our Bed Bug webpage, Bed Bugs in Public Housing guide, and other resources. 

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

Source: Ohio State University, Insecticide Resistance Research 

(Beyond Pesticides, October 16, 2023) After six years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally responded to a citizen petition requesting that the agency evaluate complete formulations of pesticide products, not just the ingredients the manufacturer claims attack the target pest (so-called “active” ingredients). EPA’s response: No. Nowhere in EPA’s denial of the need for a more robust toxicological analysis is the problem more evident than in its refusal to require analyses of the so-called “inert ingredients” or “adjuvants” included in various formulations of pesticide products. The citizen petition [see more background] was followed by a lawsuit for the same purpose in 2022.

Inerts and formulants are substances that enhance the distribution or adhesion of the active ingredient; adjuvants enhance the effectiveness of the active ingredient. These terms suggest that those chemicals have no effect on anything in the area where the pesticide is applied—a wildly inaccurate implication. At least as early as 1987, EPA had recognized that some inerts and adjuvants were “of toxicological concern,” yet it still requires very few toxicological tests of whole-formula pesticides or their purportedly inactive components.

EPA responded to the petition as follows: “[T]he Agency appropriately assesses, as part of its review, the impacts to human health and the environment, including potential impacts from pesticide products and tank mixes, and why the additional testing that the petition sought would not in general provide a better picture of the risks of a pesticide product. As a result, EPA is denying the request to amend the regulatory testing requirements.” The agency, in its announcement, cites a full response but the links provided do not disclose it.

Despite EPA’s description of the adequacy of its pesticide product reviews, analysts have pointed to examples of the deficient full product formulation analyses, exemplifying the failure to protect pollinators and the inadequacy of the  agency’s review of products containing the glyphosate weed killer product Roundup. Glyphosate—the globally distributed herbicide widely used around homes, gardens, schoolyards, and throughout communities—has been declared “a probable human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, while declared exactly the opposite—“unlikely to be a human carcinogen”—by EPA. Glyphosate entered the market in 1974, when EPA was in its infancy. Its use exploded over the next 40 years and is now marketed in hundreds of formulations including many adjuvants and inert ingredients. Toxicologists assumed that, because glyphosate affects plants by a metabolic pathway not found in animals, animals would be perfectly safe when exposed to it. Subsequent research showed that this is not true.

At no time have EPA or the original manufacturer of glyphosate, Monsanto (now Bayer AG)  found it necessary to investigate the effects of the “inerts,” or the combined effects of “active ingredients” and inerts used in glyphosate products such as Roundup. The 2017 CFS petition  requested EPA to “require testing and data on the actual pesticide formulations and mixtures in regulating pesticide use, and to consider the effects of actual pesticide formulations and mixtures on endangered and threatened species.” The petition used glyphosate and its additives as a case study. Again, EPA’s most recent announcement says it will do nothing in response to the petition, and presumably the 2022 lawsuit.

In a comment supporting the petition, Beyond Pesticides pointed out that because of its refusal to require appropriate testing and consider the real world in which pesticides act, “EPA may have no knowledge of the effect of pesticide products, as commonly applied, on chronic toxicity, mutagenicity, developmental toxicity and reproduction, or subchronic oral toxicity, inhalation toxicity, and neurotoxicity, when registering pesticide products.”

The 2022, the CFS suit against EPA, joined by Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR), Center for Environmental Health (CEH), and Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA), states, “Over half of so-called inert ingredients approved by the EPA for use in pesticide formulations are considered hazardous air and water pollutants of at least moderate risk. In fact, inert ingredients can be more toxic than active ingredients to non-target species.” Their complaint cites EPA’s statement that “inert” does not mean non-toxic.”

In parallel with pressing for inclusion of whole formulations and inerts in its evaluation of pesticides, the lawsuit also alleges that EPA has failed in its obligation to protect endangered species from pesticides. When EPA issued an interim decision in 2020, Beyond Pesticides, Rural Coalition, Organizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas, Farmworker Association of Florida, and CFS petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for review on the grounds that EPA’s conclusion that glyphosate posed no human health risk was premature. At the time, Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman noted that “EPA failed to consider if Roundup disrupts the balance of nature and ecosystem health, critical to the survival of a vast number of organisms on which life depends–from beneficial insects, such as parasitoid wasps, lacewings, ladybugs, and endangered bumblebees, monarch butterflies, to fish, small mammals, and amphibians.”

A separate petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council attacked EPA’s failure to abide by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Numerous industry groups representing growers of cotton, corn sorghum, and sugar beets, the American Farm Bureau and golf course managers filed as intervenors. Finally, in June 2022, a three-judge panel of Ninth Circuit judges came down on the side of all the petitioners. It said EPA’s reasoning as to glyphosate and cancer was “inconsistent,” and that the EPA had violated ESA. The court ordered EPA to complete its registration review, including revisiting the cancer and ESA issues, by October 2022.

From the Ninth Circuit opinion: “According to EPA’s conclusion in the Cancer Paper, glyphosate is ‘not likely’ to be carcinogenic to humans because animal-tumor and genotoxicity studies showed no reason for concern. But this conclusion is in tension with parts of the agency’s own analysis and with the guidelines it purports to follow” (emphasis added). The court saw what any reasonable person can see: That EPA suffers from severe cognitive dissonance. There is no reasonable explanation for this internal conflict but political interference, which has been documented to occur in glyphosate registration as early as 1976, and repeatedly since. Beyond Pesticides has covered this governmental and industry malfeasance here, here, and here.

EPA also issued a biological evaluation of glyphosate’s effects on endangered species in 2021. This document admits outright that 93 percent of all endangered animal and plant species and 96 percent of their critical habitats are likely to be adversely affected by glyphosate exposure. For each category of species—mammals, plants, fish, invertebrates, etc.–a large majority of species met the “likely to adversely affect” threshold. EPA listed no species in any category that would likely experience zero effect.

Given EPA’s failures, there is insufficient data about nontarget effects and the actions of inert and adjuvant ingredients in pesticides. Two California scientists—Caroline Cox, formerly with the Center for Environmental Health, and Michael Zeiss, formerly with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation—conducted a case study in 2022 on an adjuvant called a-(p-nonylphenyl)-x-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (APNOHO). They found that the chemical is included in more than 150 adjuvant products in California and identified as inert in a further 650 pesticides nationally. EPA does not register inerts, but California classes them as pesticides and identifies APNOHO as the most-used pesticide in the state. The California study found that the number of acres treated with APNOHO in California doubled in 20 years, reaching over 10 million acres in 2020. The authors also observed that EPA considers inerts “confidential business information,” which makes it difficult for the public and researchers to learn about them.

The European Union has identified APNOHO as an endocrine disrupter (ED), but EPA has not formally evaluated its ED properties. The California researchers found studies back to 1993 clearly demonstrating APNOHO’s ED activity, and a 2000 lab study showed APNOHO causing estrogen-responsive breast cancer cells to proliferate. It may be a more potent ED than methoxychlor and vinclozolin, two notorious active pesticide ingredients. Environmental studies of APNOHO have demonstrated APNOHO’s severe toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates.

This case study of one of hundreds of adjuvants and inerts illustrates the urgency of EPA’s failure to require their testing, yet there is no evidence EPA has seen the light. To add insult to a growing mountain of insults, EPA issued an outrageous letter to CFS on September 28. Despite all the intervening court rulings, its own misgivings about inerts and adjuvants, and its own biological evaluation under the ESA, EPA denied CFS et al’s 2017 petition to revise the agency’s testing protocols to include the chemicals that are mixed with the technical-grade active ingredients. EPA claims “the additional testing that the petition seeks would not in general provide a better picture of the risks of a pesticide product…the acute and chronic toxicity data EPA currently receives are sufficient for evaluating the potential risk from the registered use of a pesticide product.” EPA proposes some ineffectual steps, such as requiring more reporting of adverse incidents, rather than reaching for the root of the problem.

Conservation and environmental groups have not given up. In a press release, CFS lead attorney on the case Sylvia Wu promises that CFS would be “rigorously exploring and pursuing all next steps to protect communities and the environment.” EPA apparently sees no limit to its refusal to obey U.S. laws, which means more rounds of litigation while the agency delays.

“This failure on EPA’s part is yet another compelling reason to shift society away from dependency on toxic pesticides and to organic land management,” says Mr. Feldman.

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

Source: 2017 Citizen Petition; 2022-10-12-CFS complaint; EPA-Petition-Denial-CFS-9.28.23; Regulations.gov

(Beyond Pesticides, October 13, 2023) Will the chemical industry and pesticide-dependent service industry (e.g., conventional landscaping industry) trample democratic rights and force the allowance of pesticide use against the will of communities across the U.S.? The answer is unequivocally yes, they are trying. In fact, the industries’ campaign is now playing out in the U.S. Congress, as members deliberate on the next Farm Bill. Members of Congress who advocate the pesticide lobby’s anti-democratic position are telling constituents that they do not support their right to restrict pesticides more stringently than the federal government.

Please urge your U.S. Representative to sign the Congressional “Dear Colleague” Letter and uphold the right of local governments and states to restrict pesticides. Time sensitive: Please take action today (Friday, October 13, 2023) or as soon as possible. Thank you!

Advocates are clearly telling members of Congress that the long-held federal-state balance of local, state, and federal authority will be broken if the federal government steps in to deny localities the authority to control pesticide use more stringently than federal law. The history is clear. The U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier (1991) found, “[The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act] FIFRA nowhere seeks to establish an affirmative permit scheme for the actual use of pesticides,” and the law “does not equate registration and labeling requirements with a general approval to apply pesticides throughout the Nation without regard to regional and local factors, like climate, population, geography and water supply.” The law envisions local authority to restrict pesticides, with the federal law being a floor not a ceiling. FIFRA affirms the local democratic process to protect health and the environment, similar to local laws on recycling, dog waste, and zoning, affirming local policy powers. 

Members of Congress are now circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter opposing federal preemption of local authority on pesticide use. The Congressional letter emphasizes the importance of preserving the rights of state, county, and local governments to protect their communities and enact policies that align with local needs. The letter argues that curtailing these powers will undermine public safety and jeopardize environmental and public health standards. 

FIFRA grants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate pesticides in the U.S. Congress established FIFRA as a federal baseline (floor) for pesticide policies, allowing state and local governments to implement additional standards and restrictions tailored to their communities’ unique requirements and concerns. 

Many states and numerous municipalities have already enacted laws and ordinances aimed at pesticide safety, such as restricting pesticide use near sensitive areas like schools and parks, safeguarding drinking water supplies, and providing consumers with information to make informed decisions about pesticide use. Many of these measures also equip farmworkers with the knowledge and tools to reduce occupational risks associated with pesticides. 

The lawmakers who penned the “Dear Colleague” letter express deep concern over legislative proposals that seek to limit state and local adoption of pesticide restrictions. They argue that these proposals challenge the longstanding balance of federal, state, and local authority established by FIFRA. Moreover, these initiatives run counter to decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings that uphold the right of democratically elected local governments to address their community’s specific needs. 

It is of note that there are local conditions (ecosystems, health issues such as cancer clusters, elevated childhood asthma, or determinations of acceptable harm/risk/uncertainty) that local governments/jurisdictions, closest to the ground and the issues, are equipped to address. The lawmakers who signed the letter call on their colleagues in Congress to reject any pesticide policy riders that would diminish local authority and compromise the ability of Congress to pass bipartisan legislation. They emphasize the importance of maintaining a robust system of checks and balances that allows local governments to respond to the unique challenges and needs of their communities. 

Federal preemption in the context of pesticide legislation in the Farm Bill would mean a federal ban on local pesticide restrictions (often called a ban on bans), whereas currently local authority is a state question. Preemption language in the Farm Bill would mean the federal government can override (supersede) the authority of individual states to regulate their local areas, as long as those states meet the minimum standards set by the federal government (i.e., the EPA-approved label on the pesticide). Generally, the federal government will set a floor (in this case FIFRA) of basic rules to protect everyone in the country, and then states can choose to allow stricter rules at the local level, similar requirements related to recycling, zoning, dog waste, smoking, and water treatment. However, with federal pesticide preemption, the federal government is taking away the state’s ability to decide whether its local areas can have stricter rules than the state itself.  

The preemption issue strikes at the fundamental relationship between the federal government and the states. It is about whether the federal government can stop states from allowing their local areas to have stricter pesticide regulations.

Urge your U.S. Representative to sign the Congressional “Dear Colleague” Letter and uphold the right of local governments and states to restrict pesticides. Time sensitive: Please take action today (Friday, October 13, 2023) or as soon as possible. 

The targets for this Action are the U.S. House of Representatives.  

Thank you for your active participation and engagement!

Letter to U.S. Representative Requesting Sign-On 

I am writing to ask you to sign on to a “Dear Colleague” letter in opposition to any efforts to limit longstanding state and local authority to protect people, animals, and the environment by regulating pesticides. As Congress considers legislation related to agriculture, including the reauthorization of the Farm Bill and Fiscal Year 2024 appropriations bills, I urge you to ensure that state, county, and local governments retain the right to protect their communities and set policies that best suit local needs. 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) establishes the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the United States. Congress has long considered FIFRA to set a federal floor for pesticide policy, and under FIFRA, state, county, and local governments possess authority to enact supplementary standards. The majority of states – as well as hundreds of towns and cities – have adopted laws and ordinances related to pesticide safety. These include laws to restrict pesticide use near schools, parks, and playgrounds, protect drinking water supplies and wildlife, provide consumers with adequate information to make informed decisions about use and exposure, and equip workers with information and tools to minimize occupational risk. 

We are deeply concerned that legislative proposals to curtail state and local input regarding pesticide policy are contrary to FIFRA’s longstanding balance of federal, state, and local authority. These proposals seek to overturn decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings that allow for democratically elected local governments to address the specific needs of their communities. State and local governments are often best positioned to respond quickly to emerging risks within their communities, and proposals to weaken their ability to respond could have a significant impact on public safety. Preemption of state and local authority could result in an immediate removal of protections for communities across the country, with the potential to limit accountability for manufacturers who fail to adequately warn consumers about the hazards posed by certain high-risk pesticides. 

As the House continues its work in the 118th Congress, we urge you to reject any and all harmful pesticide policy riders that would both diminish local authority and compromise Congress’ ability to deliver bipartisan legislation for the American people. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Please use this Congressional Sign on via QUILL to join on the “Dear College Letter.” (This link only will work for members of Congress).

Thank you letter to co-signers of “Dear Colleague” letter 

Current signers: McGovern*, Mace*, Blumenauer*, Adams, Barragán, Beyer, Bonamici, Bowman, Troy Carter, Cartwright, Casar, Casten, Castor, Castro, Chu, Clarke, Cohen, Connolly, Crockett, DeSaulnier, Dingell, Escobar, Frankel, Chuy García, Robert Garcia, Sylvia Garcia, Grijalva, Gottheimer, Hayes, Hoyle, Huffman, Jeff Jackson, Jackson Lee, Jacobs, Jayapal, Hank Johnson, Khanna, Barbara Lee, Leger Fernandez, Lieu, Lofgren, Lynch, McClellan, McCollum, Meng, Mfume, Moulton, Mullin, Nadler, Neguse, Norcross, Norton, Ocasio-Cortez, Pappas, Payne, Pettersen, Pingree, Porter, Pressley, Quigley, Ramirez, Raskin, Ross, Ruiz, Ruppersberger, Sánchez, Schakowsky, Schneider, Stansbury, Swalwell, Thanedar, Titus, Tlaib, Tokuda, Trone, Vargas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson Coleman, Wexton, Nikema Williams, Frederica Wilson.

I am writing to thank you for signing on to a “Dear Colleague” letter in opposition to any efforts to limit longstanding state and local authority to protect people, animals, and the environment by regulating pesticides. As Congress considers legislation related to agriculture, including the reauthorization of the Farm Bill and Fiscal Year 2024 appropriations bills, I appreciate your efforts to ensure that state, county, and local governments retain the right to protect their communities and set policies that best suit local needs. 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) establishes the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the United States. Congress has long considered FIFRA to set a federal floor for pesticide policy, and under FIFRA, state, county, and local governments possess authority to enact supplementary standards. The majority of states – as well as hundreds of towns and cities – have adopted laws and ordinances related to pesticide safety. These include laws to restrict pesticide use near schools, parks, and playgrounds, protect drinking water supplies and wildlife, provide consumers with adequate information to make informed decisions about use and exposure, and equip workers with information and tools to minimize occupational risk. 

We are deeply concerned that legislative proposals to curtail state and local input regarding pesticide policy are contrary to FIFRA’s longstanding balance of federal, state, and local authority. These proposals seek to overturn decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings that allow for democratically elected local governments to address the specific needs of their communities. State and local governments are often best positioned to respond quickly to emerging risks within their communities, and proposals to weaken their ability to respond could have a significant impact on public safety. Preemption of state and local authority could result in an immediate removal of protections for communities across the country, with the potential to limit accountability for manufacturers who fail to adequately warn consumers about the hazards posed by certain high-risk pesticides. 

As the House continues its work in the 118th Congress, we urge you to reject any and all harmful pesticide policy riders that would both diminish local authority and compromise Congress’ ability to deliver bipartisan legislation for the American people. Thank you for considering this request and I appreciate your work on this. 

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 12, 2023) A new study published in Environment International finds novel environmental chemicals (i.e., piperidine insecticide, 2,4-dinitrophenol, benzo[a]carbazole, and a benzoate derivative) involved in developing breast cancer through various inflammation pathways. These new potential factors contribute to breast cancer and highlight the importance of employing epidemiological biomonitoring like exposome (total exposure from birth to death) to discover mechanisms involved in disease development that are otherwise overlooked. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), breast cancer is a disease that causes breast cells to grow out of control, with the type of breast cancer depending on the cells themselves. Several studies and reports, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, identify hundreds of chemicals as influential factors (either promoting or initiating) associated with breast cancer risk.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, accounting for 12 percent of all new annual cancer cases worldwide and causing the second most cancer-related deaths in the United States. Past studies suggest genetic inheritance factors influence breast cancer occurrence. However, genetic factors only play a minor role in the incidence of breast cancer, while exposure to external environmental factors (e.g., chemical exposure) appears to play a more notable role. One in ten women will receive a breast cancer diagnosis, and genetics can only account for five to ten percent of cases. There are grave concerns over exposure to endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals and pollutants that cause adverse health effects. Therefore, studies like these highlight the need to investigate how first-generation pesticide exposure can impact future generational health to prevent adverse health outcomes, especially during sensitive developmental periods (i.e., in utero, infancy/childhood). 

This study employs omics scale (cell constituents) biomonitoring to determine associations with a disease, also known as “exposome epidemiology.” The goal is to investigate potential new environmental factors influencing breast cancer risk. Using nontargeted, high-resolution mass spectrometry, researchers test the association between pregnancy cohorts from the Child Health and Development Studies (CHDS) and breast cancer incidence from the California Cancer Registry. The research evaluates second and third-trimester samples from the CHDS database to analyze environmental chemicals involved in the development of breast cancer among 182 women and 384 randomly selected women who did not develop breast cancer. Researchers distinguish environmental chemicals using the Toxin and Toxin-Target Database to determine chemical signals with the highest association in breast cancer cases. Researchers employ the exposome epidemiology analysis to establish a framework that identifies suspected chemicals. The study results find that exposure to environmental chemicals during the second and third trimesters exacerbates inflammation pathways associated with breast cancer, including linoleate, arachidonic acid, and prostaglandins. These chemicals include an N-substituted piperidine insecticide, 2,4-dinitrophenol, benzo[a]carbazole, and a benzoate derivative linked to glycan and amino sugar metabolism.

Inheritance of health issues spanning generations relating to hereditary influence is a familiar phenomenon. However, this study demonstrates multigenerational/transgenerational health problems from chemical exposure, a non-genetic factor. Epigenetic changes occur through environmental factors that alter gene expression that can impact multiple future generations. Considering two-thirds of all breast cancer incidences are related to factors outside of heritable gene mutations (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2), chemical exposure can explain the increasing rates of breast cancer. Many studies have long shown that childhood and in-utero exposure to environmental chemicals increases the risk of developing breast cancer later in life. According to multiple studies, glyphosate exposure has adverse multigenerational effects, causing negligible observable effects on pregnant rodents but severe effects on the two subsequent generations. Recent research from the Silent Spring Institute links 28 different EPA-registered pesticides with the development of mammary gland tumors in animal studies. Many of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors and thus have implications for breast cancer risk. Household cleaners, mainly pesticides, contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals that increase breast cancer risk. Furthermore, long-term exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides increases adverse health and cancer risk, specifically among women. Since DDT/DDE residues, current-use pesticides, and other chemical pollutants contaminate the environment, exposure to these chemical mixtures can synergize to increase toxicity and disease effects.

Pregnancy provides the most appropriate timeframe to study potential disease development, especially for the initiation, progression, and susceptibility to breast cancer. Past studies note later age pregnancy is a significant breast cancer risk factor, which is considerable given birth rates have increased six-fold for women ages 35–39. Thus, the study calls for a “more detailed understanding of the respective contributions and interactions must be a priority to learn how to mitigate risk for this population group of higher risk women.”

The exposome epidemiology approach that this study uses is essential as it assumes “chemical exposures which increase cancer risk can occur decades before breast cancer occurrence, that these exposures are detectable and at higher abundance in serum decades before breast cancer detection, and that network analyses of HRM [high-resolution metabolomics] data are sufficient to detect these exposures and link them to biologic responses.” Considering research over the past 50 years lacks development of a strategy to prevent breast cancer, using the exposome approach can allow analysis to more readily identify chemical carcinogens and the pathways involved in disease development.

Past research demonstrates the mechanism by which cancer can develop after pesticides enter the bloodstream. In 2013, an experimental study showed that pesticide exposure produces volatile reactive oxygen species (ROS) that cause potential DNA and cell damage that propagates cancer development. Additionally, pesticides can increase cancer risk through alternate mechanisms, including genotoxicity (gene damage), epigenetics (gene expression), immunotoxicity, tumors, and endocrine disruption. Accordingly, this study advocates for the integration of omics scale biomonitoring (exposome epidemiology) with these other risk factors to enhance prediction and intervention strategies, subsequently decreasing the disease burden. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmental pollution from pesticides—can drive breast cancer development, as female health risks need urgent concerns.

Prevention of the causes of breast cancer, not just awareness, is critical to solving this disease. In 1985, Imperial Chemical Industries and the American Cancer Society declared October “Breast Cancer Awareness Month” as part of a campaign to promote mammograms for the early detection of breast cancer. Unfortunately, most people are all too aware of breast cancer. Detection and treatment of cancers do not prevent the problem.

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Much pesticide use and exposure are associated with cancer effects. Studies concerning pesticides and cancer help future epidemiological research understand the underlying mechanisms that cause cancer. Although the link between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses is stark, over 63 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent of commonly used school pesticides have links to cancer. Advocates argue that global leaders must fully understand the cause of pesticide-induced diseases before the chemicals enter the environment. Policy reform and practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use can end the uncertainty surrounding potential harm. For more information on the multiple health effects associated with pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database pages on breast cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases. This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency.

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

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

Source: Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, October 11, 2023) Rachel Carson Conservation Park, a 650-acre conservation area in Montgomery County, Maryland, named in honor of the renowned scientist and author Rachel Carson, is now at the center of a controversy surrounding the use of toxic herbicides. Ms. Carson played a pivotal role in raising awareness about the harmful ecosystem and human health effects of pesticides that led to the banning of DDT. Environmentalists and concerned citizens have raised alarm over the recent spraying of “invasive weeds” with Garlon 3A, a powerful herbicide, within the park’s boundaries.

Concern about pesticide use in Montgomery County is complicated by competing jurisdictions and restrictions within the county, and highlights the stark difference between nontoxic organic practices and pesticide-dependent Integrated Pest Management. (See more below on Montgomery County land management policy for local parks.) According to the Montgomery County website: “Montgomery County Parks [Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission or M-NCPPC] are a State agency. M-NCPPC operates under an integrated pest management plan (IPM). Montgomery Parks manages all playgrounds, community gardens and common lawn areas within local parks without the use of pesticides. In 2016, Montgomery Parks designated ten pesticide-free parks. In September 2019, the program expanded to 45 pesticide-free parks. They post advance notification of pesticide applications on their website.” For a full list of pesticide applications in Montgomery County Parks, visit the county website.

Ms. Carson, the author of the groundbreaking book Silent Spring, is celebrated for her tireless efforts in advocating for the protection of the environment and wildlife. Her work empowered an awareness of “complex biological communities against which [pesticides] have been blindly hurled,” sparking a global awakening to the dangers of chemical pollutants. Her words are particularly poignant and predictive given the United Nation’s (UN) warning of biodiversity collapse and the findings of the UN’s Conference of the Parties (December 2022) to the Convention on Biological Diversity: “Despite ongoing efforts, biodiversity is deteriorating worldwide, and this decline is projected to worsen with business-as-usual. The loss of biodiversity comes at a great cost for human well-being and the global economy.” In the context of what was known when her book was published in 1962, Ms. Carson stressed the importance of adopting alternatives, noting, “We must make wider use of alternative methods that are now known, and we must devote our ingenuity and resources to developing others.”

The controversy surrounding the use of Garlon 3A in Rachel Carson Conservation Park prompts reflection on Rachel Carson’s enduring legacy about the adverse consequences of chemical pollutants on the environment and the need for alternatives. Ms. Carson’s seminal work cautioned against indiscriminate attempts to manipulate nature, a message that remains as urgent today amid contemporary environmental challenges as it did over half a century ago. Her enduring legacy endorses the melodious chorus of birds in the treetops and the constructive endeavors on the ground below, perpetuated by countless individuals who have drawn inspiration from her words and actions.

Jenny Kay, PhD, a scientist at the Silent Spring Institute who researches carcinogenicity and toxicology, told Beyond Pesticides, “It’s unfortunate and ironic that pesticides are being applied to the grounds at the Rachel Carson Conservation Park, named in honor of the pioneer of the environmental movement who first raised the alarm about the indiscriminate spraying of pesticides and their potential effects on human health and wildlife. Even more ironic, they have chosen a pesticide, triclopyr, that causes mammary tumors in animals and could increase the risk of breast cancer, the very disease that ended Carson’s life before she could see the revolution she started.”

The use of Garlon 3A within the boundaries of Rachel Carson Conservation Park has ignited controversy among environmentalists, park enthusiasts, and local residents. Concerned citizens argue that the application of a toxic herbicide within a park bearing Rachel Carson’s name is contradictory to her environmental ideals and legacy. Sarah Campbell, a community member who frequents the park said, “Rachel Carson taught me about the dangers of pesticides to people, plants, and animals. I hike Rachel Carson Conservation Park regularly with my dog and was upset to learn they are not pesticide-free! How can Montgomery County name a park after her and spray it with the pesticide she fought to ban?”

Even though it has independent authority, M-NCPPC’s use of pesticides runs contrary to the spirit, intent, and letter of a 2015 county law, passed by the Montgomery Council, to ban toxic pesticides on public and private land and advance organic practices within its jurisdiction, recognizing the hazards pesticides and the efficacy of alternatives. However, the policy and practices of the state agency, with overlapping park authority with the county, are at odds with the efforts of the council to prioritize organic practices. At the time of the council vote, Council President George Leventhal said, “Today’s action is another step in the ongoing effort to make Montgomery County the healthiest, safest county in the country,” He continued, “Countless studies have linked pesticides to a wide range of health conditions in children and adults and, since the bill was introduced one year ago, I have received hundreds of reports from constituents of children and pets experiencing adverse effects from the application of pesticides.” (See Mr. Leventhal’s talk to Beyond Pesticides’ 2016 National Forum.) 

Akayla Bracey, the science and regulatory manager at Beyond Pesticides said, “Garlon 3A is a potent herbicide used to control and eliminate unwanted vegetation, including invasive plants and weeds. However, its application has raised concerns due to potential risks and dangers associated with its use. Garlon 3A contains triclopyr, a chemical compound known for its several environmental and health risks, including tumors in mammals.” Other impacts include:

• Impact on Non-Target Species: Garlon 3A is not selective in its action and can harm non-target plant species. The USDA says “Triclopyr is toxic to many broadleaf plants. Even very small amounts of spray may injure some plants.” This collateral damage can disrupt local ecosystems and negatively impact wildlife by reducing food sources and habitat.
• Residue and Runoff: The herbicide can leave residues in soil and water, posing a threat to aquatic life and potentially contaminating water sources. Runoff can carry the chemical into streams and rivers, affecting downstream ecosystems. The USDA notes that triclopyr has been shown to be “slightly toxic to fish” and has “48-hour contact toxicity to bees.”
• Health Concerns: Exposure to triclopyr may result in adverse health effects for humans, including skin and eye irritation, respiratory issues, and, in extreme cases, more severe health problems. Public health advocates stress the importance of minimizing human exposure.
• Persistence: Triclopyr can persist in the environment for extended periods, increasing the likelihood of long-term ecological and health impacts. The half-life (the time required for a chemical to be reduced by natural processes to one-half its original amount) for triclopyr in soils has been reported from 75 to 81 days.

M-NCPPC’s website explains the use of Garlon 3A in response to “invasive species,” which are frequently cited as the justification for dispersing toxic pesticides into the environment. This assertion of an environmental benefit, used to justify the use of these chemicals, often carries a sense of urgency and indisputable benefit. However, the use of toxic pesticides in response to the “invasive” species problem can, in reality, exacerbate ecological imbalances and hinder the adoption of more sustainable, long-term solutions that protect human health and the environment.

Advocates for environmental conservation and park-goers are urging M-NCPPC to follow the lead of the Montgomery County Council and add Rachel Carson Conservation Park to the list of over 45 pesticide-free parks in Montgomery County. There is a lot more at Lawns and Landscapes on the Beyond Pesticides’ website. For more information about becoming an advocate for organic parks, see Parks for a Sustainable Future and Tools for Change. See Beyond Pesticides model local policy for public and private property.

TAKE ACTION: In addition to priming your own lawns, and landscapes, tell your mayor or county executive to transition your public parks and lands to organic management practices!

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

Source: Meeting the “Invasive Species” Challenge

(Beyond Pesticides, October 10, 2023) In recent years, the effects of climate change have become more frequent and more severe, from extreme weather events to rising sea levels. But perhaps one of the most insidious consequences of a warming planet is the way it influences the spread of diseases, often hitting marginalized communities the hardest. This is no more evident than in the case of malaria, where the disease transmission through the Anopheles stephensi mosquito serves as a dire warning of the challenges caused by a changing climate. As this deadly vector of disease expands its territory, it is clear that pesticide-intensive approaches are poorly equipped to cope with the threat as insect resistance to chemical controls steadily grows. 

Native to South Asia, the Anopheles stephensi mosquito has been on a relentless journey, crossing continents from the Arabian Peninsula to East Africa and deeper into the African continent. The mosquito’s ability to quickly adapt to new environments, bolstered by shifting climate patterns, illustrates how global warming affects disease vectors. Matthew Thomas, PhD, emphasizes, “Anopheles stephensi has higher thermal tolerance and a capacity to transmit at higher temperatures than Anopheles gambiae [another malaria-spreading mosquito]. This is significant when considering climate change and the invasion of this species into Africa, potentially altering the dynamics and distribution of malaria.” 

While scientists have not yet pinpointed the exact cause of An. stephensi’s migration across Arabia and Africa, climate change cannot be ruled out. The mosquito’s tolerance for heat strongly suggests that a changing climate may be entirely or partly responsible for its expansion. 

The consequences of An. stephensi’s migration are nothing short of catastrophic, arriving at a time when malaria was on the verge of eradication in Africa. In 2012, Djibouti, a nation on the brink of declaring malaria eliminated, reported just 27 cases. However, with the mosquito’s invasion, cases increased exponentially. By 2020, Djibouti faced over 70,000 reported cases, primarily concentrated in the capital, Djibouti city. 

The rapid spread of this mosquito can be attributed to its unique characteristics not found in other African Anopheles species. While most mosquitoes become problematic during rainy and wet seasons, typically residing in rural areas and natural water sources, An. stephensi thrives year-round. Its preference for artificial water containers, such as cisterns, water containers, and wells, enables it to breed continuously despite seasonal fluctuations. This allows for adaptability to even urban environments—something unheard of in other African mosquito species–and human-made water reservoirs, which poses a significant challenge to malaria control efforts. 

An. stephensi is also unique in that it is not merely a carrier of one malaria parasite; it transmits two malaria-causing parasites–Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax —increasing its potency and likelihood of spreading disease. Unlike most mosquitoes that feed at night when preventive measures like bed nets are effective, An. stephensi feeds during the day. This behavioral shift renders traditional prevention strategies less effective, placing communities at an elevated risk of malaria transmission. 

Perhaps one of the most significant concerns is the insecticide resistance exhibited by these mosquitoes. A study has revealed that “pyrethroid resistance is now widespread in most malaria-endemic countries, threatening the efficacy of standard long-lasting insecticide nets treated with pyrethroids alone.” 

The same pyrethroids have been employed to tackle mosquito-related public health concerns since 1977. Half a century later, the efficacy of this class of insecticide has dwindled, with insecticide-resistant mosquitos present and wreaking havoc across the globe.  

The production and application of these insecticides are intrinsically linked to fossil fuels, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. The irony of this cycle cannot be ignored–the very pesticides intended to combat disease vectors contribute to the environmental factors propelling malaria’s spread. 

This resurgence of malaria serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need to reevaluate the reliance on pesticides. The methods employed to combat malaria might inadvertently be worsening the crisis. For public health advocates, this serves as a wake-up call, compelling the world to reassess strategies in the face of climate change. 

This situation is fundamentally an environmental justice issue. The resurgence of malaria predominantly affects developing countries that lack the infrastructure to support the health care needs during urban malaria outbreaks. For so long, malaria has primarily affected rural communities. As urban areas become increasingly susceptible to malaria due to climate change, countless lives will be lost due to the almost nonexistent malaria identification and treatment know-how. In fact, a study estimated 126 million additional people in urban areas would be at risk of malaria because of the An. stephensi mosquito. Moreover, the efforts of under-resourced nations to eradicate malaria and other life-threatening diseases are being undermined by the actions of those manufacturing petrochemical pesticides, exacerbating climate change and the migration of invasive species. 

The impact of a single invasive vector species has already resulted in millions of illnesses and death. The world must take action to address the harm caused by climate change and regain control before more dangerous invasive species further affect vulnerable populations. Beyond Pesticides is committed to providing ecological and just solutions to pest problems. Our Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases guide offers alternative mosquito control options that are better for public health and the environment. Exploring and supporting such alternatives is crucial in a world threatened by dire climate catastrophes. Please visit the Beyond Pesticides webpage to learn about more alternatives to pesticides.  

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

Source: New York Times, An Invasive Mosquito Threatens 

(Beyond Pesticides, October 9, 2023) On this Indigenous Peoples’ Day, the world turns its attention to the invaluable wisdom that Indigenous communities possess, highlighting their crucial role in addressing the global biodiversity crisis.  While facing disproportionate harm from unjust policies and practices that pollute, Indigenous communities are gaining federal and international recognition as key players in preserving the planet’s ecological balance. 

Many Indigenous communities have a profound connection to, and unique relationship with its land, carrying with them ancestral wisdom that has sustained their ecosystems for generations. Indigenous knowledge, passed down through centuries, emphasizes the intricate relationships between species, the balance of ecosystems, and the importance of coexistence with nature. This knowledge has allowed Indigenous Peoples to thrive sustainably for millennia. 

In the face of the growing biodiversity and climate crises, Indigenous wisdom and traditional insights are a part of the solution. During the 2022 White House Tribal Nations Summit, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) unveiled historic guidance for federal departments and agencies regarding Indigenous Knowledge. This guidance, accompanied by an implementation memorandum, acknowledges the importance of valuing and adopting Indigenous Knowledge into federal decisionmaking to enhance scientific and policy decisions. “As the original stewards of the natural environment, Tribes and Indigenous communities have expertise critical to finding solutions to the climate crisis and protecting our nation’s ecosystems,” said CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory. “The guidance released today will help ensure that their voices are included across the Federal Government for the collective benefit of our communities and the planet.” 

Examples of traditional knowledge being used to improve biodiversity include: 

• Traditional knowledge is being utilized to improve biodiversity in the largest dam removal project in U.S. history, along the California-Oregon border. The Klamath River restoration and dam removal project is collaborating with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Karuk Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, and other Native American tribes to plant and monitor nearly 17 billion seeds to recreate the pre-dam ecosystem. Upon completion, this project will open more than 400 miles of river for threatened species and contribute to a diverse native ecosystem. 

• Scientists are partnering with tribes to study traditional practices that improve biodiversity in ecosystems. One study was conducted on black oaks with interviews and workshops involving tribal members with ancestral knowledge of black oak burning practices. The study revealed opportunities to reintroduce low-intensity fires, along with thinning, to restore black oak stands that are conducive to acorn gathering. The findings also highlighted examples of overcoming challenges in restoring the socioecological benefits of black oak ecosystems for indigenous tribes.  

For more examples of tribes that are having positive environmental impacts, visit this Smithsonian website. To learn about international examples of indigenous knowledge to improve biodiversity, see this video.  

Encroachment on Indigenous lands, the expansion of extractive industries, and shifting climate patterns have threatened the delicate balance that many Indigenous Peoples maintain with nature. The global biodiversity crisis mirrors these interdependent systemic issues as species extinction, habitat degradation, and ecosystem imbalances become more urgent. Recognizing the importance of Indigenous knowledge remains an essential first step, and President Biden’s proclamation on Indigenous Peoples’ Day in 2022 underscored the significance of respecting Indigenous sovereignty and incorporating Indigenous voices into government decisions. As President Biden said, “On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, we honor the sovereignty, resilience, and immense contributions that Native Americans have made to the world; and we recommit to upholding our solemn trust and treaty responsibilities to Tribal Nations, strengthening our Nation-to-Nation ties. . . [T]oday, they remain some of our greatest environmental stewards.” For more information on the proclamation, read Beyond Pesticide’s reporting here. Such recognition from the U.S. government signifies an awareness of the critical role Indigenous Peoples play in the conservation of biodiversity. 

• The restoration of the Elwha River by the Lower Elwha Tribe, featured in the image above, serves as a shining example of how Indigenous and scientific partnerships can contribute to environmental restoration and conservation. The project began after the removal of two large hydropower stations. 

• Kawerak, an Indigenous organization in western Alaska, issued a call for knowledge sovereignty and the indigenization of knowledge. Their concerns center on how research, research funding, and research prioritization have historically excluded Indigenous and local communities. The organization laid out a practical plan for repositioning research agendas to be more inclusive and respectful of Indigenous and local perspectives. 

Biodiversity is a global problem that requires international collaborations and diverse perspectives. The Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), an independent organization representing over 2,500 Indigenous communities and approximately 20 million individual members across Indonesia, estimates that the nation is home to 50 to 70 million Indigenous individuals within its 250 million population. AMAN has played a pivotal role in advocating for Indigenous rights and knowledge. Despite legal recognition of Indigenous rights in the Indonesian Constitution, there have been challenges in fully implementing the Indigenous Peoples Law, which remains a bill in Parliament—leaving Indigenous communities vulnerable to land grabs and discriminatory regulations. 

Some of the challenges in utilizing traditional knowledge reflect broader issues of land rights. Indigenous communities frequently experience marginalization and discrimination within national legal systems, exacerbating their vulnerability to violence and mistreatment. When Indigenous Peoples lack human rights, it is not only unjust and inhumane, but it also undermines resource management and conservation practices that help sustain a livable world for all. Land return, also known as land reparations, land restitution, or land repatriation, refers to the process of recognizing land theft, the loss of lives, and the devastation of cultures.  
 
In alignment with environmental justice as a human rights issue, Marcos Orellana, PhD, Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights and National Forum Series speaker, emphasized the legacy of severely contaminated sites on indigenous lands at the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2022. From pesticide drift to exposure through contaminated waterways, “the list of toxic exposures on indigenous peoples is long,” despite the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169. Dr. Orellana further noted that “toxics are a form of violence against the land and its people.” 

There is growing evidence of the role of Indigenous knowledge at the international level, yet despite this recognition, roadblocks remain that prevent genuine collaboration with Western science for effective conservation and resource management. One such challenge discussed in the opinion piece “Science Must Embrace Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge To Solve Our Biodiversity Crisis,” is the  “gatekeeper” problem, when a few individuals become the sole experts on a particular community or issue, potentially drowning out the diverse knowledge streams and grounded perspectives of Indigenous and traditional communities. 

Chief Edwin Ogar of the Ekuri Initiative, ICCA Consortium Honorary Member Gretta Pecl, and Council Member Tero Mustonen,  the opinion piece authors, explain that it is crucial to shift the link between policy and research away from simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions and slogans and toward the needs on the ground. This includes investing in training and learning from past successes and failures.  

As the United States commemorates Indigenous Peoples’ Day, it is a moment to celebrate the resilience and wisdom of Indigenous communities. Their traditional knowledge offers solutions to the biodiversity crisis, emphasizing the importance of preserving sovereign Indigenous lands and communities—working collectively to protect and preserve the planet’s rich tapestry of life for future generations. 

Take Action today! >>Tell EPA to begin meaningful dialogue with tribes in order to learn how pesticide use can be avoided by adopting indigenous practices. Tell EPA that when needs can be met without using pesticides, such use causes “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

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

Source: Science Must Embrace Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge to Solve Our Biodiversity Crisis 

(Beyond Pesticides, October 5, 2023)  Residents of a Pittsburgh, PA-area extended-stay hotel were evacuated due to a contamination and poisoning incident caused by rat poison. The chemical involved in the incident has not yet been revealed, but officials say the rat poison, when exposed to water, releases the highly toxic phosphine gas. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the gas is known to cause a range of symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, diarrhea, thirst, muscle pain, difficulty breathing, and the accumulation of fluid in the lungs. Higher exposures and prolonged exposure to phosphine can result in more severe health consequences.

EPA has found that phosphine gas causes: Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to phosphine may cause headaches, dizziness, fatigue, drowsiness, burning substernal pain, nausea, vomiting, cough, labored breathing, chest tightness, pulmonary irritation, pulmonary edema, and tremors in humans.  Convulsions may ensue after an apparent recovery.  Chronic (long-term) occupational exposure of workers to phosphine may cause inflammation of the nasal cavity and throat, weakness, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal, cardiorespiratory, and central nervous system symptomology, jaundice, liver effects, and increased bone density.

Deputy Police Chief Brian Kohlhepp of Ross Township explained to multiple media outlets that the hotel used rat bait traps around the exterior of the building. According to reports, the traps became saturated with rainwater and released a dangerous gas that poses risks to human health.

The incident, which occurred on September 25, resulted in seven individuals being rushed to the hospital, with an additional four receiving immediate treatment at the scene for exposure to the rodenticide. Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) teams, local policy, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded to the emergency.

This incident exemplifies the serious limitations of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture restrictions (so-called risk mitigation measures) of hazardous pesticides, according to Beyond Pesticides. While EPA and the state lead agency (Agriculture Department) apparently recognize the hazardous nature of the rodenticide, it has been registered by EPA and the state for widespread use. This incident reflects the failure of the restrictions in place and the inability of EPA to fully control against adverse effects once released in the environment.

In the case of phosphine, when used as a fumigant, EPA issued the following restriction, which permitted the poisoning incident and evacuation:

Fumigant Management Plans must be written before all applications of phosphine products, including all burrowing pest fumigations. A Fumigant Management Plan is a written description of the steps designed to plan for a safe, legal, and effective fumigation. The certified applicator and owner of the property to be fumigated must characterize the area to be treated and include all safety requirements in the plan before application.

The Pennsylvania incident serves as a stark reminder of the potential dangers associated with pesticide usage and the potential for harm once pesticides are authorized by EPA to be marketed. Beyond Pesticides emphasizes the importance of using nontoxic alternatives for rodent control and encourages families with small children to consider proactive measures, such as sealing gaps around doors, installing door sweeps, and caulking openings around pipes, wires, and vents. The event also sheds light on a much broader and concerning issue that extends beyond the borders of Ross Township – the widespread presence of pesticides in U.S. rivers and streams.

Beyond the immediate exposure, pesticide use results in nontarget exposure, as pesticides move off the target site. The Pittsburgh area has had more than its fair share of chemical spills, with the US Steel Tower leak in April and the nearby East Palestine train derailment in February. Advocates are raising questions about the connection between pesticides, toxic spills, and water quality. A 2020 report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project, revealed alarming statistics regarding pesticide contamination in the nation’s waterways. The report indicated that nearly 90 percent of water samples collected from rivers and streams across the United States contained at least five or more different pesticides. This data underscores the extent of pesticide pollution in our aquatic ecosystems.

Pesticide contamination in waterways is not a new issue. A USGS analysis dating back to 1998 already revealed the presence of pesticides in all U.S. waterways, with at least one pesticide detectable. The USGS acknowledges that thousands of tons of pesticides enter rivers and streams from both agricultural and nonagricultural sources, contributing to the contamination of essential drinking water sources, including surface water and groundwater.

What makes this problem even more concerning is the potential for different pesticides to interact synergistically when mixed together. This means that the combined effect of multiple pesticides can be more severe than the sum of their individual effects. As a result, aquatic ecosystems, including fish and other wildlife, are at risk of suffering detrimental impacts due to the presence of these pesticide mixtures.

Recent research by Robert Hunt Sprinkle, M.D. and Ph.D., and Devon C Payne-Sturges Ph.D., catalogs the history of neglect in addressing toxic mixtures and their impacts on wildlife and humans. These authors discuss how exposures to toxicants can occur individually, cumulatively, collectively, and synergistically. Moreover, they discuss the disproportionate harms that are felt in disadvantaged communities.

Beyond Pesticides is calling for the elimination of toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers to protect waterways and reduce pesticide contamination in drinking water. Organic and regenerative farming practices are sustainable alternatives that conserve water, reduce runoff, and eliminate toxic chemicals. Rodent control is one important aspect of reaching Beyond Pesticide’s goal of eliminating pesticides by 2032. For more information about the risks of rodenticides, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/rodenticides and learn about safer alternatives to pesticides at www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/managesafe/overview. 

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

Source: Pittsburgh-Area Hotel Rat Poison-Related Evacuation

(Beyond Pesticides, October 4, 2023) A study published in Food and Chemical Toxicology finds acute exposure to chlordane, an organochlorine insecticide, results in decreased lipid (fat) levels, altered anti-oxidant capacity, and increased testosterone levels (pro-androgenic) in male mice, while increasing liver enzyme activation and reducing regulation of both liver identity and function in females. These findings indicate that chlordane induces toxicant-associated steatosis (fat retention) liver disease (TASLD) with underlying, sex-specific, endocrine, and metabolic effects.

It is well-known that traces of legacy (past-use) pesticides, like organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), remain in the environment for decades—possibly centuries, post-final application, as OCPs have greater chemical stability and gradual attenuation. However, these chemicals have profound adverse impacts on human health, especially on the endocrine system. Obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and elevated liver enzymes resulting from endocrine disruption contribute to liver diseases and can lead to liver cirrhosis. Although some, but not all, manufacturing and use of specific OCPs have declined in the U.S., OCPs remain a global issue, as much of the developing world still report usage. Considering the lack of studies on OCP-induced endocrine disruption, TASLD, and other liver diseases, research like this highlights the need to understand the underlying mechanisms contributing to growing endocrine disease incidents. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the sex-specific health effects chemical contaminants can produce to mitigate exposure, especially among vulnerable populations. 

The study notes, “The current study highlighted the effects of chlordane as a sex-dependent EDC/MDC [endocrine/metabolic disrupting chemical], that potentially acts as a first hit leading to a compromised liver, and additional insults such as lifestyle stressors could drive this compromised liver state to full-fledged TASLD and associated metabolic comorbidities.”

The study focuses on the link between toxicant-associated steatosis liver disease (TASLD) and underlying sex-specific metabolic/endocrine disruption from pesticide exposure. Chlordane is the focus of the study due to its association with elevated liver enzymes, indicative of liver injury. Using male and female mice, researchers exposed each mouse to 20 mg/kg of chlordane for two weeks and investigated the outcomes for each sex. Although female mice exhibit lower body fat content, lipid retention in the liver and high lipid levels indicate that chlordane plays a role in altering genes involved in an increase in lipid synthesis and uptake. Despite more elevated liver fat levels, female mice have lower cholesterol levels. Additionally, chlordane exposure also influences glycogen and glucose metabolism, reducing the expression of the HNF4A gene, an essential regulator of liver identity and function. In males, chlordane exposure increases testosterone levels in the blood. The study suggests that activation of the constitutive androstane receptor is the mechanism involved in chlordane metabolism, resulting in these adverse hepatic outcomes.

Chlordane is an organochlorine insecticide of the same class as DDT, and like other organochlorines, it can bioaccumulate, increasing contamination levels as it works its way up the food chain. These chemicals are highly persistent, remaining in the environment for decades and perhaps even centuries, with breakdown products of similar toxicity to the parent compound. Chlordane has long been associated with diabetes, developmental disorders, miscarriage, depression, and bone marrow diseases and is a potent carcinogen. More recent data links the chemical to autism and endometriosis. Sales of chlordane began in the mid-1940s and continued until 1988 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally canceled its remaining uses for household termite applications, in response to litigation filed by Beyond Pesticides (then National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides) against the agency. By that time, per EPA estimates, chlordane had been applied to 30 million homes in the United States. This contamination persists today. Chlordane has been discovered on the grounds of a New Jersey middle school at levels above EPA limits, in the private wells of many Connecticut residents,  in what were once considered “pristine” National Parks, and in coral reefs along the South China Sea.

This study adds to the growing body of research assessing sex-specific disparities in chemical metabolization (breakdown) and elimination in the body. In addition to OCPs, organophosphate (OP) insecticides exhibit endocrine-disrupting properties that may alter estrogen or testosterone activity and receptors, resulting in differences in the clearance rate and toxicity of OPs. For instance, a 2018 study finds female rats manifest airway hyperactivity—a characteristic asthma symptom—at lower OP doses than males. A 2020 study reveals that exposure to acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors like OPs can cause sex-specific differences in depression symptoms among adolescent girls through endocrine disruption. Furthermore, this study is the first to demonstrate that, among the general population, OP exposure causes an increased risk of total cancer for female non-smokers, breast cancer for female smokers, and prostate cancer for male smokers from OP exposure. Researchers suggest that the same endocrine-disrupting properties that induce sex-specific effects also promote hormonal-related cancer development like breast and prostate. 

Although this study highlights that lifestyle, genetics, and race/ethnicity are key factors driving symptoms of metabolic and endocrine-related liver disorders, including TASLD, these factors do not account for the rise in metabolic liver disease among young individuals. In fact, researchers warn of the rise in liver disorders and metabolic syndrome among young people. Therefore, the study suggests future research investigate and identify alternative factors such as toxicant exposures in liver health and metabolic diseases to mitigate further disease outcomes and complications.

Pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt endocrine and metabolic function, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers and landscapers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Health officials estimate about 100 million individuals in the U.S. have some form of liver disease, with fatty liver disease (FLD) being the most common. Cases of FLD, associated with or without alcohol, have doubled over the past 20 years. Therefore, it is essential to mitigate preventable exposure to disease-inducing pesticides. For more information about pesticides’ effects on human and animal health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, including pages on endocrine disruption, immune system disorders (e.g., hepatitis [liver condition], diabetes, and more.

One meaningful way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticides in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, from rural to urban, can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Food and Chemical Toxicology

(Beyond Pesticides, October 3, 2023) On September 19, 2023, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Corporation Counsel Mary B. Richardson-Lowry took legal action against agrochemical giant, Monsanto, filing a lawsuit that alleges the corporation’s role in polluting Chicago with Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) decades ago, despite knowing the chemicals’ detrimental effects.  

PCBs are identified as “forever chemicals” due to their environmental persistence. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), these chemicals “do not readily break down once in the environment.” They cycle through air, soil, and water and can travel long distances, with PCBs found worldwide. 

They pose serious health risks as they can accumulate in the environment and within organisms including plants, food crops, sea life, and humans. Those who consume fish from contaminated waterways are exposed to PCBs as the chemical bioaccumulates in the fish population. 

PCBs are man-made organic chemicals composed of carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine atoms. They were first manufactured and sold in 1929 by the Swann Chemical Corporation and subsequently came under the ownership of Monsanto Chemical Company in 1935. Due to their non-flammability, stability, and electrical insulating properties, PCBs quickly found widespread use. Their applications included use in electrical equipment, paints, plastics, and carbonless copy paper.  

PCBs were also instrumental in the pesticide industry. According to O’Reilly, Talbot & Okun Associates, researchers at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) “discovered that the addition of certain oils and/or chemicals to a pesticide formulation prior to its application could inhibit the volatilization and solubilization.” These additives increased the amount of time an application of pesticides would remain effective. PCBs were among the most effective chemical additives, making it a common addition to pesticide formulas.  

Despite the extensive risk posed by PCBs, it was not until 1979 that the Toxic Substances Control Act prohibited PCB production and officially acknowledged their risks to human health and the environment. 

However, the ban came too late. By 1979, PCBs, often sold under the name of Aroclor, had long been popular in the Rust Belt, and companies like General Electric had been illegally disposing the chemical into waterways by the millions of pounds.  

It was not until 2013 that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified PCBs as likely carcinogens, a significant recognition arriving 84 years after their inception and 34 years after the ban.  

The City of Chicago claims Monsanto’s role extends beyond PCB production, as the corporation is accused of being aware of the hazards posed by PCBs as early as the 1960s but continued manufacturing until 1977. This allegation aligns with Monsanto’s history of concealing adverse effects associated with its products. 

Due to this intentional misleading by Monsanto, Chicago, and several other states and cities, including Oregon, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Ohio, New Jersey, and Washington state are seeking legal retribution from the corporation.  

Mayor Johnson and Corporation Counsel Richardson-Lowry claim Monsanto’s pollution is an environmental justice issue, saying the lasting effects of PCBs have exacerbated inequities in many Chicago neighborhoods. 

Despite the outlawing of PCB production over 40 years ago, Chicago continues to grapple with PCB contamination in its waterways, soils, and air. The Chicago River and surrounding communities remain compromised, prompting advisories against swimming and fish consumption.  

And as Indigenous Peoples Day approaches, it is essential to recognize the injustices experienced by numerous Indigenous communities because of the actions of pesticide corporations such as Monsanto. 

The St. Regis Mohawk tribe in Akwesasne, situated in Franklin County, New York, shares a story that mirrors the experiences of many who have been adversely affected by PCBs over decades. In this case, the tribe’s connection to the St. Lawrence River as a vital lifeline for sustenance, including food and irrigation for livestock and crops, was compromised due to its proximity to an illegal PCB dumping site operated by General Electric.  

During the peak usage of PCBs in the manufacturing industry, General Electric was illicitly disposing millions of pounds of PCBs into local waterways. Downstream, the Mohawk tribe remained unaware that their essential water source had been contaminated. As early as the 1960s, Mohawk farmers began noticing health issues in their livestock, such as lameness and swelling. The lifespan of their animals also drastically declined once manufacturing began at the plant. And when concerns were raised about potential poisoning, the New York State Department of Health dismissed all concerns.  

As a result, women were forced to stop breastfeeding their children for fear of passing chemicals through breastmilk, and the community could not consume fish, a staple in their diet. Their whole way of life was upended without consent as they endured this contamination’s effects unwittingly. 

In many instances across the nation, indigenous communities, like the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, have had to grapple with government agencies’ slow response to their plight, leaving people who are deeply connected to the land and water to face environmental and cultural disruptions. 

PCBs are a reminder that environmental damage often disproportionately affects marginalized communities, including Indigenous peoples. These communities, while quietly enduring the effects of pollution, have often faced barriers to receiving the help and recognition they deserve.  

The lawsuits against Monsanto and the ongoing struggles of Indigenous communities signal a broader need for environmental justice and corporate accountability. The PCB contamination of waterways, from the Chicago River to the St. Lawrence River, highlights the lasting consequences of unchecked industrial practices.  

As we commemorate the upcoming Indigenous Peoples’ Day, let us reflect on the urgent need for environmental justice and the collective responsibility to protect our natural resources and the communities that depend on them. It is a reminder that the legacy of pollution, like PCBs, leaves a lasting imprint on our environment and society, and addressing it requires unity, accountability, and a commitment to a cleaner, more equitable future. Please support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of protecting public health and the environment by ending the use of pesticides like those manufactured by Bayer-Monsanto. See Beyond Pesticides’ webpage to learn more about the link between pesticides and environmental/agricultural justice and help support other marginalized communities affected by harmful pesticide exposure. 

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

Source: Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Sues Monsanto, The River Is in Us: Fighting Toxics in a Mohawk Community 

(Beyond Pesticides, October 2, 2023) On the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), statements out of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raise concerns about the agency’s ability to meet the challenge of evaluating pesticides for their adverse impact on threatened and endangered species. While EPA has initiated efforts to address a significant backlog of pesticide evaluations, the agency faces a task so extensive that it may require several additional decades to fully catch up. EPA officials stated, “Even if EPA completed this work for all of the pesticides that are currently subject to court decisions and/or ongoing litigation, that work would take until the 2040s, and even then, would represent only 5 percent of EPA’s ESA obligations.”  

As part of a “whole of government” approach, EPA must redirect its pesticide program to protecting all species and their habitats.  

The speed and depth of biodiversity loss has reached crisis proportions. A 1,500-page report in 2019 by Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES )—Global Assessment Summary for Policymakers, the most comprehensive look to date at the biodiversity crisis and its implications for human civilization, makes the following finding: “Since 1970, trends in agricultural production, fish harvest, bioenergy production and harvest of materials have increased, but 14 of the 18 categories of contributions of nature that were assessed, mostly regulating and non-material contributions, have declined.” Among the contributions that have declined are soil organic carbon and pollinator diversity. 

The United Nations said last year, “Despite ongoing efforts, biodiversity is deteriorating worldwide, and this decline is projected to worsen with business-as-usual. The loss of biodiversity comes at a great cost for human well-being and the global economy.” And, despite ESA being one of the most effective conservation laws globally, protecting 1,662 species in the U.S. and 638 species elsewhere on Earth. Over the past five decades, ESA has played a pivotal role in preventing these extinctions by safeguarding the most critically endangered species within biological communities. ESA establishes a framework to categorize species as “endangered” or “threatened,” granting them specific protections, but the goal of the ESA is to address the broader issue of biodiversity loss by protecting habitats of species most at risk, or, as stated in ESA, to “Provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” 

Yes, the data paints a clear picture of the inadequacy of the efforts related to dramatic biodiversity loss if the U.S.is going to meet the challenges. Beyond Pesticides has documented many aspects of this decline in biodiversity, and the implications for ecosystem, human, and planetary health. The data points to the importance of broad adoption of organic regenerative / agroecological systems, which can very significantly address the interactive health, biodiversity, and climate crises. 

A coalition of environmental organizations including Beyond Pesticides is calling for bold and comprehensive action to preserve our planet’s natural heritage for future generations in an urgent letter to President Joe Biden.  

As part of a “whole of government” approach, EPA must redirect its pesticide program to protecting all species and their habitats.  

Under ESA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to consult with relevant agencies when registering chemicals to assess their impact on endangered species. Unfortunately, EPA has consistently fallen short in fulfilling this statutory obligation, as highlighted over years of reporting by Beyond Pesticides. EPA admits that its Pesticide Program “has been unable to keep pace with its ESA workload, resulting not only in inadequate protections for listed species but also litigation against the Agency.”  

Pesticide use is a major cause of declining biodiversity, which is manifested in extinctions, endangered species, and species vulnerable to environmental disturbances—including climate change, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals. If EPA is serious about protecting biodiversity, it must look first to the ways it has created the crisis in the first place. 

Studies upon studies upon studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. EPA’s registration of insecticides has always—from DDT to neonicotinoids—endangered insects on a global level. Similarly, pesticides threaten food webs in aquatic and marine environments. 

Pesticides threaten frogs and other amphibians in a way that demonstrates the potential to warp the growth and reproduction of all animals. Agricultural intensification, in particular pesticide and fertilizer use, is the leading factor driving declines in bird populations. 

At a more foundational level, EPA approves pesticides that, in supporting industrial agriculture, eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between this industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity. 

In other words, a major reason that species are endangered is that EPA has registered pesticides that harm them. If EPA is to really protect endangered species, it must eliminate the use of toxic pesticides and encourage organic production. 

The letter to President Biden emphasizes the need for a whole-of-government approach to address this crisis and underscores the importance of consulting with Tribal governments and honoring federal trust obligations to Indigenous communities. Recognizing and incorporating indigenous knowledge and practices in conservation efforts is deemed crucial to safeguard biodiversity, protect the rights of indigenous peoples, and ensure social equity and justice. 

The letter calls on President Biden to take the following actions: 

1. Implement Whole of Government Approaches to Saving Biodiversity and Endangered Species: A national biodiversity strategy is proposed to serve as a blueprint for a coordinated response to biodiversity loss, addressing primary threats such as habitat degradation, climate change, wildlife exploitation, invasive species, and pollution.
   
2. Boost Recovery of Endangered Species Through Robust Funding and Engaging Agencies Across Government: Adequate funding for the ESA and the prioritization of conservation and recovery efforts by all federal agencies, in consultation with Tribal and Indigenous communities, are essential to reversing species decline.

3. Adopt an Ambitious Ecosystem-based Framework to Recover Endangered Species and Rebuild America’s Wildlife Populations: The letter calls for a holistic approach to recovery that considers a species’ role in ecosystems and protects key areas to increase resiliency and preserve biodiversity hotspots.

As part of this “whole of government” approach, EPA must redirect its pesticide program to protecting all species and their habitats. 

Letter to EPA Administrator: 

On the 50th anniversary of the passing of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must take bold, visionary steps to protect all species and their habitats.  

Pesticide use is a major cause of declining biodiversity, which is manifested in extinctions, endangered species, and vulnerability of species to environmental disturbances—including climate change, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals. If EPA is serious about protecting biodiversity, it must look first to the ways it has created the crisis in the first place. Dwindling biodiversity is an existential crisis that requires removing serious threats posed by pesticides. 

Many studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. EPA’s registration of insecticides has always—from DDT to neonicotinoids—endangered insects on a global level. Similarly, pesticides threaten food webs in aquatic and marine environments. 

Pesticides threaten frogs and other amphibians in a way that demonstrates the potential to warp the growth and reproduction of all animals. And yet, EPA continues to ignore its responsibility to eliminate risks from endocrine disrupting pesticides. Agricultural intensification, in particular pesticide and fertilizer use, is also the leading factor driving declines in bird populations. 

At a more foundational level, EPA approves pesticides that, in supporting industrial agriculture, eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between this industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity. 

In other words, a major reason that species are endangered is that EPA has registered pesticides that harm them. Certainly, these threats to biodiversity qualify as “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” which, according to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), should disqualify toxic pesticides from being used. If EPA is to really protect endangered species, it must eliminate the use of toxic pesticides and consider organic production in applying the FIFRA “unreasonable adverse effects” standard in the pesticide registration review.  

Thank you. 

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative: 

On the 50th anniversary of the passing of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must take bold, visionary steps to protect all species and their habitats.  

Pesticide use is a major cause of declining biodiversity, which is manifested in extinctions, endangered species, and vulnerability of species to environmental disturbances—including climate change, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals. If EPA is serious about protecting biodiversity, it must look first to the ways it has created the crisis in the first place. Dwindling biodiversity is an existential crisis that requires removing serious threats posed by pesticides. 

Many studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity known as the “insect apocalypse,” particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. EPA’s registration of insecticides has always—from DDT to neonicotinoids—endangered insects on a global level. Similarly, pesticides threaten food webs in aquatic and marine environments. 

Pesticides threaten frogs and other amphibians in a way that demonstrates the potential to warp the growth and reproduction of all animals. And yet, EPA continues to ignore its responsibility to eliminate risks from endocrine disrupting pesticides. Agricultural intensification, in particular pesticide and fertilizer use, is also the leading factor driving declines in bird populations. 

At a more foundational level, EPA approves pesticides that, in supporting industrial agriculture, eliminate habitat—either through outright destruction or through toxic contamination. In much of the U.S., agricultural fields are bare for half the year and support a single plant species for the other half. The difference between this industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity. 

In other words, a major reason that species are endangered is that EPA has registered pesticides that harm them. Certainly, these threats to biodiversity qualify as “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” which, according to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), should disqualify toxic pesticides from being used. If EPA is to really protect endangered species, it must eliminate the use of toxic pesticides and encourage organic production.  

Please tell EPA to protect endangered species by eliminating the registrations of toxic pesticides and consider organic production in applying the FIFRA “unreasonable adverse effects” standard in the pesticide registration review. 

Thank you. 

(Beyond Pesticides, September 29, 2023) In unsurprising news, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reversed itself and decided not to ban a dangerous pesticide: tetrachlorovenphos (TCVP) used in pet flea collars and other flea products. This is despite its own earlier decision to ban TCVP in pet collars and scathing criticism of its methods and conclusions by the courts.

First registered in 1966, TCVP belongs to the notoriously toxic organophosphate chemical family and is classified by the World Health Organization as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” It was originally registered to Shell Chemical, then to E.I. duPont de Nemours, then to Hartz Mountain Corporation and Fermenta Animal Health Company.  Early on, it was registered for use on food crops and livestock, but the crop uses were voluntarily de-registered in 1987. It is still widely used on pets and farm animals. In 1995, EPA issued the opinion that “all uses of tetrachlorvinphos, with the exception of oral feed-through larvicide treatment to livestock intended for food use, will not cause unreasonable risk to humans or the environment.” Since then, the agency has contorted itself repeatedly to allow TCVP to remain on the market.

There is little research available on TCVP’s human health effects; the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry does not even have a fact sheet for the compound, although it does have one for the related chemical chlorfenvinphos, which is no longer registered for any use in the U.S.

The lack of human data allows EPA to base its decision on manufacturer-commissioned animal studies. The standard battery of toxicological screenings involves exposing rats, rabbits, and other animals to various doses of the test chemical. The analysis of their responses focuses on tumor formation, anomalously large or small internal organs, reproductive dysfunction, birth defects in offspring, skin sensitivity, genetic mutations and other potential endpoints, but few consider chronic low-dose exposures and whether this may lead to neurological problems.

This is especially problematic with pet flea collars, which millions of children are exposed to. The TCVP collars, manufactured by Hartz Mountain, distribute the pesticide gradually over the animal’s body, most of it in the form of dust. EPA has used, according to some advocates, an egregiously illogical rationale for failing to cancel TCVP registration for flea treatments. In its risk assessments, for example, EPA has assumed that children play with pets for an hour a day, without considering whether children may also sleep with pets, and whether households may have more than one pet.

Children are especially vulnerable to toxic substances that interfere with development, especially brain development. Organophosphates inhibit the activity of acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme crucial for effective neurotransmitter function. The effect is irreversible and can lead to cognitive deficits, attention deficits, and motor problems in exposed children. In pets, which receive the highest exposures in home settings, organophosphate exposure can cause nervousness, drooling, seizures and death. EPA has previously determined that all organophosphates have a “common mechanism of toxicity,” (see also EPA cumulative risk assessment of organophosphates) so to determine allowable exposure it must aggregate all food and nonfood exposure to determine allowable risk to human health.

The animal studies used in pesticide registrations are not designed to measure chronic exposures over time, but rather to find those dosage levels where animals begin to show symptoms and the dosage level that kills half the dosage group. Regulatory toxicologists generally analyze only gross organ features like size and weight, and the tests do not capture subtle neurological changes.

It is worth looking in detail at EPA’s actions regarding TCVP in the decades after its initial registration. The most recent registration was in 2006, and the agency has been dawdling ever since over the completion of the current reregistration process. EPA had already canceled all other indoor uses for TCVP out of concern for children’s neurological development, but it has consistently resisted attempts to extend the cancellation to flea collars and liquid treatments.

Most of the impetus for canceling TCVP has come via litigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC released an issue paper in 2009 noting that TCVP residues can remain in a pet’s fur for weeks after application at levels up to 1,000 times the EPA’s acceptable levels. NRDC also petitioned EPA in 2009 and sued in 2014, 2015 and 2019 to cancel the pet product registration, arguing that dust-infused flea collars transfer TCVP more easily than liquid-based treatments. Hartz Mountain joined EPA against NRDC and stressed that liquid flea treatments would cost consumers “five to six dollars more a month” than its flea collars.

Five years after its submission, EPA got around to denying NRDC’s 2009 petition. NRDC appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2016, EPA requested remand voluntarily and promised to respond within 90 days after the release of its revised TCVP risk assessment. It did not do so. In late December 2016, EPA emailed NRDC saying it was “EPA’s current intention and belief that the Agency will issue a final revised response to NRDC’s 2009 petition to cancel all pet uses of TCVP within 90 days.” After the 90 days was up in March 2017, EPA notified NRDC saying it would mitigate the risk for pet care use when it conducted its registration review. That was six years ago. EPA not only did not conduct its registration review, but it failed to even list such a review on its schedule. By 2019, EPA had still not published a review schedule for TCVP.

As it often does with registrants, EPA blamed the flea collar company for the delays, resulting in no consequences for the company and continued marketing of the product. EPA had required a study from Hartz Mountain to try to determine how much pesticide, and in what form–dust or liquid—was released from the collars. There were two so-called “torsion studies.” These involved twisting a flea collar to and fro and measuring how much pesticide it released. At first Hartz Mountain tried to say that all the pesticide in the collars was liquid and declined to perform the study. Subsequently the company submitted a torsion study whose methodology had not been approved by EPA ahead of time and EPA gave an estimate of 18 months to get a torsion study properly done and analyzed.

Finally in 2022, Hartz Mountain submitted a new torsion study. A key finding was that 97.2 percent of the dust coming off the flea collar was TCVP—belying EPA’s assumption that only 14.6 percent of the cast-off dust was TCVP. EPA ignored the new finding. On the other hand, EPA accepted the study’s purported finding that only 0.38 percent of the collars’ total weight was released as dust, and the balance of TCVP was released as liquid. EPA also assumed pet owners were trimming a fifth of the collar off once it was placed on the animal. The agency provided no justification for ignoring the major finding until its reply brief in the most recent Ninth Circuit case, in which it said the “Torsion Study used ‘exaggerated twisting conditions…[which] likely overrepresented the amount of [TCVP] in dust extruded from the collars in normal use on pets.’” In that case, the Ninth Circuit opinion rather acidly pointed out that “the TVCP in the collar is specifically designed to be released.”

EPA had published a revised human health risk assessment in 2016 in which it acknowledged the epidemiologic evidence of children’s harm from TCVP exposures and admitted that “more stringent regulatory restrictions are necessary to protect public health.” In its October 2022 response to NRDC’s 2009 petition, EPA stated that it would “grant NRDC’s petition for pet collars” but would do nothing about “pet spray products” because there were no “risks of concern” related to those products.

The latest development is EPA’s September 19 release of its revised human health assessment and decision to reverse last year’s acknowledgment of TCVP’s toxicity, saying instead that the flea collars do not pose an “unacceptable” health risk to children.

Advocates feel strongly that this long and winding road demonstrates that the current regulatory process is corrupt and does not protect public health and the environment. The fact is that EPA succumbs to pressure from the chemical industry and is unlikely to move forward with pesticide restrictions without a public or side agreement with the registrants (pesticide manufacturer) of the chemical in question.

Along with TCVP, controversy has erupted over Seresto flea collars, which are alleged to have killed or sickened thousands of dogs. Seresto collars contain flumethrin, a pyrethroid, and imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid. EPA has not taken any action other than to change the labels slightly and urge the manufacturers and veterinarians to raise awareness of the risks. The controversy is continuing, as Beyond Pesticides has noted.

Beyond Pesticides has long covered a long list of corrupt practices by EPA and the chemical industry, demonstrating that the TCVP saga is nothing new. For example, in 2021 four whistleblower scientists asserted that “risk assessments for both new and existing chemicals were improperly changed by agency managers to eliminate or reduce calculations of risks.”

See also Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of Monsanto/Bayer malfeasance related to dicamba; and our review of EPA’s receptivity to industry influence detailed by The Intercept; whistleblower “outing” of unethical practices at EPA; and the “capture” of EPA by industry. In the latter case, 37 environmental, public health and sustainable agriculture groups led by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Beyond Pesticides, urged the Biden administration to reform the Office of Pesticide Programs as soon as possible.

The letter is available here. It would serve well as a model for citizen letters to President Biden and various other elected officials.

You can also voice your opinion directly to EPA regarding TCVP because its current registration review is still underway and accepting public comment until November 20.

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

Source: Pesticides Registration Review: Proposed Interim Decision for Tetrachlorvinphos; Court Rules EPA Must Revise “Flawed” Analysis of Toxic Chemical TCVP in Pet Flea Collars.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 28, 2023) As the United States commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there is a growing recognition that the planet faces an existential biodiversity crisis, with a rising number of species on the brink of extinction. In a collective effort to address threats to global biodiversity (i.e. diversity of all life), a coalition of environmental organizations including Beyond Pesticides, are sending an urgent letter to President Joe Biden. This letter, titled “Meeting the Challenges of the Biodiversity and Extinction Crisis Over the Next 50 Years,” calls for bold and comprehensive action to preserve our planet’s natural heritage for future generations.

The ESA is celebrated as one of the most effective conservation laws globally, credited with preventing the extinction of 99 percent of listed species. Over the past five decades, the ESA has played a pivotal role in preventing these extinctions by safeguarding the most critically endangered species within biological communities. However, this concentration on highly threatened species often results in temporary solutions that may not comprehensively address the broader issue of biodiversity loss. The ESA establishes a framework to categorize species as “endangered” or “threatened,” granting them specific protections. While it is crucial in preventing species extinction, it does not proactively enhance biodiversity.

Under the ESA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to consult with relevant agencies when registering chemicals to assess their impact on endangered species. Unfortunately, EPA has consistently fallen short in fulfilling this statutory obligation, as highlighted over years of reporting by Beyond Pesticides.

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has a checkered history of responding to biological opinions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as part of the pesticide registration process. EPA’s announcement in March 2022 allowing the continued use of malathion follows the release of a final biological opinion by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which, according to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), “relies on scientifically unfounded assessment methods imposed during the Trump administration [and] stands in sharp contrast to the agency’s 2017 conclusion that 1,284 species would likely be jeopardized by malathion.” Meanwhile, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a sister agency to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, released an updated biological opinion that determined malathion and two other toxic organophosphate pesticides are causing jeopardy to virtually every endangered U.S. salmon, sturgeon, and steelhead species, as well as to Puget Sound orcas. See Beyond Pesticides action Tell EPA To Take Meaningful Action To Protect Endangered Species.

The letter to President Biden emphasizes the need for a whole-of-government approach to address this crisis and underscores the importance of consulting with Tribal governments and honoring federal trust obligations to Indigenous communities. Recognizing and incorporating indigenous knowledge and practices in conservation efforts is deemed crucial to safeguard biodiversity, protect the rights of indigenous peoples, and ensure social equity and justice.

The letter calls on President Biden to take the following actions:

1. Implement Whole of Government Approaches to Saving Biodiversity and Endangered Species: A national biodiversity strategy is proposed to serve as a blueprint for a coordinated response to biodiversity loss, addressing primary threats such as habitat degradation, climate change, wildlife exploitation, invasive species, and pollution.
2. Boost Recovery of Endangered Species Through Robust Funding and Engaging Agencies Across Government: Adequate funding for the ESA and the prioritization of conservation and recovery efforts by all federal agencies, in consultation with Tribal and Indigenous communities, are essential to reversing species decline.
3. Adopt an Ambitious Ecosystem-based Framework to Recover Endangered Species and Rebuild America’s Wildlife Populations: The letter calls for a holistic approach to recovery that considers a species’ role in ecosystems and protects key areas to increase resiliency and preserve biodiversity hotspots.

In light of the alarming global decline in biodiversity, the letter underscores the urgency of bold, visionary action by the Biden administration. The signatories express their commitment to working collaboratively with the government to ensure the Endangered Species Act and new initiatives for biodiversity conservation continue to save and restore the natural world for the next 50 years and beyond.

EPA recognizes its failure in assessing the impact of pesticides on endangered animals and plants. A settlement agreement was recently approved in federal district court and it mandates EPA to implement a series of endangered species protections from pesticides, covering over 300 pesticide active ingredients. The plaintiffs in the agreement are Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and the defendants are the EPA (with defendant-interveners CropLife America). On EPA’s website, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Michal Freedhoff, said, “This agreement is a win-win-win to protect endangered species, ensure the availability of pesticides needed to grow food across America, and save considerable time and taxpayer expenses required to further litigate this case.”

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the EPA will develop strategies to reduce harm from various pesticides, including herbicides and insecticides, while focusing on protecting the most vulnerable species. The agreement also requires the EPA to develop protection strategies for herbicides by 2024, insecticides by 2025, and address the harms of hazardous insecticides on endangered species by 2027. Simultaneously, the agency has initiated efforts to address a significant backlog of evaluations, a task so extensive that it may require several additional decades to fully catch up. EPA agency officials wrote, “Even if EPA completed this work for all of the pesticides that are currently subject to court decisions and/or ongoing litigation, that work would take until the 2040s, and even then, would represent only 5 percent of EPA’s ESA obligations.” Under the Biden administration, EPA, prompted by a series of court rulings, has committed to a reversal of its previous stance as it conducts reviews of new pesticides. 

One of the best ways to prevent biodiversity loss is to eliminate the toxic chemicals that negatively impact and kill wildlife. Scientists have documented the negative impacts of pesticides on wildlife since before the ESA. For example, glyphosate impairs collective thermoregulation in bumblebees, organophosphates, and carbamates can affect the nervous system of wildlife by inhibiting an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase, and numerous other studies about the impact on wildlife have been cataloged here. Beyond Pesticides has a goal to eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers by 2032, because all life on Earth should not have to wait another 50 years. Join Beyond Pesticides at our 40th National Forum Series and learn how you can forge a biodiverse future. Register here!

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

Source: Meeting the Challenges of the Biodiversity and Extinction Crisis Over the Next 50 Years

(Beyond Pesticides, September 27, 2023) A study published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology finds organophosphate (OP), organochlorine (OC), and pyrethroid (PYR) pesticides have links to insulin resistance (IR) associated with metabolic disorders like diabetes, obesity, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and hypertension. Metabolic disorders are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, with over 11 percent (>37 million) of individuals in the U.S. having diabetes, and cases are growing by millions annually. Additionally, there is a rise in metabolic disorders among young people. Studies even find low levels of pesticide exposure during pregnancy or childhood cause adverse health effects, including metabolic disorders tied to gut microbiome disruption (dysbiosis). With increasing rates of diabetes and obesity, the two most prominent metabolic diseases in the study, cases among the global population, studies like these highlight the importance of evaluating how chemical contaminants deregulate normal bodily function through metabolic changes. 

To investigate the association between pesticide exposure and insulin-related metabolic disorders in humans, researchers searched the PubMed database for articles, performing a systematic review. The study notes, “IR is defined as a pathological state in which a higher-than-normal level of insulin is required to produce the optimal response in cells.” The search generated 4,051 articles related to the topic. However, after excluding duplicates and irrelevant studies, 75 epidemiologic studies linked human exposure to pesticides and IR-related metabolic diseases remained. In total, 30 articles find an association with diabetes, 20 with obesity, seven with hypertension (associated with cardiac issues), seven with chronic kidney disease (CKD), six with metabolic syndrome (i.e., high blood pressure, sugar and serum triglycerides), and three with polycystic ovarian syndrome (POS). The review highlights specific mechanisms of pesticide exposure associated with IR-related metabolic disorders, including liver enzymes and lipid profile alterations, weakening of intracellular insulin signaling from xenobiotic (a foreign chemical in the body) effects, oxidative stress, and inflammation response to chemical exposure.

There are many pesticides linked with the growing global metabolic disorder incidence rates over the past few decades. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds (e.g., detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides, etc.) as endocrine disruptors associated with notorious metabolic disorders like diabetes/obesity that can span generations. The obesity rate is increasing and has been over the last five decades. Although general overeating and underexercising are attributed to obesity, researchers find the current obesity epidemic has alternative factors contributing to development. Besides genetics, exposure to obesogenic compounds, like pesticides, can promote obesity development. These compounds routinely cause reproductive, cardiovascular, and endocrine (hormone) issues among exposed individuals, especially farmers.

Obesogenic (obesity-causing) compounds affect the general population and future generational health. For instance, studies demonstrate that ancestral DDT exposure increases the risk of breast cancer and cardiometabolic disorder—promoting an epigenetic inheritance of obesity—up to three successive generations. Although the U.S. banned DDT five decades ago, the insecticide (technically, its hazardous metabolite DDE) is still environmentally persistent in all ecosystems and is still used in some countries. Like DDT, exposure to other POPs, like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), during pregnancy can increase cardiometabolic disorders, like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases, among offspring. Since DDT/DDE residues, current-use pesticides, and other chemical pollutants contaminate the environment, exposure to these chemical mixtures can synergize to increase toxicity and disease effects.

The study is a comparative analysis. This systematic review adds to the growing research indicating pesticides’ role in metabolic disorders. Pesticides have long been linked to higher rates of diabetes, as a 2008 study on pesticide applicators in two U.S. states found that every pesticide investigated increased diabetes risk by over 50%. A 2017 study zeroed in on one particular class of insecticides, carbamates, finding a propensity to adversely affect human melatonin receptors that regulate sleep, insulin secretion, and glucose homeostasis, increasing the risk of diabetes. A 2017 report commissioned by Gallup-Sharecare found that farmers recorded the second-highest rate of diabetes among all professions. Additionally, a 2019 study from the University of California, Davis, found that South Asian immigrants exposed to higher rates of DDT also displayed higher rates of type 2 diabetes. Regarding obesity, many pesticides are obesogenic compounds that directly impact hormone and receptor function and include pesticides like organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethroids, as mentioned in this study. These chemicals can negatively affect reproductive function, nervous system function, metabolic/immune function, hormone-related cancers, and fetal/body development.

The study concludes, “Taken together, the link of pesticides with IR-related metabolic diseases can be a wide area of research from different aspects, including epidemiological evidences [of] cellular mechanisms weakening insulin signaling and preventing approaches. However, […] there is a need for studies to evaluate specific mechanisms by which different chemical groups of pesticides can develop IR-related metabolic diseases, especially those with increasing prevalence in the future.”

Pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt metabolic function, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Health officials identify diabetes as one of the most common chronic diseases. Therefore, it is essential to mitigate preventable exposure to disease-inducing pesticides. For more information on the effects of pesticide exposure on autoimmune and metabolic health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database pages on diabetes, obesity, endocrine disruption, and more.

Replacing dietary exposure to food grown in chemical-intensive agriculture with organic consistently reduces pesticide levels in one’s body. Preventive practices like organic can eliminate exposure to toxic metabolic disrupting pesticides. There is an indication that maintaining lower levels of conventional, synthetic pesticides is likely to reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes. In addition to positive impacts on the human microbiome, organically grown food (i.e., milk, meat, strawberries, tomatoes, and a range of other foods) contain a much more diverse bacterial community than their chemically grown counterparts. Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate toxic pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace and consumers to support regenerative organic practices. A complement to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do.

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

Source: Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology

(Beyond Pesticides, September 26, 2023) In Ethiopia’s Bahir Dar, where Lake Tana feeds into the Blue Nile, a major hydroelectric power plant stands, serving as an emblem of the ecosystem services the river provides to over two million inhabitants. Yet ever since its first appearance in 2012, this crucial waterway has been under attack by one of the world’s most invasive species: the water hyacinth.  

In America and Europe, where agrochemical giants such as Bayer and Syngenta are headquartered, such problems might quickly be remedied using herbicides. However, the prevailing ethos coming from the African continent is quite different. Dion Mostert, whose South African boat business has suffered due to the water hyacinths infestation, encapsulates this sentiment, saying he has considered herbicides but sees them as a temporary fix to a much larger challenge. 

Instead of relying on temporary—and often harmful—agrochemical solutions, Ethiopia and other African countries are embracing holistic and sustainable solutions.  

For instance, Lake Victoria–a water body shared by Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda—suffered from a water hyacinth infestation in the 1990s. In response, scientists introduced two species of weevils known to be natural predators of the hyacinth: Neochetina bruchi and Neochetina eichhorniae. The initiative was extremely successful, with a 90 percent decrease in hyacinth cover. This strategy was so fruitful it continues to serve as the blueprint for many other African countries facing similar infestations. Following the victories observed in East Africa, Benin mirrored this biological strategy to combat their own water hyacinth issues, reaping similar benefits.  

And now, as South Africa tackles a growing water hyacinth problem, they are turning to weevils once again, denoting another chapter in a broader African tale of ecological resistance.  

On the other hand, Ethiopia has adopted mechanical removal as a primary control method. In several organized campaigns, over 200,000 individuals, ranging from students to farmers, have contributed their labor to the cause by removing hyacinths by hand and building harvesting machines. While the issue has been ongoing, there have been many victories along the way. According to a study by Minychl G. Dersseh, et al., there has been a notable decrease in the expansion rate of water hyacinth. In 2016, the expansion rate was 120.5 percent, but by 2019, that number was reduced to 23 percent, reflecting the effectiveness of the persistent efforts of the community. And in November 2020, those efforts persevered in the form of a month-long initiative that aimed to clear 90 percent of the weed through physical removal. 

As nations across the world grapple with invasive species like the water hyacinth, Africa’s approach offers a unique perspective. Not only is there an overwhelming desire to employ ecologically-sound solutions, but there also is an ever-growing push to address root causes rather than symptoms. While the water hyacinth was once thought of as a nuisance to Lake Tana, the plant is now gaining recognition as a potential resource. Instead of disposing or burning the biomass after removal, there is a growing push to repurpose it into fertilizer and feedstock. Officials like Ayalew Wondie, PhD, seek to engage with the issues more deeply. “The problem isn’t Lake Tana,” Dr. Wondie says. Rather, the issue is the excessive levels of phosphorous and nitrogen that make their way into the lake through agricultural runoff and poor wastewater management. Plans to create an integrated watershed management system for Lake Tana are underway at Bahir Dar University. 

Despite the nuances of the many ecological systems found on the continent, globally, there is a tendency to simplify Africa’s ecological strategies, often relegating them as less sophisticated than alternative industrialized methods. Prominent politicians and corporations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation emphasize Africa’s need for a green revolution. Yet, historically, these prescribed interventions deliver poor results. 

In Burkina Faso, the adoption of genetically modified Bt cotton was initially seen as a revolutionary step toward achieving higher yields and combating pests. However, cotton quality was compromised over time, with the cotton fiber becoming shorter and less valuable. The economic promise it once held started waning as farmers grappled with declining revenues and increased seed costs. Even without considering the shortcomings of the cotton fiber length, the high susceptibility rate of Bt crops to insect resistance indicates further issues would have arisen in the cotton crop. Meanwhile, in Ethiopia, the fight against relentless locust invasions led to the extensive deployment of insecticides between 2019 and 2021. While these chemicals offered short-term relief against the swarms, the consequences for the broader ecosystem were profound. Widespread use of these insecticides resulted in the inadvertent death of an estimated 76 billion honey bees. Not only did the insecticide kill bees critical for pollination, but their loss also affected the livelihoods of countless beekeepers, further exacerbating ecological and economic problems. 

These instances serve as stark reminders that solutions anchored in industrialized agricultural practices often introduce new challenges, undermining the very objectives they aim to achieve. This critical understanding is held by many in Africa, which is why it has sustained several ecological successes even in the face of invasive species like the water hyacinth.  

As the global community confronts a changing climate and its impacts, a pressing need to reevaluate reliance on agrochemicals is needed. While these chemicals are still widely promoted as quick fixes, such methods’ long-term viability and sustainability are in question. Instead, a more holistic, ecologically balanced strategy may be the key to sustainable progress. 

The African approach to the invasive water hyacinth symbolizes a mindset that might be a solution to issues of sustainability worldwide. For example, in the U.S., numerous health conditions are linked to pesticide and herbicide exposure, so making a transition away from these chemicals is crucial for the well-being of both the environment and the greater community. Beyond Pesticides offers resources to help attain these ecological goals. Consider supporting organic land management and championing pesticide-free parks and lawns in your community. If you are dealing with an invasive species outbreak, please refer to our ManageSafe™ database as a resource for best management practices for handling pests.  

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

Source: InfoNile, The Continual Wrath of Water Hyacinth 

(Beyond Pesticides, September 25, 2023) It happens twice a year. The transparent process of a stakeholder board of farmers, consumers, environmentalists, a scientist, retailer, and certifier get together as members of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and vote on allowable materials and standards in organic agriculture. This Congressionally mandated board has authorities not often given to people outside of government—authorities to determine what should be allowed in organic food production, under assessments of synthetic and natural substances. And the underlying law that makes this happen, the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), stipulates that the Secretary of Agriculture may not allow synthetic and prohibited natural materials unless they are recommended by the NOSB.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public, which must be submitted by September 28, 2023.

The values and principles embedded in OFPA far exceed the standards of health and environmental protection of any other health and environmental laws, which establish risk mitigation measures to determine allowable harm, under a set of guiding standards that require the board to (i) protect health (from production of inputs to their disposal), (ii) ensure compatibility with organic systems (with determinations that inputs do not hurt biodiversity of the soil and the ecosystem), and (iii) determine essentiality (is the substance under review necessary given the availability of other materials). Also unique to OFPA implementation is a public participation process that establishes a twice-yearly mechanism for public input to the NOSB and a uniquely efficient process for responding to those comments. As can be seen from Beyond Pesticides comments to the NOSB (see Keeping Organic Strong), there is always room for improvement and updating based on new scientific studies and new materials coming on line, ensuring that the board is always involved in an interactive process of continuous improvement.

The public comment period, which ends on September 28, precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on October 17 and 19 and deliberative hearing October 24-26—concerning how organic food is produced. Sign up to speak at the webinar by September 29. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov. by 11:59 pm EDT, September 28. Links to the virtual comment webinars and the public meeting will be posted on this webpage in early October. The public’s personal concern in upholding the integrity of organic standards is critical, given the pressure from some in the food and chemical industry to weaken organic standards. Public input is important because the success of the organic market is totally dependent on public trust in the USDA certified organic label. Organic is not just important for the individual health of consumers, but has wide ranging benefits for improving  environmental protection, stopping biodiversity collapse, and drawing down atmospheric carbon to reverse the climate emergency. The holistic benefits of organic land management offer a solution to these existential crises that threaten the sustainability of life.

The NOSB plays an important role in bringing the views of organic producers and consumers to bear on USDA, which is not always in sync with organic principles. There are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Fall. We encourage you to use the Beyond Pesticides organic webpage and comment on as many issues as you can. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Fall 2023 issues page. See Keeping Organic Strong and the Fall 2023 issues page.  

Some important issues that need your comments:

1. “Inert” ingredients used in organic agriculture must be evaluated individually.“Inert” ingredients are not necessarily biologically or chemically inert—in almost every category of harm, there are more harmful “inerts” than active substances used in organic production. OFPA allows the use of a synthetic substance in organic production only if it is listed on the National List “by specific use or application” based on a recommendation by the NOSB, following procedures in OFPA. The NOSB has repeatedly passed recommendations telling NOP to evaluate individual “inerts.”
2. Plastic mulch is under consideration this year as a part of its five-year review cycle. This is part of the larger issue relating to the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plastic—and the microplastic particles resulting from its use—on human health and the environment. Plastics manufacture requires transportation of hazardous chemicals, such as those involved in the recent derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Organic should lead the way. Plastic mulch should not be relisted as allowable in organic production. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic processing and packaging.
3. Nonorganic ingredients should be eliminated from processed foods under the NOSB review (or sunset) process. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that may comprise 5% of organic-labeled processed foods. The intent of the law is to allow restricted nonorganic ingredients (fully disclosed and limited) when their organic form is not available. However, materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and we can now grow virtually anything organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” The materials on §205.606 up for sunset review this year are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be taken off the National List of allowed materials.

>Submit Comments Now.

Need help in submitting comments? Regulations.gov requires more than a single click, but it is not difficult. Please feel free to cut-and-paste language from the comments above into Regulations.gov and add or adjust the text to personalize it. See this instructional video. (Regulations.gov has changed its look since this video was made.) 

Thank you for keeping organic strong! 

(Beyond Pesticides, September 22, 2023) Beyond Pesticides today announced the second session of the National Forum, Forging a Future with Nature: The existential challenge to end petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use, scheduled for October 24, 2:00pm EDT. The hard-hitting talks of Dave Goulson, PhD, and André Leu, DSc. are now available as recordings on the Beyond Pesticides website. 

Beyond Pesticides introduces the Forum: A future supported by the natural environment depends on our effective involvement in decisions in our homes, communities, states, and at the federal level to ensure that we are taking the steps necessary to protect against existential threats to health, biodiversity, and climate. The Forum is an important opportunity to hear from those working as scientists, advocates, land managers (from gardens, parks, play fields to farms), and public decisionmakers about steps being taken and action needed to prevent catastrophic collapse of the natural systems that sustain life. A key part of this conversation, according to Beyond Pesticides, is addressing inequities associated with elevated rates of poisoning, contamination, and diseases in people of color communities.

In introducing the importance of environmental justice and addressing the disproportionate risk from toxic pollution to people of color communities as a key part of policies and practices governing ecosystems, the Forum materials quote Dr. Martin Luther King: Dr. King (1963) who said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” Sixty years later, people of color in the U.S. and around the world struggle with inequities that place disproportionate risk in ways that are institutionalized in the economic and social system.   

This session of the Forum will highlight environmental justice as a human rights issue. In 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council declared “the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.” According to the UN, “This right is an important catalyst for change, being crucial for the right to life, food, and decent work, among others.” 

Speaking at the Forum will be Marcos Orellana, PhD, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, who is an expert in international law and the law on human rights and the environment. His recent reports in South Africa and Australia capture the significance of his pursuit of environmental justice. Dr. Orellana teaches at the American University Washington College of Law.  

His work around the world captures critical truths that are challenges across the globe, such as his statement after a visit to South Africa in September. Dr. Orellana said, “The term “environmental racism” describes institutionalized discrimination based on race or colour. In pre-1994 South Africa, the distribution of environmental risks and harms disproportionately and often deliberately targeted low-income groups and along racial lines. Today, despite the efforts by Government in setting up institutions and laws to address this legacy of environmental racism, pervasive air, water, and chemical pollution still imposes a heavy toll, especially on disadvantaged communities. Overcoming it will require significant additional efforts, including structural, legislative, economic, and environmental changes. 

Professor Orellana has extensive experience working with civil society around the world on issues concerning global environmental justice. He was the inaugural director of the Environment and Human Rights Division at Human Rights Watch. Previously he directed the trade and the human rights programs at the Center for International Environmental Law, and he co-chaired the UN Environment Program’s civil society forum. Dr. Orellana teaches at the American University Washington College of Law. He has also lectured at prominent universities around the world, including Melbourne, Pretoria, Geneva, and Guadalajara. He was a fellow at the University of Cambridge, a visiting scholar with the Environmental Law Institute in Washington DC, and an instructor professor of international law at the Universidad de Talca, Chile. 

Also speaking at the Forum will be jayson porter, PhD, an environmental historian of Mexico and the Americas who teaches science and technology studies, material culture, and black geographies in Latin America. Dr. Porter focuses on oilseeds, agrochemicals, environmental justice, and ecological violence. He is an editorial board member of the North American Congress on Latin America and a Voss Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society (2022), and he recently began teaching in the Department of History at the University of Maryland, College Park. 

In “Cotton, Whiteness, and Poisons” (Environmental Humanities, Nov. 2022), which Dr. porter coauthored, identified are some of the historical roots of environmental injustice characterized as “labor exploitation conditioned by racist ideologies” underpinning plantation agriculture. The recognition that dependency on pesticides and fertilizers undermines the economic stability of small farmers, the article states, “At the Tuskegee Institute’s agricultural experiment station, George Washington Carver recognized that commercial fertilizers were a key source of debt for Black farmers and tenants. He encouraged composting and the use of organic fertilizers found on the farm, writing that “many thousands of dollars are being spent every year here in the South for fertilizers that profit the user very little, while Nature’s choicest fertilizer is going to waste.” 

In 2022, Dr. porter wrote, Agrochemicals, Environmental Racism, ad Environmental Justice in U.S. History (Organic Center, 2022), Dr. Porter writes, “Robert Bullard defines environmental racism as any policy or practice that unequally affects or disadvantages individuals, groups or communities based on their race. Vann Newkirk II adds that environmental racism is the opposite of environmental justice and often ignores or belittles input from the affected communities of color.” 

Attention has been brought to the need for environmental justice in the U.S. in recent years by the establishment of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council and the Justice 40 Initiative, which includes issues relating to climate change, legacy pollution, clean water, and wastewater infrastructure, and the establishment of a new EPA office of environmental justice and external civil rights (2022), “elevating equity concerns to higher levels within the agency.” The organizers cite the need for more work to be done, given the toxic legacy, high-risk occupational exposures (e.g., farmworkers, landscapers, chemical manufacturing), manufacturing emissions to fenceline communities, pesticide drift in agricultural communities, and the continuing registration and use of toxic pesticides that cause disproportionate adverse effects to people of color and their communities. 

Make plans to attend the 40th National Forum, Forging a Future with Nature, on October 24, 2:00-4:00pm EDT. Sign up here to receive a Zoom link, if you have not already signed up!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 21, 2023) A literature review published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva finds environmental exposure to all classes of pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, insecticides) has an association with childhood astrocytoma (brain/central nervous system [CNS] tumor). CNS tumors represent half of all malignant neoplasms (tumors) in children. Although medical advancements in disease survival are progressing, childhood cancer remains the leading cause of death from disease among children. Furthermore, childhood cancer survivors can suffer from chronic or long-term health complications that may be life-threatening. The etiology or cause of childhood cancer involves the interaction of multiple components that include environment, lifestyle and genetics. However, emerging evidence indicates that environmental contaminants like pesticides (e.g., occupational exposures, air pollution, pesticides, solvents, diet, etc.) affect disease etiology.

Pesticide contamination is widespread in all ecosystems, and chemical compounds can accumulate in human tissues, resulting in chronic health effects. Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of pesticide exposure, as their developing bodies cannot adequately combat exposure effects. Moreover, several studies demonstrate an association between environmental or occupational pesticide exposure and the risk of childhood cancer. Considering that maternal pesticide exposure can have a stronger association with cancer among children than childhood exposure, and newborns can still encounter pesticides, it is essential to understand how pesticide accumulation and co-occurrence can increase the risk of latent diseases (e.g., cancers) among vulnerable populations, such as children/infants.

In this piece, Brazilian researchers systematically review the literature in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL databases to investigate the association between pesticide exposure and CNS tumors in children aged 0 to 14. The literature review identifies 1,158 studies associated with CNS and pesticide exposure, with the paper focusing on 14 eligible studies. The results confirm evidence of CNS tumor development, specifically brain tumor development, among children exposed to all classes of pesticides. The most common exposure setting was in the home.

There is a significant scientific connection between pesticides and cancer, as several studies link pesticide use and residues to various cancers. Both current and past-use pesticides and chemical contaminants play a role in similar disease outcomes as several chemicals have implications for specific cancer risks (e.g.,  breast cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, etc.). Additionally, 66 percent of all cancers have links to environmental factors, especially in occupations of high chemical use. In addition to the robust links between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses, over 65 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent of commonly used school pesticides have links to cancer. Although general pesticide exposure can increase susceptibility to cancer, prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants can increase cancer risk. For decades, studies have demonstrated that childhood and in-utero exposure to the U.S.-banned insecticide DDT increases the risk of developing breast cancer later in life. Moreover, a 2021 study finds previous maternal exposure to the chemical compound during pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer and cardiometabolic disorders (e.g., heart disease, obesity, diabetes) up to three successive generations. 

This study highlights that any pesticide type can lead to CNS tumor development. Most notably, exposure to pesticides in the home represents the most typical type of exposure setting. This is concerning as most of one’s lifetime is spent in the home. This study is not the first to find a risk between childhood cancer development and household pesticide exposure. Pregnant mothers’ exposure to household cleaners, many of which are pesticides, can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmentally relevant pesticide exposure—can drive cancer development to avoid exposure and lessen potential cancer risks. The study concludes, “The investigation of factors related to the risks of using pesticides is vital to inform environmental policy and curb the indiscriminate use of these substances in agriculture. […] A package of measures are therefore required, including public policies, effective environmental protection, and educational initiatives in primary health care services. The latter should address the residential use of potentially harmful chemicals, encourage healthy eating based on the consumption of organic foods, promote the use of personal protective equipment by parents employed in agriculture, and provide guidance to avoid the use of pesticides in the home before and during pregnancy.”

Globally, cancer is one of the leading causes of death, with over eight million people succumbing to the disease every year. Notably, the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) predicts a 67.4 percent rise in new cancer cases by 2030. Thus, it is critical that both government officials and the public understand the health implications of pesticide use and exposure on humans, especially when pesticides increase chronic disease risk. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent news and studies on pesticides through the Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the adverse effects of pesticides on human health, see PIDD pages on cancer (lymphoma, multiple myeloma), birth/fetal defects, and other diseases. Additionally, since pesticides can have multi-generation impacts on our health, you can learn more about the hazards posed to children’s health through Beyond Pesticide’s Pesticide and You Journal article, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.”

There is a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical windows of development. However, the general population should follow this advice as the effects of pesticide exposure span every individual. Fortunately, the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies allows families and agricultural industry workers to apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For instance, buying, growing, and supporting organic land management can reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Numerous studies find that pesticide metabolite levels in urine significantly decrease when switching to an all-organic diet. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage on Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 

(Beyond Pesticides, September 20, 2023) Higher concentrations of a pyrethroid metabolite (3-PBA) in the body have an association with increased osteoarthritis (OA) risk among US adults, according to a study published in BMC Public Health. Regardless of analysis sensitivity and population subgroup (e.g., sex, socioeconomic status, etc.), the association between pyrethroid exposure and OA remains. Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease resulting from the degradation (breakdown) of joint cartilage and underlying bone. This disease affects 1 in 7 U.S. adults and is the fourth leading cause of disability in the U.S. Unfortunately, OA is one of the most recently attributed pesticide-induced diseases associated with this dangerous class of chemical insecticides—harm to individual Americans that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not considering when it registers pesticides.

To remedy the significant deficiencies in EPA’s reviews and protect residents from chronic disease, more and more communities are transitioning to safer, organic pest management practices that do not require pyrethroids and other toxic synthetic pesticides. Thus, this study and others like it highlight the need for increased monitorization of pyrethroid exposure among the general population.

Using data from the 1999–2002 and 2007–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), this study explores the relationship between pyrethroid exposure and osteoarthritis. NHANES is a long-running monitoring program that began in the early 1960s and has since become a continuous program focused on American health and nutrition measurements. The researchers gathered urine samples from the participants, with 650 out of the 6,523 participants having OA, and examined the samples for levels of 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3-PBA), the primary metabolite of pyrethroids. Multivariable logistic regression models allowed researchers to investigate the association between pyrethroid exposure and OA. The results demonstrate that the higher the levels of urinary 3-PBA, the greater the odds of OA in U.S. adults, highlighting the importance of routinely monitoring pyrethroid exposure among the general population.

Synthetic pyrethroids are one of the most frequently detected chemicals in Americans’ bodies. Prior NHANES data shows that 78 percent of adults and 79 percent of children have some level of 3-PBA in their urine. Avoiding pyrethroid exposure can be difficult as synthetic pyrethroids are increasingly the first choice for mosquito management in many communities nationwide. These chemicals have increasingly replaced organophosphate insecticides in homes, food production, local parks, and playing fields. Often characterized by the chemical industry as “safe as chrysanthemum flowers,” they are less acutely toxic than organophosphates. Still, it is increasingly evident that they pose insidious, chronic risks to health that are no less concerning than the hazardous pesticides that came before them. Beyond Pesticides urges government agencies to avoid using these insecticides, primarily because of the risk to young children, pregnant mothers, and communities of color already exposed to disproportionate pesticide use. At the same time, a 2021 study finds that disease-carrying mosquitoes are found at higher rates in lower socioeconomic areas, and a study published earlier 2022 finds that children’s exposure to pyrethroid mosquito control operations is associated with significant increases in the risk of allergies and respiratory diseases. Much of this exposure can occur from a diet laden with these toxic pesticides. However, those who switch from a conventional to an organic diet can significantly reduce the amount of pesticide in their body, as evidenced by drastic drops in urinary 3-PBA after going organic. In fact, children who eat organic are more likely to score higher on cognitive tests than those who consistently eat conventional, pesticide-contaminated food. However, for many low-income and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities around the country, eating organic is not likely to limit all exposures. In public housing, synthetic pyrethroids are often used as insect sprays for common household pests that would not have been a problem with proper building maintenance and upkeep. Research finds that, after sprayed, synthetic pyrethroids can remain on surfaces for up to a year, representing a continuous source of re-exposure. This data tells a story of low-income communities and children being sprayed more often and placed at greater risk due to a lack of investment in maintenance and infrastructure that would prevent pest problems before they begin.

This study is one of the first to identify the association between chronic exposure to pyrethroids and OA. The study suggests pyrethroids’ adverse impact on thyroid hormones plays a significant role in OA development, affecting cell secretions of cartilage and enzyme activity in joints. Additionally, a study within the last year by the same researchers found that pyrethroids are also associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This autoimmune disease causes systemic inflammation throughout the body, progressively damaging an individual’s joints. Thus, exposure to pyrethroids can induce co-occurring impacts on the skeletal structure through autoimmune disruption and degenerative disease, making it possible to have both OA and RA. Like past studies, this study suggests possible sex-specific effects from pyrethroid exposure, especially among men. However, this study shows pyrethroids and their metabolites may have anti-estrogenic activity in humans, further implicating potential endocrine (hormone) disruption from exposure. The anti-estrogenic activity can lead to type II collagen degradation and structural changes in the joints of exposed females.

With many diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, reducing pesticide use is critical to safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities. Policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) and Daily News Blog. The adverse health effects of pesticide exposure and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for more precise research surrounding occupational and residential pesticide exposure to make complete determinations and the importance of fully recognizing uncertainty in precautionary regulatory decisions. Existing information, including this study, supports the clear need for a strategic shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on pesticide-related illnesses, see PIDD pages on immune system disorders, including arthritis.

Arthritis disease has no cure, but preventive practices like organics can eliminate exposure to toxic arthritis-inducing pesticides. Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace regenerative, organic practices. A compliment to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do. 

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

Source: BMC Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, September 19, 2023) Farmworkers in Paarl, South Africa took to the streets on Friday, September 8, demanding an end to the indiscriminate importation and use of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides containing substances prohibited by the European Union (EU). This protest is part of a broader global trend of outcry against systemic issues of environmental racism that disproportionately burden communities with environmental and health risks.  

Organized by the Women on Farms Project, the protesters marched to the headquarters of Bayer. The German pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and pesticide company, responsible for producing and exporting agrochemicals known to be toxic to ecosystem and human health, has previously faced multiple lawsuits, including a multimillion-dollar one linking their glyphosate weed killer products (Roundup®) to non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. At the Bayer office, the protesters presented a memorandum demanding an end to the importation and use of EU-prohibited substances.   

Protesters sought to expose the hypocritical tactics European agrochemical companies use to sell products in developing nations, even when those products are deemed unsafe in their home countries. Numerous farmworkers, like victim-turned-activist Antie Dina, spoke out about their health issues from petrochemical exposure. In her talk, Dina emphasizes that, “… enough is enough, we do not want any more [pesticides].” Meanwhile, the chants of demonstrators echoed throughout: “We’re dying of asthma, we’re dying of cancer, we’re dying of heart attacks,” a reminder of the dire consequences of corporate actions like Bayer’s.   

This demonstration comes on the heels of a visit to South Africa by Marcos Orellana, PhD, the UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights. Dr. Orellana’s report highlights discrepancies in South Africa’s handling of hazardous materials. Apartheid-era laws, such as the Hazardous Substance Act, No.15 of 1973, and the Fertilizers, Farm Seeds, and Seeds and Remedies Act 36 of 1947, persist and permit the use of chemicals that other nations deem too unsafe despite their recognition of health risks posed to agricultural workers.   

In the report, Dr. Orellana voices concerns about environmental racism in the country, highlighting the reality of a post-Apartheid legacy. He observes, “despite the efforts by Government in setting up institutions and laws to address this legacy of environmental racism, pervasive air, water and chemical pollution still imposes a heavy toll, especially on disadvantaged communities.” 

Dr. Orellana suggests addressing these challenges will require “significant additional efforts, including structural, legislative, economic and environmental changes,” especially against the backdrop of grave issues like children being poisoned and killed from handling toxic pesticides and the neglectful response of government and industry to hazardous waste incidents. 

Despite the avenues for improvement, Dr. Orellana commends South Africa for their efforts and states “I would like to congratulate South Africa for having ratified the key multilateral environmental agreements on chemicals and wastes (Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm, and Minamata Conventions and the Montreal Protocol). I would also like to recognize South Africa’s leadership in the multilateral system and in capacity-building in the human rights and environmental areas. South Africa hosts the Regional Centre for English-speaking countries of the Basel and Stockholm Conventions. The country also supported a proposal to amend the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, to overcome the breakdown of the Convention’s science-policy interface mechanism. While South Africa has yet to become party to the Bamako Convention, which aims to ban the import of all hazardous substances into Africa, it has ratified the Basel Ban Amendment that prohibits the import of hazardous wastes from OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.” 

Although South Africa has ratified many key multilateral environmental agreements that are meant to prevent hazardous waste imports, enforcement has been deficient.  

Bayer’s updated website lists products like Antracol 70 WP (Propineb), Biscaya 240 OD (thiacloprid), Confidor (imidacloprid), and Gaucho (imidacloprid)—all of which are prohibited in the EU—as available for purchase in South Africa. These products, alongside many others containing terbufos and paraquat, are widespread in the country. The ongoing sale of EU-banned chemicals suggests the ratification of international agreements at times might be more symbolic than substantive in effect, and that more needs to be done.  

This issue of exporting toxic agrochemicals is not unique to Germany and South Africa. A previous Beyond Pesticides article identified the Netherlands, France, Spain, Switzerland, and Belgium as culprits, exporting prohibited chemicals to countries like Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and Ukraine. Advocates point to this behavior as indicative of the deep-rooted racism that allows racial and wealth disparity to thrive–the belief that the lives of the poor and non-white individuals in developing countries are worth less than the lives of Westerners.   

Western lawmakers and corporations often absolve themselves of any responsibility by suggesting the onus for protection lies with the receiving countries to enforce their own bans on toxic chemicals. This deflection, according to advocates, is especially egregious considering the lasting impact of European colonialism on many of these nations. After years of colonial dominance, resource extraction, and imposed economic structures, many of these countries still grapple with systemic challenges that make it difficult for them to resist or regulate such imports effectively.   

Action Needed: Considering the historical context, as we bear witness to the perseverance of South African farmworkers, we must genuinely commit to change and understand our collective responsibility. While those on the ground lead the change against systemic injustice, the EU must act quickly to close loopholes that enable manufacturers to distribute banned substances offshore. Yet, the most transformative and enduring solutions will be championed by these very farmers and workers. The voices from South Africa and similarly affected regions signal a grave sense of urgency against harmful practices. Advocates are urging countries victimized by international trade in toxins to join for a sustainable agricultural path forward with the tools, knowledge, and freedom to nurture their lands and people.  

Our active support of farmworkers worldwide—whether through legislative action, joining their cause in protest, or advancing agroecological and organic initiatives—amplifies the systems they have been advocating for abroad and at home. Many of the systemic injustices observed in South Africa parallel the challenges faced in the U.S agricultural sector, like in California’s Central Valley and Florida’s citrus groves where workers face some of the lowest wages and harshest conditions. These practices perpetuate environmental racism in the fallout of agricultural work, with pesticide drift and tainted water supplies constantly compounding health risks for those residing in farming-intensive regions. It is vital for readers to take actionable steps towards change. Please consider helping Beyond Pesticides advocate for the cessation of forever chemicals by urging senators to ratify the Stockholm Convention. Send a message to the EPA that persistent toxic pesticides should be deemed an unreasonable environmental risk under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).   

See Beyond Pesticide’s Agricultural Justice webpage and support farmworkers in the U.S. 

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

Source: Ground Up—Farmworkers march against pesticides

Image: CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

(Beyond Pesticides, September 18, 2023) Advocates for organic have consistently maintained that public engagement with the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is critical to protecting the values and principles embedded in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). While the NOSB is a stakeholder board that reflects the sectors of the organic community—from consumers, farmers, processors, certifiers, retailers, and scientists—public interaction with the board offers critical input to the NOSB’s decision-making process. Ultimately, Board authority over the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances and its advisor relationship to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture have a direct effect on the underlying decisions that determine the credibility of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic label that is now widely found on products in virtually all grocery stores. A major issue that continues to plague label integrity is the Board’s review of so-called “inert” ingredients in materials allowed in organic. These are potentially toxic ingredients that should be reviewed by the Board, substances not disclosed on labels of products that may be used in organic production or processing. The NOSB has access to the complete list of “inerts” used in organic materials, and advocates are urging the Board to begin immediately its National List review process for them.

The NOSB is now receiving written comments from the public that must be submitted by September 28, 2023. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on October 17 and 19 and the deliberative hearing October 24-26—concerning how organic food is produced. Sign up to speak at the webinar by September 29. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov. by 11:59 pm EDT, September 28. Links to the virtual comment webinars and the public meeting will be posted on this webpage in early October.

The NOSB is responsible for guiding the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in its administration of OFPA, including the materials (substances) allowed to be used in organic production and handling. The role of the NOSB is especially important as we depend on organic production to protect our ecosystem, mitigate climate change, and enhance our health.

The NOSB plays an important role in bringing the views of organic producers and consumers to bear on USDA, which is not always in sync with organic principles. There are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Fall. We encourage you to use the Beyond Pesticides organic webpage and comment on as many issues as you can. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Fall 2023 issues page. USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) and the NOSB have relied on an allowable list of “inert” ingredients that is no longer maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA), Lists 4A and 4B. While most of these materials are not of toxicological concern and are natural, many are synthetic and must undergo NOSB review under its responsibility to evaluate allowable synthetic substances on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances in OFPA. Beyond Pesticides has advocated that the NOSB break down the hundred or so “inerts” of potential concern into groups of chemical families and common toxicological mechanisms to conduct its review over several years. For example, the ethoxylated compounds could be evaluated together. In fact, they are not permitted in EPA’s Safer Choice labeling program. (For a more in-depth discussion of the “inerts” in organics, please see “Inert” Ingredients Used in Organic Production.)

This is not a new issue for the NOSB and NOP, but one that needs resolution now.

Some crucial facts must be acknowledged by USDA:
* “Inert” ingredients are not necessarily biologically or chemically inert. The Beyond Pesticides report ”Inert” Ingredients in Organic Production compares the toxicity of active substances and “inert” substances used in organic production. In almost every category, there are more harmful “inerts” than active substances.

* OFPA allows the use of a synthetic substance in organic production only if it is listed on the National List “by specific use or application” based on a recommendation by the NOSB, following procedures in OFPA.

* The NOSB has repeatedly passed recommendations telling NOP to evaluate individual “inerts.”

We urge you to submit comments to the docket on the NOSB/NOP “Inerts Pre-Discussion Document” (under consideration at the upcoming NOSB meeting in October), incorporating the following points (feel free to cut-and-paste these comments you submit in the docket):

No issue is more important than the need for the NOSB to evaluate so-called “inert” ingredients in the products used in organic production to ensure that they meet the criteria in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The NOSB, which is responsible for giving direction to the National Organic Program (NOP), has passed repeated recommendations instructing NOP to replace the generic listings for EPA Lists 3, 4A, and 4B “inerts” with specific substances approved for the use. NOP must allocate resources for this project. Recent appropriations have increased for NOP, and some of this money must be used for the evaluation of “inert” ingredients to ensure compliance with the law and to maintain the integrity of the USDA organic label.

OFPA provides stringent criteria for allowing synthetic materials to be used in organic production. In short, the NOSB must judge—by a supermajority—that the material would not be harmful to human health or the environment, is necessary to the production or handling of agricultural products, and is consistent with organic farming and handling. These criteria have been applied to “active” ingredients but not to “inert” ingredients, which make up the largest part of pesticide products—up to 90% or more.

A comparison of the hazards posed by active and “inert” ingredients used in organic production reveals that in seven of 11 categories of harm, more “inerts” than actives pose the hazard.

As a result, NOP and the NOSB have been allowing unknown toxic mixtures to be applied to organic crops and livestock. They are applied not only in products containing approved National List synthetic materials but also in products in which the active ingredient is nonsynthetic, which require no NOSB review.

The NOSB and NOP must address this fatal threat to organic integrity by immediately compiling and posting in the Federal Register a list of all “inert” ingredients used in organic production, as recommended by the NOSB in 1999. They must develop a process for beginning the evaluation of those “inerts” before the next sunset date.

The value of organic in eliminating hazardous pesticides and fertilizers has been widely documented as the most effective alternative to chemical-intensive agriculture and land management. These “inert” ingredients and many even more hazardous ones are used in chemical-intensive or conventional food production that consumers buy and feed to their families every day. The continued use of hazardous “inerts” is an anomaly in organic and must be corrected now. Ignoring this issue will undermine public trust in the USDA organic label.

Submit Comments Now.

 Need help in submitting comments? Regulations.gov requires more than a single click, but it is not difficult. Please feel free to cut-and-paste the comments above into Regulations.gov and add or adjust the text to personalize it. See this instructional video. (Regulations.gov has changed its look since this video was made.)

(Beyond Pesticides, September 15, 2023) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suspended the registration of the herbicide dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA) (also widely known as Dacthal), effective August 22, 2023 and leaves existing stocks (products containing DCPA manufactured before August 22) available on the market. The decision is one of a series of EPA attempts dating to 2013 to get more data from the manufacturer as the agency considers reregistration of DCPA. The suspension is toothless, however, since EPA did not totally close the book on this chemical. Six days before the suspension, EPA signed a settlement agreement with the sole manufacturer, AMVAC Corporation, to reinstate the registration upon receipt of the complete toxicological data—that is, animal and laboratory tests— needed to determine the chemical’s safety and how and where it can be used. DCPA is currently classified by EPA as a possible human carcinogen and has also been shown to be a thyroid hormone disrupter.

DCPA is regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Pesticides are supposed to undergo reregistration every 15 years to take new science into consideration, but this process is glacial. Congress amended FIFRA in 1988 to speed up reregistration of products registered before 1984, and the EPA issued a DCPA reregistration document in 1995. Originally registered only for crabgrass and other weeds in turf, by 1995 there were 83 registrations for products made with DCPA. EPA had issued three calls for additional data on DCPA between 1987 and 1992, including one in 1987 because of concerns about dioxin and furan contamination. The 1995 reregistration allowed all uses of DCPA except the original turf application. The agency could not decide on approval for turf because, “The risks of concern include carcinogenic risk to children playing on lawns post-treatment, carcinogenic risk through contaminated drinking water, chronic risks to wild mammalian species, including endangered species, and acute risks to freshwater and estuarine mollusks, including endangered species.”

When the DCPA review came before an administrative law judge last year, an EPA specialist in the Office of Pesticide Programs testified that by October 2020, “AMVAC had not satisfied approximately 41 [data call-in] requirements.”

AMVAC’s attitude has been particularly egregious. The EPA expert further testified, “AMVAC’s actions as to the [Data Call-In] are abnormally dilatory and repetitive. Following EPA’s denial of AMVAC’s requests to waive certain data requirements, AMVAC followed up with additional waiver requests, which usually provided rationales similar to the originals, often with only minor or insignificant changes. In some cases, AMVAC simply opposed the Agency’s denials and did not offer any additional, substantive rationale. During this cycle of waiver requests and denials, AMVAC did not initiate attempts to satisfy the subject data requirements.”

In its suspension notice, EPA recites its enforcement efforts only since 2013. But EPA’s tolerance for industry malfeasance goes much farther back than that. DCPA was first registered under the 1947 FIFRA law in 1958—65 years ago. The EPA did not exist. Since then, manufacturers of DCPA have undergone several mergers and acquisitions, but they have all disregarded their obligations to provide toxicology data. By the time the first EPA Registration Standard was issued in 1988, only one test had been submitted by the then-manufacturer, Fermenta Plant Protection Company.

The most recent EPA action is emblematic of the agency’s timid capitulation to industry pressure by allowing manufacturers to procrastinate on required testing, which enables EPA to delay decision-making. This pattern prevents protection of public health. EPA discourse uses terms like “partners” to describe pesticide companies whose products are collapsing the planet’s biosphere. Time and time again, instead of regulating under clear standards of protection, EPA negotiates settlements with the regulated industry. This is a troubling and deadly pattern that has plagued the agency since its creation, and certainly since the adoption of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Beyond Pesticides has argued since its founding in 1981 that EPA should regulate and litigate against chemical manufacturers as it is charged with doing under FIFRA and should let the industry know that it will not compromise with the public’s health and the protection of the environment.

The U.S. General Accountability Office (formerly known as the U.S. General Accounting Office) has issued two documents critical of EPA’s handling of registrations. In 1993, GAO reported to Congress regarding delays in reregistrations of lawn and turf pesticides, which includes DCPA. This report cites repeated slippage in deadlines for reregistration because the pesticide companies failed to provide the required studies. GAO noted that EPA did not even have testing and assessment guidelines for human exposure occurring after lawn and turf pesticides were applied. The 2013 GAO analysis took EPA to task for issuing inappropriate conditional registrations and for sloppy recordkeeping. “Specifically, EPA does not have a reliable system, such as an automated data system, to track key information related to conditional registrations, including whether companies have submitted additional data within required time frames. As a result, pesticides with conditional registrations could be marketed for years without EPA’s receipt and review of these data,” the report stated.

The 1993 GAO analysis also noted that EPA had likely underestimated children’s exposures to lawn and turf pesticides while playing on grass. Exposures to DCPA are of critical importance for children, pregnant women, and people who work in agriculture or live near fields treated with DCPA. A recent study by a scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oregon State University gave 100 Latina teenagers in the Salinas Valley silicon wristbands to wear over the summer in 2016. Such wristbands absorb chemicals their wearers are exposed to, and laboratory processing can reveal a wearer’s exposome. The agricultural pesticide found most frequently was DCPA, and a breakdown product of the flea treatment pesticide fipronil had the overall highest occurrence. There was a distinct difference in pesticide exposures between city and country, with rural girls having higher exposures than those who lived in Salinas. Proximity to a field or orchard was also a very large factor in exposures.

These results are consistent with many other studies showing agricultural workers bear the brunt of toxic pesticide exposures and suffer the worst health consequences. This makes EPA’s delays unconscionable, and the agency’s commitment to environmental justice lukewarm.

For the current reregistration cycle, the Endocrine Society, a global group of more than 18,000 endocrine clinicians and researchers, submitted a letter to the EPA saying its members are “extremely concerned about the results of the DCPA thyroid toxicity studies, which showed decreased levels of T3 and T4  [forms of thyroid hormone] in fetal rats at very low, biologically relevant levels, indicating that this chemical is an [endocrine disrupting chemical].” The society also urged adoption of the Precautionary Principle and called for restriction measures, “including cancelling the registration of all products containing DCPA.”

DCPA is a high concentration technical grade product used in the formulation of other commercial herbicide products with an alarming mechanism of action: It affects plants’ ability to reproduce by interfering with the formation of microtubules, a major structural element in every cell on the planet (with slightly different structures in multicellular organisms than in most bacteria and archaea). It is used widely in the cultivation of cabbage, broccoli, cilantro, strawberries, cotton, garlic, and onions, as well as on golf courses and athletic fields. The Yuma, Arizona area is a major DCPA hotspot which grows at least 80 percent of the nation’s winter vegetables and leafy greens, according to Raymond Griffin of Griffin Family Farms, in a comment to EPA protesting EPA’s threat of cancellation. DCPA use is also ubiquitous in California.

The DCPA toxicological results that are available from EPA archives contain disturbing contradictions that the manufacturer and the EPA both disregarded. An EPA analysis in 1994 shows unambiguous thyroid and liver tumors in both sexes of rats tested. Other EPA reports indicate effects on test animals that should have been red flagged. One in 1967 reviewing various dosages in rats, dogs and rabbits, noted significant effects in some dosage groups, such as “depression” in rats and low lactation in rat mothers, and included a remark that, “Data seems to indicate the animals are in poor physical condition. Reproductive indices are low.” Dogs were observed to lose their appetites, lose weight, and become lethargic, yet the various examinations of their internal organs found “no observable gross pathology.” Thus obvious health effects were disregarded in favor of registration.

In 1982, despite numerous detailed criticisms of the test methodologies, such as “[I]t is questionable that the integrity of test cultures was properly maintained in performing the assay,” the EPA’s deference to the DCPA manufacturer was obvious when it proposed to “discontinue establishing potable water tolerances…as an uncessary [sic] burden on applicants for registration of products which may be used in potable water supplies.”

All of this illustrates that EPA knew most of the major ecosystem and human health hazards associated with DCPA almost from the chemical’s first registration. As with the registrations for glyphosate, which disregarded early EPA scientists’ concerns in favor of allowing Roundup (glyphosate) to spread around the world, EPA has ignored DCPA’s clear hazards for decades. It is questionable whether EPA would even require reregistrations of many pesticides if it were not required by law to do so. As it is, EPA drags its feet at every opportunity.

Nathan Donley, PhD of the Center for Biological Diversity observes in a Brookings Institution article that as the U.S. shies away from rational regulation of pesticides, other parts of the world have moved far ahead. For example, in 2019 the U.S. used 322 million pounds of 70 agricultural pesticides that are banned in the European Union. Similarly, the U.S. uses 40 million pounds of pesticides banned or phased out in Brazil. Other countries are making similar decisions. Donley also points out that much of the time when EPA cancels a registration, it is because the company requests it; over the last 20 years, pesticide companies have voluntarily taken 60 pesticides off the market, but EPA has only removed five on its own authority.

Dr. Donley points out that pesticide users are shooting themselves in the foot economically by continuing to treat their products with chemicals banned in their overseas target markets. The U.S. is already losing about $17 million in revenue from the European Union annually. Thailand has banned chlorpyrifos and paraquat, costing U.S. producers $1.8 billion annually; France rejected cherries treated with dimethoate, costing U.S. growers about $5 million over four years; and Mexico is phasing out glyphosate. The failure to even apply enlightened self-interest to the pesticide issue, let alone altruism, is costly in lives, dollars and jobs.

One of the most egregious failings of EPA’s pesticide regulations—indeed, of all its chemical oversight—is its reliance on piecemeal and outdated toxicological concepts while ignoring a vast body of academic health effects research. One result of this is that EPA ignores the commonalities among various parts of the biosphere, such as between vertebrates and invertebrates, animals and plants, microbes and metazoans. DCPA is an outstanding example of this blindness.

DCPA’s interference with microtubules makes it an effective weed suppressor, but as with most pesticides, collateral damage is at least as dramatic. Importantly, DCPA is a phthalate, one of the most notorious reproductive hormone disrupters in the world. DCPA’s microtubular mechanism of action is common to about a quarter of all herbicides that have reached the market, and is not confined to members of the same chemical family. For example, carbendazim, a fungicide used on turf, fruits, and nuts, prevents mouse ova from maturing and damages male sperm production. Oryzalin, a dinitroaniline pesticide commonly used on soybeans, almonds, grapes, and other crops to control weed growth, suppresses microtubule synthesis in a complex process involving oxidative stress that prevents embryos from implanting.

It does not appear that the pesticide industry is able to make the obvious connection between biological interference in one type of organism with the same in other organisms, given that all life stems from a common ancestor and shares a great deal of DNA in common—humans and cabbages have about half their genes in common. It is not surprising that something that kills a cabbage or a dandelion might also injure a human.

The EPA should adopt the Precautionary Principle by assuming that it should not grant approval of groups of chemicals with similar structures if one member is already known to be harmful to humans and ecosystems; and by doing the same thing with chemicals with a common and harmful mechanism of action regardless of their structural families. As the DCPA saga proves, the EPA needs to apply balanced science in a timely manner to the registration of pesticides and stop treating the pesticide industry with kid gloves.

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

Source: EPA Issues Notice of Intent to Suspend the Herbicide DCPA

(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2023) As we celebrate National Organic Month this September, it is the perfect time to reflect on why you should consider going organic. Do you try to buy organic food when you can? Are you looking for a way to reduce your and your family’s exposure to toxic pesticides?

The benefits of choosing an organic lifestyle extend far beyond your diet or your own health. Beyond Pesticides is helping communities transition parks and public lands to organic land management. Here are some reasons why Beyond Pesticides believes in building organic communities:

Why Go Organic?

1. Health and Safety: Organic foods and parks are free from harmful pesticides, fossil-fuel-based substances, and toxic chemicals, making them safer and healthier for all ages. Visit Beyond Pesticide’s 40 Common Lawn and Landscape Chemicals page to learn more about the health impacts of pesticides in communities.
2. Environmental Stewardship: Opting for organic parks and products supports practices that protect pollinators, improve soil health, increase biodiversity, and reduce toxic runoff into water bodies. Learn more about how to protect pollinators in your community by reading BEE Protective.
3. Trust and Transparency: The USDA Certified Organic label ensures strict standards and regulations for organic products, providing trust and transparency for consumers worldwide. We provide oversight for parks that use organic land management. Visit Beyond Pesticide’s literature called Save Our Organic to learn more about the power of the organic label and use our Keeping Organic Strong page to keep USDA accountable to the principles and values in the Organic Foods Production Act.
4. Just Communities: Supporting organic farming practices can benefit local communities and economies, as well as promote responsible animal welfare and fair labor conditions. Organic parks are the ethical choice to promote environmental justice. The Black Institute’s Poison Parks report shines a spotlight on New York City’s previous reliance on glyphosate-based herbicides and that people of color communities, including landscapers, bear the burden of this toxic chemical’s impact.
5. Climate Resilience: Organic farming often exhibits better performance during droughts and challenging environmental conditions. Watering needs are very site-specific and the type of soil impacts drainage. Once established, a deep root system from organic land management requires less water and organic soil management results in the drawn down of atmospheric carbon, contributing to efforts to reduce the adverse efforts of carbon on climate.

How to Go Organic?

Each person’s organic journey is unique, with some emphasizing organic choices in their diet, lawn care, or community involvement. If you are interested in fostering an organic community, one impactful step is to initiate an organic park in your neighborhood. Become an organic parks advocate!

Fall is the best time to transition to organic land management, focusing on healthy soil and proper maintenance practices. Healthy soil leads to weed and pest-resistant grass. Transitioning from chemical-dependent lawns may require extra effort and attention to timing, but organic care saves resources and ensures safety for all. Here are some steps you can take to make your garden or park organic:

1. Mow High and Keep Sharp – Mowing with a dull blade makes the turf susceptible to disease and mowing too close invites sunlight in for weeds, so be sure to sharpen your mower blades frequently. For the last and first mowing, mow down to 2 inches to prevent fungal problems. For the rest of the year, keep it at 3-3.5 inches to shade out weeds and foster deep, drought-resistant roots.
2. Aerate – If a lawn is hard, compacted, and full of weeds or bare spots, aerate to help air, water, and fertilizer enter the soil. If you cannot stick a screwdriver easily into the soil, it is too compacted. Getting an aerator on the turf will be especially helpful. Once you have an established, healthy lawn, worms and birds pecking at your soil will aerate it for free!
3. Fertilize Without Fossil Fuels – Fertilizing in early fall ensures good growth and root development for your grass. Nitrogen, the most abundant nutrient in lawn fertilizers promotes color and growth. Adding too much nitrogen, or quick release synthetic petrochemical (fossil-fuel-based) fertilizers, will result in quicker growth and the need for more mowing. Too much nitrogen can also weaken the grass, alter the pH, and promote disease, insect, and thatch build-up. If applied too late, nutrients can leach directly into nearby surface waters. Be aware of local phosphorus or nitrogen loading concerns. Use safer fertilizers such as”
   1. Grass clippings contain 58% of the nitrogen added from fertilizers, improve soil conditions, suppress disease, and reduce thatch and crabgrass. So, leave the clippings on the lawn.
   2. Compost and compost tea is an ideal soil amendment, adding the much-needed organic content to the soil and suppressing many turf pathogens. In the fall and spring, preferably after aerating, spread ¼ inch layer of compost over your lawn. Compost tea and worm castings are also great additions. Learn more from Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, Compost is Key to Successful Plant Management.
4. Overseed With the Right Grass Seed – Once again, fall is the best time to seed a lawn. Grass varieties differ enormously in their resistance to certain pests, tolerance to climatic conditions, growth habit and appearance. Endophytic grass seed provides natural protection against some insects and fungal disease —major benefits for managing a lawn organically. The local nursery will know the best seed for the area. Check to see the weed content of the grass seed and that there are no pesticide coatings.
5. Analyzing Soil is highly recommended to determine specific soil needs. Contact the university extension service to find out how to take and send in a soil sample. In addition to nutrients and pH, ask for organic content analysis, and request organic care recommendations. Ideal pH should be between 6.5-7.0, and organic content should be 5% or higher. Soil test results will ensure that only the materials that are needed are applied. Read Maintaining a Delicate Balance: Eliminating phosphorus contamination with organic soil management for in-depth information on the problem of fertilizer contamination, and how to apply fertilizer properly.
6. Develop Your Tolerance – Many plants that are considered weeds in a lawn have beneficial qualities. Learn to read your “weeds” for what they indicate about your soil conditions. Monocrops do not grow in nature and diversity is a good thing. See more information on our Least Toxic Control of Weeds factsheet.
7. Become an Organic Parks Advocate – Send the municipal parks department links to our factsheets on Establishing New Lawns and Landscapes and Maintaining Sustainable Lawns and Landscapes. Or print them out and take them to the parks manager. For more support from Beyond Pesticides, sign up to become an organic parks advocate!

There is a lot more at Lawns and Landscapes on the Beyond Pesticides’ website. For more information about becoming an advocate for organic parks, see Parks for a Sustainable Future and Tools for Change.

TAKE ACTION: In addition to priming your own lawns, and landscapes, tell your mayor or county executive to transition your public parks and lands to organic management practices!

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

Source: Parks for a Sustainable Future FAQ, Establishing New Lawns and Landscapes, It Is the Season to Transition Lawns and Landscapes to Organic for Municipalities, Schools, and Homes