(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2023) Government agencies in Hawaii are making preparations to release a small parasitoid in an attempt to control infestations of coffee berry borer (CBB) in the state, according to a release published by the University of Hawaii.  “This biological control agent has the potential to make significant positive economic impacts in the Hawaiʻi coffee industry, and offers an environmentally safe way to manage CBB,” says Mark Wright, PhD, professor at UH. “The Hawaiʻi coffee industry is economically and culturally significant, and we hope that this work will improve the lives of many people associated with the industry.” The planned release comes at a time of increasing interest in nontoxic biological pest management as a means of reducing the harmful effects of industrially produced pesticides.

As early as fall 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service (USDA ARS) and UH’s Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Services plan to release thousands of parasitic wasps throughout coffee growing areas in Maui, O’ahu and the Big Island. The parasitoid in question is Phymastichus coffea, a wasp that lays its eggs in the abdomen of coffee berry borers. According to researchers, the wasp becomes attracted to the coffee berry borer based on a chemical signal the pest releases when it digs into coffee fruit.

Scientists have been researching the parasitoid since 2018, bringing in quarantined shipments into the state to test on native insects with similarities to the coffee berry borer to ensure there are no unintended side effects. As it currently stands, the coffee berry borer is found in all coffee growing regions except for Nepal and Papua New Guinea. “CBB arrived in Hawaiʻi without the natural enemies that keep populations in check in its native range in Africa,” said Peter Follett, PhD, of Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. “The introduction of the African parasitoid wasp Phymastichus coffea will reunite CBB with its most significant natural enemy from home. Releases of this wasp in coffee in Colombia against CBB have been shown to limit populations to subeconomic levels.”

To date, testing has shown the parasitoid to be highly specific to the coffee berry borer. The wasps will be brought from Columbia and bred for two generations prior to release, and in order to ensure the colony is without any foreign diseases or contamination.

Coffee berry borer is the most harmful pest a coffee farm is likely to encounter, able to work its way through a crop and destroy up to 80% of produce. The pest can result in the premature fall of young berries, yield and quality reductions, and increased vulnerability to fungal or bacterial infection. This is particularly problematic as Hawai’i coffee growers are also dealing with the impact of coffee leaf rust, a devastating disease that can result in long term-yield reductions to coffee crops. In 2019, the pest was responsible for over $7.5 million in crop damage.

“If all goes according to plan, it’ll make a massive impact,” said Dr. Wright of the parasitoid’s introduction. A study published in 2020 in Nature Ecology and Evolution found that biological pest management has added billions of benefits to agricultural economies over the last century, larger than the apparent benefits of the so-called ‘green revolution’ that enabled the spread of industrial agriculture.

New biocontrols are on the horizon for a range of problematic pests, including the ‘tree of heaven’ (Ailanthus altissima), the spotted wing drosophila (SWD) (Drosophila suzukii), and fire ants.

Humans armed with chemical weapons that indiscriminately kill broad swaths of life over artificial, monoculture landscapes are poor replacements for the sort of specificity and efficiency that natural predators can provide. It is critical that more research and investment be placed into this safer, natural approach to pest management.

Readers at home can employ their own form of biological control for many common yard and outdoor pest problems through online retailers, such as Arbico Organics. Make certain that the use of any pest management fits within a broader, structured, ecological approach to pest management. Use Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage to assist.

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

Source: University of Hawaii press release, Hawaii Public Radio

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2023) Butterflies—the most attractive of our insect fauna—are disappearing at an appalling rate, largely due to pesticide use. Recent studies have documented declines of almost 50% from 1990 to 2011 in Europe (with trends continuing), of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K., and of 33% from 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs.

Tell EPA to eliminate pesticides that threaten butterflies. Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior to help bring back butterflies by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten them. Tell Congress that EPA and other agencies need to do their job and protect our most charismatic insects.

Last year, EPA admitted that three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. EPA’s analyses focus on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous.

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. The problem is not just insecticides, however. Since butterflies depend on plants—sometimes specific plants, as monarchs depend on milkweeds—the widespread use of herbicides is also a major factor in the loss of butterflies.

At a more foundational level, pesticides that support 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 industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

Letter to EPA:

Butterflies—the most charismatic of our insect fauna—are disappearing at an appalling rate, largely due to pesticide use. Recent studies have documented declines of almost 50% from 1990 to 2011 in Europe (with trends continuing), of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K., and of 33% over 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs.

Last year the EPA admitted that three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. EPA’s analyses focus on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous.

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. The problem is not just insecticides, however. Since butterflies depend on plants—sometimes specific plants, as monarchs depend on milkweeds—the widespread use of herbicides is also a major factor in the loss of butterflies.

At a more foundational level, pesticides that support 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 industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

Please eliminate pesticides that threaten butterflies.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  and Dept. of Interior:

Butterflies—the most charismatic of our insect fauna—are disappearing at an appalling rate, largely due to pesticide use. Recent studies have documented declines of almost 50% from 1990 to 2011 in Europe (with trends continuing), of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K., and of 33% over 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs.

Last year the EPA admitted that three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. EPA’s analyses focus on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous.

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. The problem is not just insecticides, however. Since butterflies depend on plants—sometimes specific plants, as monarchs depend on milkweeds—the widespread use of herbicides is also a major factor in the loss of butterflies.

At a more foundational level, pesticides that support 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 industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

Please help bring back butterflies by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten them on public lands.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

Butterflies—the most charismatic of our insect fauna—are disappearing at an appalling rate, largely due to pesticide use. Recent studies have documented declines of almost 50% from 1990 to 2011 in Europe (with trends continuing), of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K., and of 33% over 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs.

Last year the EPA admitted that three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. EPA’s analyses focus on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous.

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. The problem is not just insecticides, however. Since butterflies depend on plants—sometimes specific plants, as monarchs depend on milkweeds—the widespread use of herbicides is also a major factor in the loss of butterflies.

At a more foundational level, pesticides that support 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 industrial agriculture and organic agriculture is that through their organic systems plans, organic producers are required to conserve—protect and increase—biodiversity.

Please ensure that EPA and other agencies need to do their job and protect our most charismatic insects.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2023) Scientists have identified 97 different types of pesticides and flame retardants in primate fecal samples, recently reporting their results in the journal Biology Letters. In Uganda’s Kibale National Park, researchers studied the chemical exposure of four species of primates (chimpanzees, Ugandan red colobus, olive baboons and red-tailed monkeys), adding to previous research on the subject. The chemicals demonstrate a measurable effect on primate growth and development, sparking considerable unease as to the future health of these critical species. This study shows how even within a protected national park, wildlife species are at risk from chemical pollution. According to advocates, the use of dangerous pesticides and flame retardants, therefore, must be entirely stopped in order to protect the future viability of wildlife species. 

Scientists collected a total of 71 fecal samples from the four chosen species to measure levels of chemicals and hormones in a noninvasive manner. After sample analysis, researchers highlight three main groups of chemical pollutants: organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), brominated flame retardants (BFRs), and organophosphate esters (OPEs). Although in a protected area, wildlife species encounter humans through tourism, research, and human development surrounding the park. As these pesticides are so prevalent in areas of development, humans entering the park often carry with them harmful chemical residues. The researchers speculate the animals are most often exposed to harmful chemicals through ingestion of crops surrounding the park, inhalation of airborne contaminants originating from surrounding farmland, and ingestion of pollutants within the park itself. 

Analysis determined that juvenile and adult female primates are most negatively affected by chemical exposure. Higher concentrations of the chemicals studied correspond to altered levels of the stress hormone cortisol, as well as the sex hormone estradiol. Both of these hormones play an essential role in the health of an individual. Exposure to one BFR is especially consistent across the samples, showing up in more than 70% of the population studied. Previous research focused on BFRs has found that, when exposed early in development, mice are ill-equipped to effectively excrete the harmful chemicals, leading to accumulation over an animal’s lifespan. As mice and primates are both mammals, similar patterns of accumulation may explain the consistent concentrations of BFRs in the sample population. 

Pesticides and flame retardants pose a significant threat to the future health of primate populations, as these chemicals are particularly known for their ability to alter hormone production. The altered hormone levels resulting from chemical exposure signal significant dysfunction of the endocrine system, which controls the production and regulation of hormones within organisms. The endocrine system is essential for healthy metabolism, growth, and reproduction, as these processes are initiated and blocked by hormones. Given the rapid growth experienced by juveniles, the importance of a properly functioning endocrine system is heightened during these critical stages of development. Chemical exposure during these early phases of life leaves younger organisms especially vulnerable to lasting negative health outcomes. 

 As the study states, “Whereas activational effects of endocrine disruptors in adult primates are expected to be relatively more transient, disruption of steroid hormones in juveniles during development can result in permanent phenotypic changes in morphological, physiological and behavioural structure and function.” In other words, adults are better equipped to maintain normal functioning in response to chemical exposure, and the health impacts are often temporary. Juveniles, however, are more susceptible to lasting, and sometimes even permanent, damage.  

The increased impact of chemical exposure on females and juveniles, as presented in the study, demonstrates the particular danger posed to critical stages of female reproduction and the resulting growth of their offspring. Existing studies highlight how mothers can transfer significant concentrations of chemicals to their offspring during pregnancy, as well as during lactation and nursing: perhaps explaining the heightened vulnerabilities of the young primates studied. 

Although research on endocrine disruptors continuously links these chemicals to negative health effects, such as infertility, diabetes, Parkinson’s, obesity, cancers, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer’s, the EPA has failed to devote adequate resources to the evaluation and testing of endocrine-disrupting chemicals present in pesticides, despite a mandate incorporated way back in 1996 in the Food Quality Protection Act. As exposure to these harmful pesticides clearly leads to impaired growth and reproduction, advocates have repeatedly called for a stop to the unleashing of such dangerous concoctions of chemicals in an effort to eliminate this cycle of damaged development.  

Pesticide use does not exist in a vacuum. Once applied, a pesticide’s pathway through the environment cannot be reliably contained. The chemicals cycle through soil and water systems, posing threats to humans and wildlife far from the initial source. For more information on the destructive effects of pesticides on such an interconnected environment, check out Beyond Pesticides’ resource page on how pesticides affect wildlife, and check out the wildlife section of our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. While you’re at it, take action to help endangered species impacted by pesticide contamination and fight to ban these toxic chemicals from entering the environment in the first place. 

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

Sources: Biology Letters; Natural History Museum 

(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2023) Eco-Friendly Parks for All (EFPA)*, a partnership of environmental, public health and political action organizations, has teamed up with Beyond Pesticides, New York City Parks and Recreation Department, and Stonyfield Organic Yogurt to celebrate the success of pilot organic land management programs at eight sites across the five boroughs. The demonstration programs**, directed by Beyond Pesticides board member and nationally recognized natural turf expert Chip Osborne, were initiated by the coalition after the city council adopted new legislation on Earth Day in 2021 prohibiting the use of chemical pesticides on all New York City parks.  

“We are excited to be working with the City of New York on organic land management practices that protect community health and the environment, and support efforts to mitigate climate change and biodiversity decline,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides. “Organic practices such as those being used in these demonstration sites eliminate fossil fuel petroleum-based products and sequester atmospheric carbon in the soil, combating the climate crisis. It’s a win for the city, the public and the environment.”  

The new law Intro 1524, required to be fully implemented by the fall of 2022, restricts pest management products to those compatible with organic systems, which eliminates synthetic weed killers like glyphosate (Roundup), tied to cancer by the World Health Organization, and bee-toxic insecticides like neonicotinoids, which have been prohibited by many communities and countries. 

The demonstration sites are part of Beyond Pesticides’ nationwide Parks for a Sustainable Future program, with the long-term goal of adopt organic practices that rely on methods and products that support soil biology and soil health, while beautifying parks and playing fields by strengthening the grass plants to be better able to stand up to the stress associated with use. In New York City, the program also features the use of compost from the city’s Sanitation Department, which can provide valuable nutrients to park grounds and reduce the cost of fertilizer.   
 
Join the press conference held today, June 1, 2023, on the baseball field at Morningside Park in Harlem at 11 AM EDT (Manhattan Ave and W 112 St). [Flyer] Beyond Pesticides will be there as an exhibitor to celebrate pesticide-free park management and demonstrate how organic techniques can work in NYC. 

A few words from EFPA members and stakeholders: 

• “We are proud of the significant reduction in pesticide use at Parks, and our collaboration on this pilot with Eco-friendly Parks for All will further demonstrate what can be achieved through our continued and expanded use of sustainable landscaping practices,” said NYC Parks Deputy Commissioner for Environment and Planning Jennifer Greenfeld.

• “The Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center applauds the implementation of this legislation as a major victory for children’s health. Outdoor play and access to green spaces is essential to health and well-being – all families have a right to safe, pesticide-free parks.” said Sarah Evans, PhD, Assistant Professor of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.  

• “It’s critical that municipal governments take these positive steps forward to make our parks safer for people and our cities more sustainable,” said Patti Wood, executive director of Grassroots Environmental Education, one of the Coalition’s founding members. “We’re hoping this will help convince other cities across the country that they can do it too!”

• Bertha Lewis, Founder and President of The Black Institute said, “This initiative not only benefits the environment, but it also addresses environmental justice by ensuring that our Black and Brown communities have access to safe, healthy, and sustainable parks. We’re working together to create a better future for all New Yorkers, regardless of their background, by promoting organic land management practices that protect our people.”

• Paula Rogovin, NYC public school teacher for 44 years (now retired) said, “It is a joy of a lifetime to see this law, introduced in 2015 on behalf of my kindergarten students from PS 290, coming to fruition.  No one is too young or too old to advocate for a better world for all.”

• “Stonyfield is pleased to collaborate and support the city’s efforts as a leader in sustainability and now organic land management with demonstration sites that serve as an opportunity to adopt practices that meet the environmental and health challenges of our time,” said Mairead Dunphy-Fabrycki, Public Relations Manager, Stonyfield Organic Yogurt, which helped underwrite the costs of the pilot program.

• “Eco-friendly lawn care takes a responsible approach to maintaining our green spaces, including parks like Pelham Bay Park. The use of pesticides can have harmful effects on our environment and the health of humans and animals. By adopting eco-friendly practices, we can promote the growth of healthy parks and green spaces without compromising the health of our community,” said New York City Council Member Marjorie Velázquez. “These practices not only protect our environment but also contribute to the resilience and sustainability of our communities for generations to come. ” 

• “By embracing sustainable practices, families can enjoy the beauty of our parks without it being a health hazard. We support Eco-Friendly Parks for All and The Black Institute in ensuring New York City parks are safe and sustainable.” said New York City Council Member Darlene Mealy. 

• “Parks are invaluable public resources that help us maintain the health of our communities,” said New York City Council Speaker Adrienne E. Adams. “It’s important that our parks and public spaces utilize eco-friendly practices so that New Yorkers can enjoy them for generations to come. These sustainable measures to ban chemical pesticides in our parks, as passed by the City Council in 2021, are important to ensuring that our city is accessible. I thank Eco-Friendly Parks for All for their work to protect our communities and our city’s natural biodiversity.”

What can we do?  

It is critically important to educate ourselves and our communities on not only the hazards associated with cosmetic lawn care pesticides, but the availability of alternative practices and products. Check out Beyond Pesticides’ 40 Commonly Used Lawn Pesticides factsheet and infographic, as well as alternatives for safer lawn care, myths about organic playing field management, and stopping systemic environmental racism in New York City parks.

Now, with your help, it is time to take this work to the next level. Sign up to be a Parks Advocate! 
 
You do not have to be an expert on landscaping management, or the health effects of every pesticide used on playing fields. What you do need to know is that children are being unnecessarily exposed to chemicals that can impair their health, and a safer, proven way exists.   

Steps you can take: Determine whether your state, school or community has a law or policy governing pesticide usage in and around schools, or on public lands. Find out if, and how well, it is being implemented and you do not have a law, call for an organic land care policy in your community. Petition the school and the town parks department to convert the playing fields to organic care and require that the grounds maintenance director, or contracted professional, be trained in organic land care. 

For more information, please contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] 

*Eco-Friendly Parks for All founding members include Beyond Pesticides, The Black Institute, Grassroots Environmental Education, Children’s Environmental Health Center, at Mount Sinai Institute for Exposomic Research, (Icahn School of Medicine) and Voters for Animal Rights.  

**Demonstration sites include Bronx—Claremont Park, Mapes Playground (Jacobo Field); Brooklyn—Canarsie Park (cricket field) and Lincoln Terrace; Manhattan—Morningside Park; Queens —Rufus King Park; Staten Island—Rev. Dr. Maggie Howard Playground and Mahoney Playground.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2023) A study published in Chemosphere supports accumulating scientific research confirming that prohibited and current use pesticides are readily detectable in the human placenta. All pregnant women experience exposure to a mixture of complex pesticides like DDT (prohibited organochlorine pesticide [OCP]) and chlorpyrifos (current use organophosphate [OP]), with concentrations high enough to increase possible adverse health risks to the fetus through a placental transfer of chemicals. Prenatal development in the intrauterine environment is one of the most vulnerable periods of exposure, as the fetus is most susceptible to the harmful effects of chemical contaminants. Many studies indicate that prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases susceptibility to diseases, from learning and developmental disabilities to cancer. Given the over 1,300 research studies that demonstrate the link between pesticide exposure and general health effects, studies like this can help government and health officials identify how pesticides’ impact on the body elevates health concerns, especially for future and developing generations.

The authors note, “This study highlights the urgent requirement for implementing alternative pest-control methods in agriculture, involving a reduction of chemical pesticides application. Due to the vital role of the placenta in fetal development and its non-invasive sampling, this kind of research highlights the relevance of this tissue as a useful tool to determine pesticide exposure, and thus, prevent possible adverse effects on vulnerable populations.”

The study determined the concentration of OCPs and current-use pesticides in Argentine pregnant women’s placentas. Researchers collected socio-demographic information on the mother’s lifestyle and analyzed neonatal characteristics related to pesticide residue concentrations. Focusing on an area of chemical-intensive fruit production in Patagonia, Argentina, the researchers gathered 85 placentas after birth to determine pesticide concentrations. Using Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) and Gas Chromatography – Electron Capture Detector (GS-ECD), the researchers find a concentration of 23 pesticides: trifluralin (herbicide), chlorothalonil and HCB (fungicides), chlorpyrifos (insecticide), and organochlorines like HCHs, endosulfans, DDTs, chlordane, heptachlor, drins, and metoxichlor. Among urban and rural residential settings, rural groups of pregnant women have significantly higher levels of chlorpyrifos. However, DDT and chlorpyrifos are the major constituents of placentas regardless of urban or rural residency. The levels of DDT and chlorpyrifos in placentas exceed those reported in analyses on placental pesticide contamination in low-, middle- and high-income countries across the globe. Despite general pesticide concentrations having little association with neonatal anthropometric parameters (early postnatal complications), the concentrations in this study are high enough to caution against possible adverse health implications from prenatal exposure.

Pesticide use is widespread and direct exposure from applications or indirect exposure from residues threatens human health. Children are more vulnerable to the impact of pesticides as their bodies are still developing. Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases disease susceptibility. Early childhood developmental pathways are significant for future health. A 2020 study finds the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which prenatal pesticide exposure can increase disease risk. A pregnant mother’s exposure to environmental toxicants can increase the likelihood of developmental disabilities, as most developmental disabilities begin before birth. Many studies link childhood pesticide exposure to lower IQ, but the intelligence decline is even more problematic with prenatal pesticide exposure. Moreover, women living near areas of highly toxic chemical use have an increased risk of birthing a baby with cognitive function, like Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even many long-banned pesticides still cause adverse effects on human health. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID). 

Overall, the study demonstrates that pregnant women experience simultaneous exposure to various harmful pesticides, which can damage normal fetal development via placental transfer. As described in this study, those who work in or live proximate to agricultural sites encounter pesticides through residue on clothing and in households and through drift from sprayed applications. Thus, the presence of pesticide transfer between mother and fetus is not a new phenomenon. In blood and umbilical cord samples, pregnant women already have over 100 detectable chemicals, and studies find pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Therefore, this study supports previous studies identifying the presence of pesticides in maternal and umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, and placenta.

Few studies address the co-occurring presence of OCPs and current-use pesticides (CUPs) in the human placenta. However, this study is one of the first to report concentrations of the CUPs chlorpyrifos and chlorothalonil in addition to OCPs in placental tissue, providing information on current pesticide exposure that can have global implications. Although low levels of chlorothalonil are in the placentas of both rural and urban residents, chlorpyrifos is the most frequently detectable current-use pesticide in all placenta samples, with significantly higher levels among rural residents. However, the main contaminants with the highest concentrations in all residential samples include chlorpyrifos (CUP) and DDE (a metabolite of DDT [OCP]). The study calls for “[…An] urgent requirement for implementing alternative pest-control methods in agriculture, involving a reduction of chemical pesticide application.”

There is a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical windows of development. Similarly, populations at elevated health risk should steer clear of pesticide exposure. The wide availability of non-pesticidal and nontoxic alternative strategies gives residential and agricultural management safer choices to establish a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For instance, buying, growing, and supporting organic land management reduces 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 consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage on the Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on learning/developmental disorders, Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Body Burdens, and other diseases. Additionally, learn more about the hazards to children’s health through Beyond Pesticide’s Pesticides and You Journal article, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.”

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

Source: Chemosphere

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2023) On Endangered Species Day, May 19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed an unfortunate degree of hypocrisy in its claims to protect endangered species from pesticides.

Tell EPA and Congress that dwindling biodiversity is an existential crisis that requires removing serious threats posed by pesticides.

EPA announced that it “is publishing a group of StoryMaps to raise public awareness about protecting endangered species from pesticides.” It continues, “Through its Vulnerable Species Pilot, EPA has been identifying endangered species that are vulnerable to pesticides, developing mitigations to protect them from pesticide exposure, and will apply the mitigations to many types of pesticides.”

However, 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 at 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 agency must evaluate the allowance of toxic pesticides in a holistic context and recognize that under law EPA has a responsibility to protect living systems that are harmed by the introduction of toxic pesticides—whose uses are unreasonable, given the availability and economic viability of management systems not reliant on toxic inputs.

Tell EPA and Congress that dwindling biodiversity is an existential crisis that requires removing serious threats posed by pesticides.

Letter to EPA:

On Endangered Species Day, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed its latest plan to protect endangered species from pesticides.

EPA announced that it is “publishing a group of StoryMaps to raise public awareness about protecting endangered species from pesticides.” It continues, “Through its Vulnerable Species Pilot, EPA has been identifying endangered species that are vulnerable to pesticides, developing mitigations to protect them from pesticide exposure, and will apply the mitigations to many types of pesticides.”

However, 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.

EPA must evaluate the allowance of toxic pesticides in a holistic context and recognize that under law EPA has a responsibility to protect living systems that are harmed by the introduction of toxic pesticides—whose uses are unreasonable, given the availability and economic viability of management systems not reliant on toxic inputs.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

On Endangered Species Day, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed its latest plan to protect endangered species from pesticides.

EPA announced that it is “publishing a group of StoryMaps to raise public awareness about protecting endangered species from pesticides.” It continues, “Through its Vulnerable Species Pilot, EPA has been identifying endangered species that are vulnerable to pesticides, developing mitigations to protect them from pesticide exposure, and will apply the mitigations to many types of pesticides.”

However, 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 a 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.

Please tell EPA to protect endangered species by eliminating the registrations of toxic pesticides and encouraging organic production.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 26, 2023)The use of pesticides in agriculture, transportation, and domestic settings has created a disastrous conflict for the human species. Two irreconcilable facts confront humans as they try to adapt to the consequences of earlier choices: One, industrial civilization came to believe that because some insects, fungi, and other organisms like to eat the same plants humans eat, humans can kill them with impunity; two, because some insects and other organisms are necessary to the health and reproduction of plants, humans need to protect them. At no point in history have people acknowledged that it is very difficult to kill the “bad” actors while protecting the “good” ones. There are not really two sides to the biological fact; rather, pesticides and biodiversity meet each other on a single plane, like a Möbius strip.

Among the most dire effects of pesticides are their ruination of pollinators. Bees spring to mind as our primary pollinators, but they are by no means the only ones. Butterflies, often regarded as mere ornamental additions to a landscape, are actually significant pollinators themselves. Monarchs pollinate many flowers, including calendula and yarrow. Other butterflies pollinate dill, celery, fennel, cilantro, lettuce, peas, and basil, among other important food plants. Butterflies are also known to be excellent indicators of ecosystem health, so if an environment has lots of butterflies it is reasonably robust.

The European Union has just released a report, the European Grassland Butterfly Indicator 1990-2020 as part of the EU’s attempt to “halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU…and restore them, in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.” The Grassland Butterfly Indicator is one of the EU’s tools to identify trends in “genetic, species and ecosystem/landscape diversity.” The survey includes counts of 17 species of butterflies from 19 countries. Results show that, “Grassland butterflies have undergone a huge overall decrease in numbers. Their populations declined by almost 50% from 1990 to 2011” across the EU member states. This is derived from the Indicator, which has declined by 32% over the last decade. Intensification of farming is the major culprit for grassland butterflies, and climate, especially heat waves and drought, is close behind. Industrial farming not only destroys habitat, but it uses poisonous chemicals as well.

In addition to documented declines in Europe, research documents declines of 58 percent between 2000 and 2009 in the U.K. and of 33% over 1996–2016 in the state of Ohio in the U.S. Even steeper declines have been documented for Monarch butterflies, with an 80 percent decline of Eastern monarchs and 99 percent decline of Western monarchs. 

Butterflies and moths belong to the order Lepidoptera. Unfortunately, some 70 percent of agricultural pests—many of them moths at various life stages—also belong to this order. This puts butterflies smack in the bullseye for many pesticides. As Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly reported, the neonicotinoid pesticides destroy insects’ nervous systems, and they are not picky as to species. Their effects on bees caused the EU to ban three neonicotinoids in 2013—clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid—but in the US the Environmental Protection Agency is just getting around to pondering whether they are harmful enough to ban.

Until the last few years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had never considered a pesticide’s effects on endangered species in its registration process. In 2019 the Center for Food Safety sued the EPA, and a California federal judge ruled that “EPA had unlawfully issued 59 pesticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for a wide variety of agricultural, landscaping and ornamental uses,” according to the CFS.

Last year the EPA admitted in response to that ruling that these three neonicotinoid pesticides are “likely to adversely affect from two-thirds to over three-fourths of America’s endangered species—1,225 to 1,445 species in all,” including many butterfly species. On May 5 of this year, EPA released new analyses of these neonics’ effects on endangered species. These more fine-grained analyses focuses on the species most at risk of extinction, and the results represent a “five-alarm fire,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Bird. EPA identifies 25 insect species and upwards of 160 plants dependent on insect pollination whose existence is most perilous. This step by EPA is one in a long line of glacial movements that may result, if the winds of fate do not reverse, in the removal of these chemicals from the market.

Clothianidin is used on cotton, but cotton growers may be shooting themselves in the foot by using it. In 2021, Science reported on a study of cotton pollination showing that the services of butterflies and hoverflies add approximately $120 million annually to the $1.8 billion cotton industry in Texas. They do this by visiting different cotton flowers and appearing at different times than bees do. The researchers counted 40 bee species, 16 fly species, and 18 butterfly species in the cotton fields they examined. The study estimates that about 50% more flowers are visited by all pollinators than if bees were the sole actors. More broadly, according to the Center for Regenerative Agriculture and Resilient Systems at California State University Chico, the efforts of wild native bees and other pollinators are worth $3 billion.

Change at the federal level is too slow, according to advocates, but many efforts at smaller scales, from scientists to farmers to individual citizens, are afoot. Butterflies may have been left out of much consideration of the pollinator crisis and development of ways to assess ecosystem health in general, but they are great poster children for both problems. They are what might be called “charismatic minifauna”—beautiful and beloved by people all over the world. In the U.S., many citizens participate in butterfly counts every year, organized by the North American Butterfly Association. These can be very helpful to researchers trying to assess how quickly our ecosystems are collapsing. Home gardeners can help pollinators in many ways, but one caveat: Milkweed, the mainstay of monarch support, may contain pesticide residues that harm monarch caterpillars if the milkweed plants come from a nursery. Some caterpillars do eat foods humans like, but most of these are moth larvae, and the damage butterflies may cause is surely outweighed by their insects’ benefits.

There are also moves to modify farming practices. As Beyond Pesticides has noted, hedgerows are a good way to help many species of native pollinators. Hedgerows of small trees, low shrubs and native plants provide refuges for these insects and can also help control pesticide drift across field boundaries.

In Oregon’s Willamette Valley, vineyards are starting to incorporate pollinator habitat between their rows of vines. Buzz Cover Crop Seeds of Philomath, Oregon sells seed packets for pollinator-friendly field cover crops and pathways between grapevine rows that have multiple benefits and help reduce chemical applications. Oregon also offers a “pollinator paradise” license plate, the fees for which support pollinator research at Oregon State University.

Some state and federal transportation agencies are acting. The Federal Highway Administration and numerous state departments are incorporating pollinator-friendly policies. The FHA publishes a handbook, “Roadside Best Management Practices that Benefit Pollinators.” Even airports, some of the most habitat-destroying and contaminated lands in the world, may be changing: the National Academy of Sciences has published a report, “Considerations for Establishing and Maintaining Successful Pollinator Programs on Airports.”

The pollinator crisis makes it clear that the template for sustainable human life must change. The toxic Möbius strip of pesticide use versus biodiversity must be broken and reassembled to promote the smooth flow of life. Without drastic reduction in the creation and use of pesticides, the plant and animal systems we need to survive will collapse. It is not enough to preserve European honey bees and not the plethora of other volunteer pollinators that exist all over the world. We must practice “what’s good for the bee is good for the butterfly” agriculture without delay. See all the reasons to support organic agriculture on Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

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

Source: European Grassland Butterfly Indicator, Science Daily

(Beyond Pesticides, May 25, 2023) A review of scientific literature published in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation demonstrates exposure to past and current-use endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), like pesticides, have a long history of severe adverse human health effects. Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotics (i.e., chemical substances like toxic pesticides foreign to an organism or ecosystem) present in nearly all organisms and ecosystems. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds as endocrine disruptors, including various household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (e.g., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause infertility, among other health issues. The review notes, “New evidence supports the role of other EDCs as possibly carcinogenic and pregnant women should avoid risk area and exposure. The relationship between EDCs and cancer supports the need for effective prevention policies increasing public awareness.”

The review examines the relationship between EDCs and various hormone-mediated various (i.e., breast, prostate, testicle, ovary, and thyroid) to determine the carcinogenicity of the chemicals and their impact on public health. Researchers performed a literature review of meta-analyses and human studies between 1958 and 2022, searching for articles on “endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” “EDCs,” “phthalates,” “TCDD,” “dioxin,” “polychlorinated biphenyls,” “PCB,” “bisphenol A,” “BPA,” “nitrate,” “nitrite” and “breast cancer” or “prostate cancer” or “thyroid cancer” or “ovarian cancer” or “testicle cancer” on Pubmed. Although the review finds many studies establishing a link between EDCs and cancers, there is a lack of current criteria to test new chemicals of endocrine disrupting potential and possible carcinogenic activity. The latent, adverse manifestation of cancers at varying ages makes it difficult to assess the full impact of human exposure to EDCs. For instance, evidence suggests that developing fetuses and neonates are most vulnerable to endocrine disruption, but cancer development manifestation needs more comprehensive research.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can, even at low exposure levels, disrupt normal hormonal (endocrine) function. The endocrine system consists of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal, and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone, and adrenaline). These glands and their respective hormones guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Past research shows exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely impact human, animal—and thus environmental—health by altering the natural hormones responsible for conventional fertile, physical, and mental development. Research demonstrates that endocrine disruption is prevalent among many pesticide products like herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and pesticide manufacturing by-products like dioxin (TCDD). EDCs can enter the body and interfere with normal bodily function by mimicking the action of a naturally produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body, blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of natural hormones; or affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones.  

Endocrine disruption is an ever-present, growing issue that plagues the global population. The connection between cancers and EDCs has a historical establishment. However, this review highlights new perspectives on mechanisms involved in EDC-mediated cancers outside estrogen-receptor pathways. Genetic instability Mutation of damaged (unrepaired) DNA (genetic instability) and changes in the way genes work influenced by behavior and the environment (epigenetic changes). The variations in EDC exposure levels and duration can make it difficult to investigate among humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fails to evaluate the depth and scope of chronic health and environmental concerns regarding exposure to EDCs. Exposure to EDCs has links to infertility, early puberty, and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. ED chemicals can wreak havoc not only on humans but also on wildlife and their ecosystems. Hence, advocates maintain that policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure.

Overall, endocrine disruption can negatively impact reproductive function, nervous system function, metabolic/immune function, hormone-related cancers, and fetal/body development. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) classify many EDCs as possible carcinogens based on epidemiological studies identifying instances of kidney, ovarian, testicular, prostate, and thyroid cancer, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma and childhood leukemia. Considering EDCs like organochlorines (e.g., DDT, lindane, heptachlor, etc.) are anatomically similar to fatty acids and may impair fatty acid metabolism and lipid synthesis in the liver, there may be an underestimation of toxicity effects on human, animal, and environmental health. Therefore, advocates say it is essential to avoid toxic chemical exposure to lessen potential acute and chronic health risks. The study concludes, “More studies are needed to clarify these associations, but, despite the uncertainties, the relationship between EDCs and cancer supports the need for effective prevention policies, paying attention to public awareness.”

The endocrine-disrupting effects of pesticides and other chemicals have extensive documentation that Beyond Pesticides tracks through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms that pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Endocrine Disruption and other diseases.

The ubiquity of pesticides in the environment and food supply is concerning, as current measures restricting pesticide use and exposure do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. For instance, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide biomarker (including parent compound and breakdown products) in their body. One 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: Journal of Endocrinological Investigation

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23, 2023) Scientists have developed a nontoxic method to deter rodents from feeding on freshly planted seeds, publishing the approach in the journal Nature Sustainability this month. The new tactic, which confuses mice through olfactory misinformation, has the potential to significantly reduce the use of hazardous rodenticides in farming operations. The approach comes at a time of increased scrutiny around rat poisons, specifically second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), which can result in the secondary poisoning of predators that eat poisoned rodents.

Researchers set out with the intent of finding a safe alternative to rodenticides that can effectively reduce pest damage without the need for hazardous interventions. “A simpler approach to pest damage is to manipulate decisions making by problem animals and disrupt their ability to find at-risk foods,” the study indicates. Contrary to the promises of the pesticide industry that its products are ‘silver bullets’ for pest management, the authors propose weaponizing misinformation over brute force by fooling mice into thinking their sought-out food source is not there.

Mice and other rodent foragers most often rely on scent and odor to determine where food is located. In the context of this study, farmers plant wheat seeds along rows, which mice are able to follow and consume after planting. Following the scent, they dig up these freshly sown seeds and can significantly impact yield. Current conventional chemical approaches rely on attempting to lure rodents into higher value SGAR baited food, or utilize the highly toxic pesticide zinc phosphide, a dust formulated product, which can also result in harm to nontarget animals through drift.

To remedy this problem, scientists aimed to “decouple the otherwise tight association between seeds and seed odor cues.” They took wheat germ seed oil, a concentrated scent of rodents preferred food, and broadcast sprayed it on a wheat field. Utilizing 10x10m plots within a 27 hectare wheat field in Austrailia, these sprays occurred either i) six days before sowing the seeds, or ii) at the time of seed sowing and then every two to three days until seedlings began to push through the soil. Three control plots were established whereby: i) one received canola treatment, ii) another was merely walked on, and iii) one plot was neither sprayed nor walked on.

The experiment took place “during a large-scale mouse plague (at least 300 mice per ha)…” according to the study. Within this context, the results are significant and promising. Scientists recorded 61% fewer mouse diggings on plots pretreated with wheat germ oil during the first week. After germination, diggings were 74% lower on these plots compared to the controls. Those treated at time of planting also saw similarly less mouse damage after one week, though not as significant. Yet by week two, 63% fewer diggings occurred in these plots. The reduction in digging followed alongside similar reductions in lost seedlings.

The results indicate that for treated plots, mice were able to work out the location of seeds – but at a cost. Because of the olfactory misinformation, the process of finding seeds was taxing and exhausting for the mice. Despite evidence of a high mouse population, in the presence of difficult to process information, mice sought out sources of food that were easier to find.

This approach could have major benefits for agricultural production, if further fine-tuned and incorporated into production plans. As many organic and ecologically-minded farmers are aware, working with and manipulating naturally occurring processes achieves consistently better pest management outcomes than the brute force approach of broadcast pesticide poisoning.

Prior research finds that rodenticides act as “super-predators” in ecosystems where these materials are applied, essentially functioning at the top of the food chain, suppressing the population of both prey and their predators. This study adds to ongoing efforts by advocates to catalog alternatives to rodenticides that embrace better prevention practices, and a more holistic management approach.

Rodent problems are common—nearly everyone has dealt with at some point in time. For more information on managing rodent problems holistically in your home or business, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage. And to promote on-farm reduction of dangerous rodenticides, support organic agriculture, which does not allow this type of rodent poison, and requires any measure addressing rodent pests be guided by a predetermined organic systems plan.

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

Source: Nature Sustainability

Image source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23 2023) New research is zeroing in on the role of 10 commonly used pesticides in the development of Parkinson’s. Published in the journal Nature Communications by a team of scientists lead by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, the study focused on the toxicity of these pesticides to neurons that have been found to lead to the presentation of the disease. Research is increasingly focusing on environmental exposures, and pesticides in particular, as a major factor in the development of Parkinson’s. This study adds further evidence that this line of research is a valid and worthwhile undertaking for the nearly one million people in the United States struggling with this incurable disease. [The authors note that the herbicide paraquat’s strong connection to Parkinson’s is not addressed in this study, but is the focus of a separate manuscript.]

Scientists sought to further focus on which pesticides were most likely to be playing a role in Parkinson’s development. Records from California’s vast pesticide use database aided the search. From a comprehensive pesticide-wide association study, 53 of 288 pesticides screened were found to be linked to Parkinson’s. Scientists then took these 53 pesticides and conducted live-cell imaging screening, exposing dopaminergic neurons (groups of brain cells that play a role in heart, kidney, hormone, and central nervous system functioning) to the chemicals. Through this process, researchers homed in on 10 pesticides “directly toxic” to these neurons, as the study indicates.

Those pesticides included: copper sulfate, copper sulfate pentahydrate, dicofol, diquat dibromide, endosulfan, endothall, folpet, naled, propargite, and trufluralin. The most toxic of the ten was propargite, an organosulphite insecticide already associated with cancer and reproductive impacts. Diquat dibromide, naled, and folpet also recorded significant toxicity to neurons.

Despite clear toxicity, a press release for the study published by UCLA notes, “Aside from their toxicity in dopaminergic neurons, there is little that unifies these pesticides. They have a range of use types, are structurally distinct, and do not share a prior toxicity classification.”

“We were able to implicate individual agents more than any other study has before, and it was done in a completely agnostic manner,” said Kimberly Paul, PhD, lead author and assistant neurology professor at UCLA Dr. Paul said. “When you bring together this type of agnostic screening with a field-to-bench paradigm, you can pinpoint pesticides that look like they’re quite important in the disease.”

Those closely tracking the connection between pesticides and Parkinson’s may be wondering whether paraquat, an herbicide currently the subject of a major lawsuit against its primary manufacturer for its connection to Parkinson’s, was reviewed as part of this study. It was part of the 288 pesticides screened, however the authors indicated the following: “Due to special considerations for paraquat dichloride, specifically strong experimental support for the hypothesis and the interest in estimating the effects of duration and intensity of exposure, we present results from these analyses in a separate manuscript.” In other words, stay tuned for more specific information on the hazards of paraquat from this research team.

It is critical to emphasize that these harmful effects are only being investigated by independent scientific researchers. As far as regulators are concerned, that data has little significance over studies submitted by pesticide industry manufacturers, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses as a basis to register toxic chemicals. The agency has done little to nothing to attempt to rein in use when emerging science points to a potential public health crisis. In fact, the Biden EPA took action in 2021 to reapprove paraquat, despite mounting evidence of it as a causal source behind Parkinson’s, with even weaker protections than those considered by the Trump administration.

The Biden EPA in this sense is in need of significant reforms, so that emerging independent data becomes incorporated in real time into assessments over a chemical’s registration and ongoing use. There must be more flexibility within the regulatory process to suspend or cancel chemicals that present widespread public health threats. Join Beyond Pesticides in urging the Biden administration, EPA, and Congress to adopt a new direction for pesticide regulation.

Source: Nature Communications, UCLA Health press release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 22, 2023) Since most of the domestically produced fresh produce we eat comes from California, what happens in the state is of concern to most consumers. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has made minor adjustments to its proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than state toxicologists at the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment—charged with establishing safe limits of exposure and enforcing Prop 65—say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices. You may have commented on this early in the year, and now we need to follow up with a strong message to protect those who harvest the nation’s food. 

Tell EPA, Congress, and CDPR to cancel the registration of all toxic soil fumigants and encourage organic alternatives.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death.

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment and should be banned. 

Tell EPA, Congress, and CDPR to cancel the registration of all toxic soil fumigants and encourage organic alternatives.

For more information, please see Beyond Pesticides’ comments to CDPR on proposed regulation #22-005 for 1,3 dichloropropene soil fumigation AND CDPR’s notice of proposed changes in the regulations with notice of public hearing.

Letter of EPA
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than other state toxicologists say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices. The minor changes to amend the state’s earlier proposal are woefully inadequate.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death. 

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment. Their registrations should be cancelled.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

Letter to Congress
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than other state toxicologists say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices. The minor changes to amend the state’s earlier proposal are woefully inadequate.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death. 

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment. 

Please tell EPA that their registrations should be cancelled. 

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

Letter to California Department of Pesticide Regulation
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than other state toxicologists say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the DPR would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices. The minor changes to amend the state’s earlier proposal are woefully inadequate.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death. 

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment. Their registrations should be cancelled.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 19, 2023) Agricultural intensification is the leading factor driving declines in bird populations across Europe, according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) this week. Among all potential anthropogenic impacts, agricultural intensification, in particular pesticide and fertilizer use, was found to be more dramatic than forest alterations, urbanization, and climate change. “I don’t think a study has looked at all these factors in one go, in such a sophisticated fashion, correcting for one variable alongside another; and it comes out with a very clear message,” lead author Richard Gregory, PhD, of UK nonprofit The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, told The Guardian.

Researchers utilized data dating back to the early-1980s, including annual bird surveys and national and supranational analyses, as well as information on land use cover, farm inputs, and temperature changes within the time frame. Bird habitat and ecological traits were also considered in the context of declines, and a statistical analysis aided researchers in capturing trends over time.

Results confirmed that birds are overall experiencing significant declines in Europe, with data recording 25% losses in bird abundance since 1980. However, certain groups of birds are faring worse than others. Birds found in and among farmlands have experienced the brunt of the declines, recording a roughly 57% decline during the study period. By contrast, birds in urban areas have declined by approximately 28% and those that make their habitat in woodland areas have seen 18% population losses. Perhaps unsurprisingly in the context of a warming climate, cold hardy birds are having a tougher time than birds that inhabit warm environments, comparing declines at roughly 40% and 17%, respectively. The authors note that universal declines are being seen in both farmland and cold hardy birds.

It follows that different anthropogenic drivers are most prevalent in different locations. Temperature change, for instance, is occurring faster at higher latitudes, placing cold hardy birds in those areas at increased risk. And the impacts of urbanization and agricultural intensification are found to be most dramatic in western Europe, compared to the eastern part of the continent.

The author’s trend analysis indicates that agricultural intensification is resulting in the greatest bird population declines, followed by urbanization and temperature change. Changes in forest cover were not related to changes one way or another in common birds. The paper notes that based on certain bird traits, anthropogenic pressures may harm some species, but improve the outlook for others. For instance, temperature increases are negative for cold dwelling and farmland species, but positive for hot dwellers and woodland species.  

Utilizing this robust dataset, researchers arrived at strong conclusions, noting, “Our results do not simply quantify correlations, but our analytical design is meant to strive for more quasicausal responses of bird populations to global change drivers.”

Researchers found that pesticide use significantly degrades the quality of food and habitat available for a range of bird species. These findings are buttressed by data showing that in small countries with lower levels of agricultural intensification, and smaller farms, have more robust bird populations than other small countries with more land under agricultural production.

The scientists issue a charge for policymakers and regulators clearly. “Considering both the overwhelming negative impact of agricultural intensification and the homogenization introduced by temperature and land-use changes, our results suggest that the fate of common European bird populations depends on the rapid implementation of transformative change in European societies, and especially in agricultural reform,” the paper reads.

Europe, for its part, has been engaged in an effort to significantly cut its use of pesticides and reform its agricultural sector through the Farm to Fork initiative, which includes a 50% reduction in the use of hazardous chemical pesticides by 2030. While Europe attempts to address this key driver of bird and biodiversity decline, the United States has worked to stifle efforts in Europe and at home that would reduce the use of dangerous synthetic pesticides.

Take action today to urge your elected U.S. Senators to cosponsor the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act, which would help address key deficiencies allowing the continued use of pesticides that harm birds, biodiversity, and the broader environment.  

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

Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), The Guardian

Image Source: Wikipedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2023) A study published in Food and Chemical Toxicology finds pesticide residues in beehive products pose a safety risk from dietary consumption. Beehive products (i.e., bee bread, propolis, beeswax, and royal jelly) from beekeeping or apiculture are said to have nutraceutical (health and medicinal benefits) properties. However, a wide range of pesticide residues (i.e., tau-fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorfenvinphos, chlorpyrifos, and amitraz), especially acaricides for killing ticks and mites in hives, may accumulate in beehive products up to concentrations that pose a potential health risk.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Many of these chemical compounds remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Therefore, individuals still encounter pesticide compounds at varying concentrations, adding to the toxic body burden of those harmful chemicals currently in use.

The research methodology includes a review of the scientific literature on pesticide contamination in hive products and a dietary risk assessment. The risk assessment calculation uses scientific studies to determine the recommended daily intake values and concentration data. Researchers compare exposure values in products to health-based guidance, determining the potential acute and chronic health risks to consumers. The results highlight that tau-fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorfenvinphos, chlorpyrifos, and amitraz are the most common active ingredients in beehive products, with acaricides being the most frequently detectable pesticide subtype. However, the report’s estimation for pesticide accumulation in beeswax comb honey suggests that coumaphos and chlorfenvinphos mount up to levels posing a potential health risk to consumers.

The United Nations states that 80 percent of the 115 top global food crops depend on insect pollination, with one-third of all U.S. crops depending on pollinators, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, research finds that many insect populations, including managed and wild pollinators, are collapsing. A systematic review of insect population decline studies published in 2019 found that 41% of insect species worldwide are declining. The declines of butterflies, wild bumblebees, and honey bees have links to hazardous pesticide use in conventional agricultural systems. Since 1990, roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been vanishing, according to research published in Science. This research finds worldwide trends in declines in terrestrial insect biomass to be nearly 1% each year (~9% each decade). Despite habitat fragmentation and climate change, extensive use of pesticides, like neonicotinoids, sulfoxaflor, pyrethroids, fipronil, and organophosphates, increase the potential risk and indiscriminate threat to all insects. Most animals on Earth are insects, which play a significant role in sustaining the ecosystem, despite their size. Insects found in nature preserves are consistently contaminated with over a dozen pesticides, calling into question the ability of these areas to function as refuges for threatened and endangered species. Research shows that residues from neonicotinoids (including seed treatments) and sulfoxaflor accumulate and translocate to pollen and nectar of treated plants. Pyrethroids and fipronil impair bee learning, development, and behavioral function, reducing survivability and colony fitness. However, inert ingredients in these products cause similar or more severe impacts on insect populations, such as disruption in bee learning behavior through exposure to low doses of surfactants. With the global reliance on pollinator-dependent crops increasing over the past decades, a lack of pollinators threatens food security and stability for current and future generations.

This review highlights the pervasiveness of pesticide residues as the presence in consumer products considered beneficial to health puts individuals across the globe at health risk. Even with a partial ban on neonicotinoid insecticides in the U.K. in 2014, 25 percent of British honey still contains residue of these “potent, bee-killing” pesticides. Research shows that residues from neonicotinoids (including seed treatments) and sulfoxaflor accumulate and translocate to pollen and nectar of treated plants. Like this study, previous research frequently detects pesticides like fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorpyrifos, chlorothalonil, amitraz, pendamethalin, endosulfan, fenpropathrin, esfenvalerate, and atrazine in beehives. Like acaricides in the study, miticides and fungicides contaminate wax, pollen, and bees at concentrations that pose significant health risks. Scientific literature documents elevated rates of acute and chronic health effects among people exposed to pesticides, with increasing numbers of studies associated with both specific and a range of illnesses. Some common diseases affecting the public’s health also have links to pesticide exposure, including asthma, learning disabilities, birth abnormalities, reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption like diabetes, brain and nervous system disorders, and several types of cancer. 

To mitigate the risks associated with chemical exposure from toxic pesticides, advocates say the manufacturing and use of pesticides need addressing, first and foremost. Global leaders should curtail the continued manufacturing of chemical pollutants that readily contaminate the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appears to discount threats like the insect apocalypse, evidenced by a 75% decline in insect abundance, threatening global ecosystems and food production that depends on animal pollination. If pesticide use and manufacturing are amplifying the contamination of consumer products, especially through residue transfer, advocates argue that it is essential to advance change by adopting pesticide policy and regulations that eliminate petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use, while supporting the transition to organic practices. 

Pollinators (such as bees, monarch butterflies, and bats) are a bellwether for environmental stress, as individuals and as colonies. Commercial beekeepers continue to experience bee declines as high as 90 percent in hives across the county. As pollinator and insect life continue to decline globally, it is critical to understand and restrict widely used chemicals. Additionally, substitutions the agrichemical industry have developed to replace them are still deplorable and harmful. Pesticide risk assessments do not adequately capture the range of harm that can occur when pesticide exposures occur  in combination, necessitating a shift to safer, alternative, and regenerative organic farming systems that do not use these dangerous chemicals. Since there is a tremendous reliance on many pollinators for essential services, like pollinating a third of food production, it has become critical to avoid using these chemicals and instead look for safer alternatives to managing pests in homes, gardens, schools, and communities. Pesticides intensify pollinators’ vulnerability to health risks (such as pathogens and parasites), with pesticide-contaminated conditions limiting colony productivity, growth, and survival. However, ending toxic pesticide use can alleviate the harmful impacts of these chemicals on species and ecosystem health. Beyond Pesticides captured the bigger picture in its introduction to its 2017 National Pesticide Forum, Healthy Hives, Healthy Lives, Healthy Land: “Complex biological communities support life.”

Learn more about the science and resources behind pesticides’ impact on pollinators, including bee pollinator decline, and take action against the use of pesticides. To find out more about what you can do to protect bees and other pollinators, check out information on the BEE Protective Campaign, pollinator-friendly landscapes, pollinator-friendly seeds, pesticide-free zones, bee-friendly habitats, and what you, or your Members of Congress and EPA, must do to protect our pollinators. For more information on the insect apocalypse, see the Beyond Pesticides article “Tracking Biodiversity: Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse” from our journal, Pesticides and You.

Furthermore, buying, growing, and supporting organic agriculture can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management eliminates the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Spring is around the corner, so get ready to grow your spring garden the organic way by Springing into Action, pledging to eliminate toxic pesticide use.

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

Source: Food and Chemical Toxicology

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2023) British biotechnology company Oxitec is withdrawing its application to release billions of genetically engineered mosquitoes in California, according to a recent update from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The withdrawal is a victory for environmental and health campaigners concerned about the release of a novel mosquito that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had previously authorized under an “experimental use” permit. “Genetically engineered mosquitoes are an environmental justice issue for Tulare County residents who should not be human experiments,” said Angel Garcia, codirector of the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform and Tulare County resident in a press release. “We are already impacted by some of the worst pollution problems in the state and deserve prior informed consent to being part of an open-air biopesticide experiment. Ahead of any future proposal for genetically engineered insects, DPR needs to have robust regulations in place that protect community members, and meaningful, inclusive public participation in any decision making.”    

Oxitec began releasing its GE mosquitoes over a decade ago, first introducing the insects in the Brazilian town of Itaberaba. The company has made efforts to launch its mosquitoes in the United States, likely as a way to encourage other countries to embrace their new technology, as decisions from U.S. regulators are often used as the basis for governmental decisions made in other countries.

Yet, its work in other countries, such as the Cayman Islands, highlights the problems with the novel approach. After releasing millions of GE mosquitoes under a two-year contract with Oxitec, Cayman Island officials were set to renew their contract. But data from the trials indicated serious problems, leading the territory’s environmental health minister to tell the Edmonton Journal, “The scheme wasn’t getting the results we were looking for.” There was further concern that the released mosquitoes could be spreading antibiotic resistance or make mosquito-borne diseases worse by lowering individual immunity.

U.S. regulators did little to alleviate these concerns in making their initial approval of the release last year. A study published in Globalization and Health on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) GE mosquito field trial in Key Haven, Florida in 2016 determined that it “did not proximate the conditions under which the GE mosquitoes would be used in regions of the global South where there is a high prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases.” The author further concluded that, “If ineffective public health interventions are adopted based on risk evaluations that do not closely mirror the conditions under which those products would actually be used, there could be public health and ethical costs for those population.”

Concern over health impacts were combined with an overall lack of proven efficacy with results to date. While Oxitec has made claims that it is able to reduce populations of disease-carrying Aedes aegypti by 98%, this claim has not been publicly verified, as U.S. regulators permit companies to maintain their internal data as confidential business information. Confidential Oxitec documents obtained by the British watchdog group Genewatch UK in 2012 show that 15% of GE animals are able to survive to adulthood. This was because mosquitoes were being reared on canned chicken cat food that contained trace levels of tetracycline from its production process. In the context of the proposed releases in agricultural areas of California, limits on releasing mosquitoes within 500 meters of a wastewater treatment plant, orchard crops, and livestock facilities are not likely to be effective.

It is telling that in Oxitec’s last ditch effort to maintain its contract with the Cayman Islands, the company proposed a mosquito management approach that would have included the supplemental use of mosquito adulticides.

The withdrawal from California is a major acknowledgement that the project is too ineffective and risky for public health. Neither GE mosquitoes nor highly hazardous insecticides should be the primary line of defense against mosquito problems. Disease-carrying mosquitoes can be successfully managed by placing emphasis on education and prevention. This includes eliminating standing water, and encouraging predators such as fish, bats, birds, dragonflies and frogs, and using least-toxic larvicides like bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) judiciously in problem areas. Community-wide programs should encourage residents to employ these approaches, and focus on eliminating breeding sites on public lands, monitoring and action levels in order to determine what, where, and when control measures might be needed.

While these mosquitoes will no longer be released in California, approval in Florida – specifically, for Monroe County, FL – does not appear to have changed. Residents in that region are urged to take action by contacting their local and state elected officials today. More information on safe mosquito management approaches can be found on Beyond Pesticides mosquito management and insect borne disease program page.

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

Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, FoE press release

Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 16, 2023) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is set to be sued for its failure to implement strong protections for imperiled manatee populations. Earlier this month, the Harvard Animal Law and Policy Clinic, Center for Biological Diversity, Miami Waterkeeper, and engineer Frank González Garcia sent USFWS a notice of intent to sue after USFWS failed to respond to a petition sent by the groups last fall. “It has been months of agony and unjustified time lost for manatees in Puerto Rico,” said Mr. Garcia, an engineer who is concerned with the loss of natural resources. “Recent fatal accidents and unprecedented toxic water discharges aggravate the already precarious living and survival conditions of this beloved species,” Mr. Garcia said.

Recent reporting has captured a dismal situation for manatee populations. The species is under threat from a range of anthropogenic impacts, from boat strikes to harmful herbicide contamination, pollution-driven red tides, and algae blooms that have destroyed seagrass beds the species rely upon. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds was the cause of death for more than 1,000 manatees in 2021, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

USFWS downgraded protections for the manatee in 2017, moving them from “endangered” status to “threatened,” a move that was widely criticized by conservation groups as premature. A species classified as endangered is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant a portion of its range, while a threatened classification means the species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.  Endangered species are given greater protections than threatened species.

Manatee advocates say that the numbers tell it all: nearly 2,000 manatees died from 2020-2022 from a range of preventable factors. “The science is clear that this species is declining precipitously, and therefore clearly merits uplisting,” Rachel Silverstein, executive director of Miami Waterkeeper. “Reclassifying the manatee as endangered and addressing water quality issues across the state is imperative to all Floridians and our unique wildlife.”

Chemical pollution harming water quality has become a significant threat to manatee habitat. Research finds that marine mammals are genetically vulnerable to the impacts of certain hazardous chemicals due to a lack of traits that assist in breaking down toxic chemicals. Within the context of increased vulnerability, a 2021 study published in Environment International found that manatees living along the U.S. coast experience chronic exposure to glyphosate weed killers. Over 55% of sampled manatees had glyphosate in their bodies in 2020, a number that steadily increased from the beginning of research conducted in 2009.  

After submitting the petition, USFWS had 90 days to make a finding in support or against the petition to upgrade the manatee’s status to endangered. With that deadline passed, groups can now formally announce their intent to sue.

A separate lawsuit filed by the Florida-based organization Bear Warriors United is suing the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for permitting human waste disposal through septic and sewage systems to contaminate manatee habitat and harm sea grass. “They never considered that maybe all the seagrass would collapse,” said Lesley Blackner, a Palm Beach attorney representing Bear Warriors, to Florida Today. “What was the hysteria for down-listing it?”

The problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife require a holistic approach and meaningful action. Efforts must be focused on reducing the need to spray toxic pesticides and store waste in a manner that creates environmental contamination.

Support efforts to protect critical manatee populations by telling your Congressional Representative to cosponsor H.R. 4946 and your Senators to introduce identical legislation. Through this action, you can also tell USFWS to upgrade manatees to endangered and urge further action by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

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

Source: Florida Today, Center for Biological Diversity

Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2023) Say “legacy contaminant” or “forever chemical” and most people today think “PFAS” (perfluoroalkyl substances), but PFAS are just the latest persistent toxic chemicals recognized as presenting an alarmingly difficult cleanup problem. Fortunately, steps are being taken by governments and businesses to eliminate use of PFAS. (Organic farmers concerned about the integrity of their products have been leaders in these efforts.)

Although government officials often devote considerable energy and resources to cleaning up contamination, the continued manufacturing of these chemicals and their release into the environment creates a futile situation. The U.S. is a signatory to the 2001 Stockholm Convention, which provides an international framework for moving persistent organic pollutants out of commerce, but the U.S. Senate never ratified it.    

Ask your Senators to ratify the Stockholm convention. Tell EPA that persistent toxic pesticides must be considered to pose an “unreasonable risk to the environment under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),” which must result in cancellation of their registrations. 

PFAS contamination is just the latest chapter of a very old story. Legacy contamination of our bodies and the environment is partly a result of a slow piecemeal approach to eliminating these toxic chemicals. PFAS contamination is found in pesticides—and chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (“dioxins”) and chlorodibenzofurans (“dibenzofurans” or “furans”) are also found in pesticides like 2,4-D and pentachlorophenol. 
 
Lead and arsenic are legacy contaminants arising from historical use of lead arsenate as a pesticide, but most legacy pesticide contamination comes from persistent organic (meaning containing carbon) pollutants or POPs. These include organochlorine pesticides like pentachlorophenol, DDT, dieldrin, aldrin, chlordane, mirex, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, and toxaphene. Although use of many persistent organic pesticides is not allowed in the U.S., use of others–notably pentachlorophenol and lindane–is still permitted. (Lindane’s use is allowed by FDA as a pediculicide.) Some of those not used in the U.S. are used elsewhere and move in the environment. 

POPs are hazardous chemicals that threaten human health and the planet’s ecosystems. POPs take a long time to degrade, are widely distributed throughout the environment, bioaccumulate and biomagnify through the food chain, and are toxic to humans and wildlife. POPs are linked to adverse immune system effects, reproductive disorders, and population declines in birds, fish, and other species. They are associated with reproductive, developmental, behavioral, neurological, endocrine, and immunological health effects in humans. 

The persistence and mobility of these toxic chemicals requires a global approach to their removal. The Stockholm Convention on POPs requires signatories to adopt a range of control measures to reduce and, where feasible, eliminate the release of POPs but the U.S. has not ratified the treaty.

Ask your Senators to ratify the Stockholm convention. Tell EPA that persistent toxic pesticides must be considered to pose an “unreasonable risk to the environment under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),” which must result in cancellation of their registrations.

Letter to U.S. Senators

Say “legacy contaminant” or “forever chemical” and most people today think “PFAS” (perfluoroalkyl substances), but PFAS are just the latest persistent toxic chemicals recognized as presenting an alarmingly difficult cleanup problem. Fortunately, steps are being taken by governments and businesses to eliminate the use of PFAS. Although we should be devoting energy to cleaning them up, unless we stop manufacturing them and releasing them into the environment, cleanup efforts will be futile. 

PFAS contamination is just the latest chapter of a very old story. Legacy contamination of our bodies and the environment is partly a result of a slow piecemeal approach to eliminating these toxic chemicals. One source of PFAS contamination is pesticides—and chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (“dioxins”) and chlorodibenzofurans (“dibenzofurans” or “furans”) are also found in pesticides like 2,4-D and pentachlorophenol.

Lead and arsenic are legacy contaminants arising from historical use of lead arsenate as a pesticide, but most legacy pesticide contamination comes from persistent organic (carbon-containing) pollutants or POPs. These include organochlorine pesticides like pentachlorophenol, DDT, dieldrin, aldrin, chlordane, mirex, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, and toxaphene. Although use of many persistent organic pesticides is not allowed in the U.S., use of others–notably pentachlorophenol and lindane–is still permitted. (Lindane’s use is allowed by FDA as a pediculicide.) Some of those not used in the U.S. are used elsewhere and move in the food system and the environment.

POPs are hazardous chemicals that threaten human health and the planet’s ecosystems. POPs take a long time to degrade, are widely distributed throughout the environment, bioaccumulate and biomagnify through the food chain, and are toxic to humans and wildlife. POPs are linked to adverse immune system effects, reproductive disorders, and population declines in birds, fish, and other species. They are associated with reproductive, developmental, behavioral, neurological, endocrine, and immunological health effects in humans.

The persistence and mobility of these toxic chemicals requires a global approach to their removal. One global mechanism is the Stockholm Convention on POPs, which requires signatories to adopt a range of control measures to reduce and, where feasible, eliminate the release of POPs. Although the U.S. has signed the Stockholm convention, it still requires Senate ratification.

I ask you to advocate for a vote to ratify the Stockholm convention.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 12, 2023) With the growth of chemical-intensive land management over the last century, the world has been held captive by pesticide companies. For part of that time, it could be said the modern society has suffered from Stockholm Syndrome, a theory about abusive relationships in which one party exerts power over the other using threats, fear, and lies and the victim comes to depend on the perpetrator emotionally. During the so-called “Green Revolution” (circa 1945-1985), the world came to depend on vast amounts of fertilizers and herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. Many people believed that food, clothing, and shelter made from naturally-occurring materials such as fruit, flax and wood could not be provided to the world without pesticides. It seemed that science and commerce could indefinitely raise the standard of living around the world, perhaps leading to world peace.

This is not what happened. Soon observers noticed the harmful effects of many pesticides, including their persistence in the environment, their tendency to accumulate in the bodies of humans and wildlife, and their influence on the risk of contracting many diseases, from cancer to asthma—not to mention the Darwinian inevitability of pest resistance.

By the turn of the 20^th century, it was clear something had to be done. And something was done. After several years of exploration and negotiation by the United Nations, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) came into being when some 90 countries signed the treaty in 2001. They agreed to reduce or eliminate the use of nine chemicals, minimize the inadvertent production of two more (dioxins and furans, formed in combustion), and more selectively apply one (DDT, against malaria). The full list of 12 was dubbed the “Dirty Dozen” after the 1967 film of the same name.

The Convention went into force in 2004. For a while it appeared that society might escape its captors. Sadly, this has been delayed. A country can sign a treaty without ratifying it. This is what the United States has done. According to the U.S. Department of State, “The United States signed the Stockholm Convention in 2001, but has yet to ratify because we currently lack the authority to implement all of its provisions. The United States participates as an observer in the meetings of the parties and in technical working groups.” [Emphasis added.] Signing is an aspirational act; ratification is a legal commitment. The U.S. has tried to have it both ways.

To be fair, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) points out that despite the failure of Congress to ratify the Stockholm Convention, the agency has taken many steps to reduce or eliminate the listed chemicals in the U.S. The first dozen Stockholm POPs were aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, toxaphene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT, dioxins and furans. According to the EPA:

“[N]one of the original POPs pesticides listed in the Stockholm Convention is registered for sale and distribution in the United States today and in 1978, Congress prohibited the manufacture of PCBs and severely restricted the use of remaining PCB stocks. In addition, since 1987, EPA and the states have effectively reduced environmental releases of dioxins and furans to land, air, and water from U.S. sources. These regulatory actions, along with voluntary efforts by U.S. industry, resulted in a greater than 85 percent decline in total dioxin and furan releases after 1987 from known industrial sources.”

However, the U.S. is out of sync with international scientific consensus on the need to eliminate many persistent pesticides. Most notably, the wood preservative pentachlorophenol and the insecticide lindane are still permitted to be used in the U.S. (Lindane’s use is allowed by FDA as a pediculicide.)

Unfortunately, the POPs chemicals are so persistent that people, animals, and ecosystems continue to be exposed to them in dangerous quantities. For example, for 40 years the Army Corps of Engineers dumped tons of waste containing PCBs and mercury directly into the Columbia River at Bradford Island, a small islet near the Bonneville Dam. Despite the Corps’ actions to dredge the sediment, filter the water, and haul away 32 tons of solid waste, the fish residing within a mile of the island still have the highest levels of PCBs in the nation. Both Oregon and Washington warn people not to eat the fish. According to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, “smallmouth bass were found at concentrations as high as 183,000 parts per billion. A safe level for human consumption of fish is less than 1 part per billion.”

So while there has been progress on letting the past be the past, it is two steps forward, one step back. This is partly owing to the chemical industry’s propensity for substituting a new problem for an old one by offering compounds that are chemically analogous to the hazardous ones, such as advertising “BPA-free” (bisphenol-A) water bottles that are made of BPS (bisphenol-S). Both types of bisphenol are endocrine disrupters.

The Stockholm Convention continues to consider other chemicals for addition to the treaty. In June 2022 the parties added perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) to the Convention. PFHxS is one of the family of the perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) known as “forever chemicals.” PFAS are used in food wrappers, non-stick pans, climbing ropes, guitar strings, ammunition, firefighting foam and many other products. They’ve been available since the 1950s and there are at least 9,000 separate PFAS compounds. The chemical bonds between their carbon and fluorine atoms are almost impossible to break.

In the U.S., EPA has proposed new limits to PFAS levels in drinking water, and not a minute too soon; PFAS have been found in water supplies in nearly 3,000 locations in all 50 states and two territories. PFAS chemicals have been found in human breast milk, umbilical cord blood, deer meat, fish, and beef. They are found in pesticides. One study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found PFAS compounds in 97% of Americans. Studies have suggested a wide range of health effects, including raised cholesterol levels, high blood pressure or pre-eclampsia during pregnancy, and increased risk of kidney cancer.

Congress and EPA have been relatively active in starting efforts to assess and measure the amount of PFAS chemicals in the environment, especially in water. President Biden wants to fund more research and recently supported the classification of PFAS as hazardous substances for Superfund listing. But these efforts move very slowly through the gears and conveyor belts of government. So far, they are piecemeal and mostly inadequate. For example, in March 2021 EPA began a process to regulate perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate—just two of thousands of PFAS varieties—but the rulemaking process will likely take years. The U.S. military, notorious for polluting land and water worldwide, has tested drinking water at 63 installations but has formed remediation plans for only nine of 50 bases marked for cleanup. Actual remediation is underway at only one Department of Defense site.

While waiting for the federal government to act, about 35 states have adopted various policies to limit exposures to PFAS, such as Alaska’s prohibitions on firefighting foam, California’s elimination of PFAS from cosmetics and menstrual products, and Georgia’s disclosure requirements for PFAS, lead, formaldehyde and other hazardous chemicals in cosmetics. Illinois now requires landfills to capture PFAS-contaminated leachate before it escapes from the landfill or is transported for wastewater treatment. One problem with this is that PFAS pass through standard water treatment processes chemically unchanged. According to EPA, several removal technologies are available, ranging from ion exchange to activated carbon that could be applied at municipal plants and in consumer-grade water filters.

Private businesses and farmers are taking action too. The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association has developed a resource page for members to keep abreast of testing and certification issues regarding PFAS. California and New York are requiring apparel to be PFAS-free starting in 2025, and the footwear company KEEN has reduced PFAS in its products by 65% simply by asking its suppliers to stop using it where possible.

PFAS may seem like new chemicals, but it is just public awareness of them that is new. Like the Dirty Dozen POPs, they are actually “legacy” pollutants; according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), chemical giant 3M knew from its own mouse studies in the 1950s that PFAS bioaccumulate. (For a comprehensive timeline based on industry documents, see the EWG’s major report. This report also demonstrates the deep capture of academic researchers by industry.)

Beyond Pesticides takes the position that these toxic chemicals are in the environment (including our bodies) mostly because of bad decisions in the past. We should be devoting energy to cleaning them up, but given their persistence (hence “forever”), unless we stop manufacturing them and releasing them into the environment, cleanup efforts will be futile. Further, if we do not develop true alternatives rather than knock-off chemical analogues to these chemicals, we will extend our legacy into forever. And then we will be back in Stockholm Syndrome captivity.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2023) A study published in NeuroToxicology finds occupational (work-related), chronic exposure to pesticides increases risk factors of epilepsy, a neurological disorder causing unprovoked, reoccurring seizures. Mounting evidence over the past years shows that chronic exposure to sublethal (low) levels of pesticides can cause neurotoxic effects or exacerbate preexisting chemical damage to the nervous system. Although the mechanism by which pesticides induce disease development remains unclear, this study suggests environmental pesticide exposure increases seizure risk through mechanisms at molecular or subcellular levels.

Approximately 3.4 million individuals in the U.S. live with epilepsy, and mortality from this disorder is rising nationwide. Over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts, including pesticides, are chemicals commonly present in human blood and urine samples and can increase neurotoxicity risk when crossing the brain barrier. Considering half of all epilepsy etiologies (causes) are of idiopathic (unknown) origins, studies like this highlight the importance of understanding how consistent chemical exposure can impact long-term health and disease prognosis. The study notes, “[The] approach to a real-world exposure scenario to pesticides in a large agriculture area over 17 years; […] can be linked to the novel approaches proposed for simulating real-life exposures, thus contributing to a better understanding of the real-life risk associated with long-term exposure to multiple pesticides.”

To determine work-related risk factors associated with epilepsy among farmers and pesticide applicators, researchers performed a case-control study on 19,704 individuals from 2000 to 2016 (17 years) to observe epilepsy cases. Researchers gathered data from Almería (South-Eastern Spain) hospital records and the Centre for Prevention of Occupational Risks. Of the 19,704 individuals, 5,091 have a record of epilepsy. The researchers attribute an increase in epilepsy risk among those working in chemical-intensive, enclosed (indoor) agriculture (high-yield greenhouse crops) compared to chemical-intensive, open-air (outdoor) agriculture (open-air crops). However, this study supports previous findings on the association between epilepsy and pesticide exposure in the general population. Epilepsy risk is greatest among individuals living in rural areas with high pesticide use (e.g., farming regions) and individuals without proper personal protective equipment (PPE), including gloves and masks.

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder that affects a person’s brain (e.g., stroke, brain tumors, traumatic brain, or head injuries) and central nervous system (CNS). These conditions can disrupt nerve cell communication in the brain and lead to prolonged seizures (status epilepticus) due to abnormal electrical activity in the brain. Although the most common cause of seizures is epilepsy, not every person who has a seizure has epilepsy. Although medical treatments can manage epilepsy, typical anti-seizure medication for epilepsy is ineffective in the treatment of non-epileptic seizures. Certain chemicals, including pesticides, can be seizurogenic chemicals or toxic agents that cause seizures by different mechanisms and molecular pathways. The most known mechanisms include hyperstimulation of nicotinic and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (neurotransmitters), blockage of voltage-gated sodium channels, altered function of GABAergic neurons, glutamatergic hyperactivity, neuronal excitotoxicity, intracellular calcium overload, oxidative stress, and increased neuroinflammatory responses, among others. Pesticides with neurotoxic properties include organophosphates, carbamates, and organochlorines. 

Despite many studies linking acute pesticide poisonings to seizures, this study is one of the few to address concerns about those chronically exposed to pesticides. A 2016 study in the same region of Spain demonstrates workers who applied pesticides were more likely to have neurological symptoms lasting more than two days, such as cramps, tremors, muscle fatigue, loss of consciousness, and convulsions. Many pesticides used in the past and present can lead to the formation of a single seizure or epilepsy due to chronic poisoning. Thus, the study highlights the importance of PPE as a preventive measure critical for reducing the risk of developing pesticide-related symptoms and diseases. Farmers without gloves and masks have two- and three-time higher risks of epilepsy, respectively. The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) used to estimate pesticide exposure intensity expects farmers to experience a 90 percent reduction in pesticide exposure when using proper PPE. However, PPE alone is not enough to prevent pesticide exposure, especially for everyday exposure from disinfectants, residues on food, and contamination of the ecosystem. The study concludes, “[…P]revious findings suggesting a higher risk of epilepsy in the general population associated to pesticide exposure and extends the presumed increased risk to farmers occupationally exposed to pesticides, particularly those with lack of or improper use of PPE.”

The brain and nervous system are an integral part of the human body and include the brain, spinal cord, and a vast network of nerves and neurons, all of which are responsible for many of our bodily functions—from sense to movement. The impacts of pesticides on the nervous system are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Researchers identify the role agricultural chemicals play in CNS impacts causing neurological diseases like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson’s disease, dementia-like diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, and other effects on cognitive function. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and neurological disorders can help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that cause neurodegenerative diseases. As captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) and Daily News Blog, the adverse health effects of pesticides, exposure, and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for more accurate research on pesticide exposure. Existing information, including this study, supports the clear need for a strategic shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the effects of pesticide exposure on neurological health, see Beyond Pesticides’ PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders, including epilepsy and seizures, and other impacts on cognitive function. 

Beyond Pesticides advocates for organic land and agriculture management as a precautionary approach to pest prevention and management. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who 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: NeuroToxicology

(Beyond Pesticides, May 10, 2023) Scientists are uncovering more information about a fungal pathogen behind a disease outbreak in Indian hospitals that sickened 10 pre-term infants. According to a study published in mBIO late last month, the yeast pathogen Lodderomyces elongisporus was the causative agent of this outbreak and is rapidly evolving resistance to control measures. There is growing concern globally over the spread of fungal pathogens, with scientists increasingly identifying agriculture as the driver behind pathogenic mutations and resistance.

Scientists in Delhi, India were called to investigate an outbreak of L. elongisporus that sickened ten infants with low birthweight in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) from September 2021 to February 2022. L. elongisporus is more commonly known for attacking severely immunocompromised adults, including those with heart conditions or a history of intravenous drug use. However, there are an increasing number of reports of fungal infections in neonatal care units. Further, the fungus appears to be spreading globally, with reports of infections in the Middle East, Europe, Australia, and North America.

“This yeast is among a growing list of fungi capable of causing severe infections among humans,” said lead study author Jianping Xu, PhD a professor at McMaster University in Canada to ETHealthworld. “The genetic mechanisms underlying their adaptations to humans, and to hospital and natural environments warrant further investigation and measures to contain their spread and persistence.”

Researchers aimed to determine the origin of the yeast in the NICU, how it came to infect neonates, and its current genetic makeup and potential resistance to control measures and treatments.

As part of the outbreak investigation, scientists learned that one infant was initially sickened, and treated with common antifungals, but, after isolating the infection and determining it to be L. elongisporus, switched to a more intensive treatment. After a second case was found, prevention practices and cleaning increased, and only two cases occurred over the next couple months. Then a cluster of four neonates were sickened, resulting in environmental sampling of the NICU. Researchers found two locations where L. elongisporus remained – on the railing of the neonate open care warmer (a machine that houses neonatal infants) and on its temperature control panel. This information and more strict protocols on handwashing and disinfection contained the outbreak. Nine of the ten patients sickened survived treatment with an antifungal known as amphotericin B, a very strong antifungal that itself has severe and potentially lethal side effects.

Further environmental sampling and genetic sequencing determined that stored apples outside of the hospital contained a similar, though not exact, strain of L. elongisporus. Testing on the hospital strain and apple strain showed significant diversity between how samples responded to antifungal drugs. Most concerningly, scientists found evidence of recombination in all samples. This indicates that this fungus is evolving rapidly.

“The findings are worrisome because the hospital environment seems to be selecting for stress-resistant fungal pathogens. They are adapting and evolving very, very quickly,” said Dr. Xu to ETHealthworld.

While scientists found that L. elongisporus was able to be killed by antifungals, its susceptibility to disinfectants is another story. The fungus is surprisingly resistant to bleach employed to clean hospital rooms of infectious agents.

Lodderomyces elongisporus appears to be speed running a virulent path similar to that of Candida auris and Aspergillus fumigatus. C. auris has been rapidly spreading across the world over the last decade, posing significant risks to public health. A 2022 study published on the spread of A. fumigatus found a direct connection between fungicide use on farms and growing resistance and virulence in the hospital setting. Such a pathway with a more genetically diverse and rapidly evolving fungus is a chilling prospect for global public health.

Despite these dangers, regulators and politicians are not responding with the urgency that scientists say is needed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance released on the rise of drug-resistant Candida auris is case in point. The agency failed to consider the resistance impacts of pesticides that are not used for public health purposes; EPA only evaluated the efficacy of antimicrobial compounds whose use patterns classify them as human-health-related.

At the international level, a Freedom of Information Act request reveals officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) working on behalf of the chemical industry to downplay the role of synthetic fungicide use in chemical agriculture as a factor in the rise of drug-resistant fungal infections. Evidence reveals officials within the industry trade group Croplife America urging USDA to “make certain” that the United Nation’s (UN) Codex Alimentarius, a set of international guidelines and standards established to protect consumer health, made no mention of how fungicides contribute to antibiotic resistance. Government agencies in the U.S. are thus not only failing to take action, but actively blocking efforts to address this issue.

Evidence shows that the only true way to eliminate resistance is to stop using the material that is causing resistance to occur in the first place. Organic agriculture is the best response to rising resistance, placing strong controls on allowed materials. This ensures that life-saving medication will be retained to protect people’s health, not grow crops. For more reasons to go organic, see Beyond Pesticides Why Organic webpage.

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

Source: ETHealthworld, mBIO

(Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2022) The Colorado legislature last week passed SB23-266, a bill limiting the use of bee-toxic neonicotinoid pesticides in the state. The news comes as other states consider their own restrictions, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing details on exactly which endangered species are set to be harmed by the ongoing use of these harmful insecticides. This latest news shows that protecting pollinators is possible, and urgently needed given growing understanding of the dangers these chemicals pose to the most vulnerable wildlife in the country.  

The Colorado bill requires the state’s commissioner of agriculture to adopt rules designating neonicotinoid pesticides as ‘limited-use’ pesticides in the state. With this designation, only licensed pesticide dealers may sell products containing these chemicals. Per the state’s legal code, the “limited-use” designation means the same as a federal “restricted-use” pesticide, which permits sales and use only for certified applicators. Passage of this bill marks an important step forward for pollinator protection efforts in the state. It will help ensure that homeowners are not able to easily purchase this product at big box retailers, but will allow continued use in residential areas and in agriculture.

Colorado’s bill fulfills guidance that EPA itself has advised but is not actually proposing. In releasing the interim decisions to reregister bee-toxic pesticides for another 15 long years, EPA noted that it is proposing “language on the label that advises homeowners not to use neonicotinoid products.” That is correct – the agency is planning to approve chemicals it is advising individuals not to use. In this context, actions by state lawmakers represent the bare minimum in instituting protections that the federal government itself apparently believes that it should be implementing.

Colorado’s bill is similar to restrictions implemented in the states of Maryland, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. However, it falls short of the strongest state models that have been passed in New Jersey and Maine that eliminate all outdoor uses of these chemicals, even by certified applicators. This is a result of a recognition that, even if applied perfectly according to the label, there is no safe level of exposure to these pesticides for pollinators. Connecticut, Nevada, and New York are considering legislation that would enact broader restrictions.

All of these state level bans pale in comparison to the robust protections currently implemented in the European Union (EU). The EU has banned neonicotinoid pesticide use on all outdoor areas, allowing use only in enclosed greenhouses.  

It is evident from EPA’s own data that similar restrictions are urgently needed in the United States. According to a biological evaluation that EPA is required to perform (and yet did so only as a result of several legal challenges), neonicotinoid have been found to adversely effect a majority of nontarget endangered species. According to EPA, endangered species are likely to be harmed at the following percentages: for imidacloprid, 1,445 (79%); for clothianidin, 1,225 (67%); and, for thiamethoxam, 1,396 (77%).

New data released this month is focused on exactly the species and their habitats whose existence is threatened by ongoing use of these chemicals. This list includes species one may expect to be impacted, like the imperiled rusty-patched bumblebee and the Karner blue butterfly, but also includes the greater prairie-chicken, vernal pool fairy shrimp, American burying beetle, and even plants like the Western prairie fringed orchid.

Local and state level action indicates that many lawmakers are paying attention to the latest science and willing to act. However, it will take significant efforts from consumers and U.S. residents at all levels to get EPA and the U.S. Congress to take meaningful action to protect pollinators.

Join Beyond Pesticides today in urging President Biden and Congress to take actions to restore scientific integrity to EPA and eliminate pesticide industry corruption within the agency. These actions are critical for the agency to make unbiased decisions about the registration of well-known hazardous pesticides like the neonicotinoids. For more information on how you can get involved in protecting pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective webpage.

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

Source: Colorado General Assembly, EPA, Common Dreams

Image source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2023) The Farm Bill in Congress covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—and the pesticide industry would like to insert a provision that takes away (preempts) local authority to restrict pesticide use—which would undercut the local democratic process to protect public health and safety. Even if communities are not now regulating toxic pesticides, we do not want to close the door on future action, as communities take on petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use that is contributing to health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency.   

Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language. Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill. 

As Congress drafts the 2023 Farm Bill, there is an opportunity for many topics—good and bad—to be introduced. Dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, which addressed threats posed by the Great Depression and drought, the Farm Bill is an omnibus bill passed every five years. It is designed to secure a sufficient food supply, establish fair food prices for both farmers and consumers, and protect the soil and other natural resources on which farmers depend, but includes much more. In the 117th Congress, H.R. 7266 was introduced to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal rules. If such language were to be incorporated into the 2023 Farm Bill as the pesticide industry plans to do, it would overturn decades of precedent as well as prevent local governments from protecting their residents from hazardous chemicals in their environment.  

This is a direct assault on nearly 200 communities across the country that have passed their own policies to restrict the use of toxic pesticides. Communities must maintain the right to restrict pesticides linked to cancer, water-contamination, and the decline of pollinators to protect their residents’ health and unique local ecosystems. 

The provision hinges on the concept of preemption: a legal theory that allows larger jurisdictions (federal and state) to limit the authority of a jurisdiction within it to regulate a specific issue. In 1991, the Supreme Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier. The Court ruled that federal pesticide law does not prohibit or preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government throughout their jurisdiction. According to Mortier, however, states may retain authority to take away local control.  

Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language. Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.    

In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking, and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording. Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to prohibit localities from developing policies reflecting the unique needs and values of the people living there.  

If the pesticide industry is successful, the impacts for public health and ecological stability would be devastating. Only states and the federal government would be able to regulate pesticide use. With most state agencies allowing all uses on labels approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), local jurisdictions would be forced to follow the rulemaking of an agency that has been documented to be captured by industry interests.

Preemption would quash a growing national grassroots movement encouraging alternatives to toxic pesticides where people live, work, and play. Federal preemption would prevent local governments from instituting pesticide regulations that are stricter than federal regulations, taking away communities’ basic right to secure their own safety and interrupting a burgeoning movement of local pesticide restrictions. Such preemption provisions will likely prevent states from giving localities the right to regulate pesticides.  

Many pesticides targeted by local city residents, including neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and atrazine, have been banned or restricted in other countries due to health or environmental concerns. However, in the U.S. the Environmental Protection Agency has not taken similar action on these pesticides. Given federal inaction and the previous administration’s failure to follow sound science, it is imperative that local governments retain the ability to tailor laws so localities can respond to federal actions that permit the use of toxic chemicals that residents do not want in their community.  

Having failed to curtail prohibitions against local restrictions into the 2018 Farm Bill after massive pushback from health advocates, local officials, and Congressional allies, the chemical industry is renewing its attack. The industry continues to flex its muscle in Congress through attempts to add preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill as a growing number of communities are deciding to act.  

Part 1: Tell your local officials to sign onto a letter opposing the preemption language. Part 2: Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill.   

The targets for this Action are the U.S. Congress and local elected officials across the United States.

Part I: Ask your local officials to sign on this letter opposing the preemption language.

Mayors, city council members, and county commissioners should make their voices heard in opposition to preemption, which prohibits local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal and state rules and overturns decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings. It could prevent local governments from tailoring laws to the specific needs of their communities.

Please send your mayor and other local officials a short note (see below) asking them to sign this letter! [Note: Only sign-ons of local officials can be accepted]

To find contact information for local elected officials, check out this tool from usa.gov: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials 

• Letter Link: bp-dc.org/official-local-letter-pesticide-preemption
• Link for a local elected official to sign: https://secure.everyaction.com/aMcVHaaV7ES6Qw6RhBOCbw2

Sample email to local elected officials (please cut-and-paste, as needed):

As a local elected official, please make your voice heard in opposition to federal preemption of local authority, which prohibits local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal and state rules and overturns decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings. It could prevent local governments from tailoring laws to the specific needs of our community. Please see the letter and a link to sign onto the letter below:

Letter: bp-dc.org/official-local-letter-pesticide-preemption
Link to sign on to the  letter: https://secure.everyaction.com/aMcVHaaV7ES6Qw6RhBOCbw2

While having differing views on pesticides, local leaders take very seriously a duty to protect constituents. Federal pesticide preemption is a direct attack on this authority. This provision prohibits local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal rules. It overturns decades of precedent and Supreme Court rulings and could prevent local governments from tailoring laws to the specific needs of their communities. 

As of 2023, nearly 200 communities across the country have passed policies to restrict the use of pesticides in response to emerging evidence about potential human and environmental impacts. The exact concerns differ by pesticide, but include links to cancer, developmental challenges, lower IQ, and delayed motor development. Many of these laws work to protect the most vulnerable among us, such as children, who take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults and have developing organ systems. Others focus on safeguarding precious water resources, or the protection of wildlife like declining pollinator species critical to our environment and food supply.   

While not every city has taken these actions, it is important to support the right to do so and you should oppose forfeiting this right for the indefinite future. In fact, federal pesticide preemption undermines the key role that local governments play across the country. 

Please sign this letter in opposition to including preemption in the Farm Bill. 

Thank you. 

Part II: Tell Congress to support communities by opposing anti-democratic preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill

Letter to Congress
I am writing to urge you to oppose adding language in the 2023 Farm Bill that seeks to deny local communities the power to protect themselves from chemical exposure when state and federal regulation is inadequate. If incorporated into the upcoming 2023 Farm bill, it would amend federal pesticide law to prohibit local governments from restricting pesticide use within their jurisdictions. However, the rights of local governmental jurisdictions under existing pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), have been left to the states since the law’s adoption. In fact, local laws protecting the environment and public health have historically emerged out of local governments, with laws related to recycling, smoking, pet waste, building codes, and zoning.

This is a direct assault on nearly 200 communities across the country that have passed their own policies to restrict the use of toxic pesticides. Communities must maintain the right to restrict pesticides linked to cancer, water contamination, and the decline of pollinators to protect their resident’s health and unique local ecosystems.

The rights of local governments to protect people and the environment were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. The Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law. In Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, the Court ruled that FIFRA does not prohibit, or preempt, local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government. According to Mortier, however, states may retain authority to take away local control.

This legislation would quash a growing national grassroots movement encouraging alternatives to toxic pesticides where people live, work, and play. It would prevent local governments from instituting pesticide regulations that are stricter than federal regulations, confiscating communities’ basic right to secure their own safety and interrupting a burgeoning movement of local pesticide restrictions. Many pesticides targeted by local city residents, including neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and atrazine, have been banned or restricted in other countries due to health or environmental concerns. However, in the U.S. the Environmental Protection Agency has not taken similar action on these pesticides. Given federal inaction and the previous administration’s failure to follow sound science, it is imperative that local governments retain the ability to tailor laws so localities can respond to federal actions that permit the use of toxic chemicals that residents do not want in their community.   

Please let me know your position on these preemption provisions.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 5, 2023) Low level exposure to pyrethroid insecticides found in common pesticide brands like RAID and ORTHO result in neurodevelopmental damage to laboratory animals, reinforcing evidence of harm found in epidemiological studies on human exposure to these chemicals. According to research published in PNAS Nexus, mice exposed to the pyrethroid deltamethrin displayed atypical behavior similar to humans with developmental disorders. “We are not saying these mice have autism or that they have ADHD. That’s not the goal here,” said James Burkett, PhD, study coauthor and assistant professor of neuroscience in the UToledo College of Medicine. “What we are saying is that something in their brain has been altered by this exposure and it’s resulting in the same kinds of behaviors that we see in children with autism.”

Scientists arrived at this determination by exposing a group of mouse mothers to consistent low levels of deltamethrin in their food during preconception, pregnancy, and lactation. The study notes that the amount of pesticide provided was “well below the benchmark dose for regulatory guidance.” A separate control group was given no pesticide in its food. Offspring from the female mice were then put through behavioral tests on social behavior, restrictive or repetitive behaviors, cognition and communication.

Results found that mouse pups whose mothers were exposed to deltamethrin increased their repetitive behaviors. In tests, they buried more marbles than control pups, and performed more self-grooming than the control group. Male pups exposed to deltamethrin also produced fewer vocalizations when being separated from their mothers. Pesticide exposure also impaired learning and memory; in a fear conditioning test, exposed mice were less likely to react to a fearful event they encountered before.

In addition to behavior, scientists observed physiological changes in pups whose mothers were pyrethroid-exposed. These mice exhibited significant changes in dopamine levels and transport around the body. For autistic individuals, the metabolite homovanillic acid (HVA) is considered the earliest biomarker for the condition, and exposed mice pups displayed increased levels of the substance.

“These are all similar to symptoms human patients with neurodevelopmental disorders might have,” Dr. Burkett said.

Synthetic pyrethroids are hazardous pesticides that have flown below even pesticide advocates radar for far too long, not receiving nearly as much attention as other dangerous and commonly used pesticides like glyphosate.

“If you have someone who comes and sprays in your house, this is likely what they’re spraying. It’s used in landscaping, it’s what they fog in the streets for mosquitos. It’s everywhere,” said Dr. Burkett. “Our study, however, adds to the evidence that these chemicals might not be as safe for children and pregnant women as we once believed.”

In fact, Beyond Pesticides has never believed these chemicals to be safe for children or pregnant women. The depth of historical reporting on these chemicals in the Daily News Blog bares this out. As far back as 2008, Beyond Pesticides was reporting on the risk these chemicals pose to children’s development.

The research on this class of chemicals has sounded a consistent drumbeat that of developmental harm to children. In 2011, research determined that children exposed to higher levels of synthetic pyrethroids are three times as likely to have mental delay compared to less exposed children. A study from 2014 associated proximity to pesticide treated agricultural fields in pregnancy to increased risk of autism to children of exposed mothers. Data published in 2015 find that deltamethrin increases risk of ADHD in children, with one study finding impacts specifically to boys. Studies published two years later determined that synthetic pyrethroid exposure increases risk of premature puberty in boys, and another associated the chemicals with externalizing and internalizing disorders. Another study found that aerial mosquito spraying, which is most frequently conducted with synthetic pyrethroids, is linked to elevated autism rates.

The impacts seen are not all developmental. A 2012 study associates pyrethroid exposure before, during, and after pregnancy with increased risk of infant leukemia. And a recent study published earlier this year finds that synthetic pyrethroid exposure during mosquito control operations increases risk of respiratory disease and certain allergies.

Rather than rein in use of these chemicals, EPA in 2019 stripped away protections that reduced children’s exposure to pyrethroids. In making its decision, the agency allowed a letter from the pesticide industry umbrella group Croplife America to dictate its approach to protecting children from hazardous, neurotoxic pyrethroids. The model proposed by Croplife eliminated safety factors for children. In a rare instance, EPA conducted an outside literature review to buttress its argument, but instead ignored those data and prioritized the unprotective model proposed by the pesticide industry.

After selling out children’s health, the agency then took directions from a group referring to themselves as the Pyrethroid Working Group (PWG), comprised of major pesticide manufacturers Bayer, FMC, Syngenta, BASF, AMVAC, and Valent. At the request of this working group, EPA reduced a proposal from EPA staff scientists to implement 66 foot buffer zones between agricultural fields and water bodies down to 10-25 feet. The agency also agreed that wind speeds up to 15 miles per hour were acceptable for pyrethroid applications, despite previous proposals setting the cut-off at 10 mph.

“We have reduced our exposures to many classes of dangerous pesticides over the past few decades through restrictions and regulations,” said study coauthor Gary Miller, PhD, vice dean for research strategy and innovation at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. “This study adds to a growing body of literature that the widely used pyrethroids are not without adverse effects and should be further evaluated for their safety.”

While further study is warranted, it should be conducted while this class of chemicals is suspended from public use. Rather than place the burden of proof on scientists to show harm, chemical manufacturers should be required to provide evidence that these chemicals will not harm children’s health. It is evident that they cannot, and with every new study there is growing awareness from the scientific community that these chemicals do not belong on the market.

Take action today by signing the ladybug pledge and urging your mayor to convert your community parks to land care practices that do not use synthetic pyrethroids or other toxic pesticides.

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

Source: MedicalXpress, PNAS Nexus

(Beyond Pesticides, May 4, 2023) One of the most widely used insecticides in California, Intrepid 2F, contains harmful levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” according to a report by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In fact, 40 percent of pesticide products in the report tested positive for high levels of PFAS. PFAS are common in non-stick cookware, cleaning/personal care products, food packaging, and other consumer products. However, these compounds are also in pesticide products. Despite evidence on the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies sat by the sidelines as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS has made its way into the environment and our bodies. PFAS are even present in remote environments like the Arctic, Antarctica, and Eastern European Tibetan Plateau. A study published in 2020 identified PFAS as common products to which Americans are exposed daily.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that 98% of Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream, with studies reporting PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. With health risks including developmental, metabolic, cardiovascular, and reproductive harm, cancer, damage to the liver, kidneys, and respiratory system, as well as the potential to increase the chance of disease infection and severity, PFAS presents a chronic danger to people that demands urgent regulatory action. CBD and PEER submitted the test results to the EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), advising the agencies to remove these pesticide products from the market until contaminants from supply lines can be removed.

CBD authorized independent, certified lab testing on seven agricultural pesticides with common uses in California to determine the part per trillion (ppt) of PFAS in pesticide products. The insecticide product Malathion 5EC (active ingredient: malathion) contains 510s ppt perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and 680 ppt perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS), with a PFOA level over 100,000 times higher than the level EPA considers safe in drinking water (0.004 ppt). The insecticide Oberon 2SC (active ingredient: spiromesifin) contains 1,500 ppt perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), and Intrepid 2F (active ingredient: methoxyfenozide) contains 50 ppt of perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS).

PFAS are a group of nearly 10,000 human-made chemicals in various consumer products that people use daily. Although some PFAS compound manufacturing has ceased, these chemicals last forever in the environment as their chemical structure makes them resistant to breakdown. Thus, PFAS contamination is significantly underrepresented and much more perverse that previously thought, polluting storage and transportation containers, food and water resources, and other chemical products. Not only is the public exposed to such chemicals, those who work in factories that create products that include PFAS, or workers who use them regularly, have higher cumulative exposures. Across multiple states, firefighters have begun to bring lawsuits against manufacturers of the foams, charging that the companies knowingly made and sold products with these forever chemicals that put the workers’ health at risk. Others at greater-than-average exposure risk include pregnant or lactating people and young children. Although some PFAS compound manufacturing has ceased, these chemicals last forever in the environment as their chemical structure makes them resistant to breakdown. Thus, PFAS contamination is significantly underrepresented and much more perverse than previously thought, polluting storage and transportation containers, food and water resources, and other chemical products. For instance, many reports address the high levels of PFAS contamination in the mosquito insecticide Anvil 10+10.

Although EPA does not regulate PFAS in pesticide formulas, the agency lists these substances in the inert ingredient database, and thus product labels do not require disclosure of contaminants fundamental to pesticide products as a result of the manufacturing or packaging process. Concerning the ecosystem, the ongoing detection of PFAS in various environments and soils also threatens the ability of growers, including organic growers, to produce food that does not harbor these compounds. PFAS do not break down in the environment and are detectable in more than 330 animal species globally, including species at extinction risk. PFAS chemical residues persist in food and drinking water, with over six million U.S. residents regularly encountering drinking water with PFAS levels above the EPA health advisory of 70 ng/L. Therefore, PFAS are detectable in almost all of the U.S. population—disproportionately afflicting people of color communities—and have implications for human health. 

Nathan Donley, Ph.D., environmental health science director at CBD, states, “I can’t imagine anything that could make these products any more dangerous than they already are, but apparently, my imagination isn’t big enough. […] The EPA has to take control of this situation and remove pesticide products that are contaminated with these extremely dangerous, persistent chemicals.”

Despite EPA considering the primary source of PFAS contamination in pesticides from leach from fluorinated containers, PFBS and PFHpS, like in Intrepid 2F and Malathion 5EC, respectively, are not known to leach. Thus, this report indicates that PFAS contamination of agricultural pesticide products comes from additional unknown sources. For instance, PFAS in rainwater, surface water, and soil exceeds the planetary boundary for chemical pollution, contaminating above EPA’s proposed guideline levels, and exceeding safe limits for humanity. Despite reductions in the global emissions for PFAS compounds, the environmental persistence and hydrological cycling of these toxic chemicals make them an ever-present source of contamination, especially as PFAS compounds do not break down in the environment. Studies from the past year highlight:

1. “Levels of PFOA and PFOS in rainwater often greatly exceed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisory levels, and the sum of the aforementioned four PFAAs (Σ4 PFAS) in rainwater is often above Danish drinking water limit values also based on Σ4 PFAS;
2. Levels of PFOS in rainwater are often above Environmental Quality Standard for Inland European Union Surface Water; and
3. Atmospheric deposition also leads to global soils being ubiquitously contaminated, and to be often above proposed Dutch guideline values.”

PEER’s science policy director Kyla Bennett, Ph.D., cautions, “While communities around the country are struggling to remove PFAS from their drinking-water supplies, we are spraying millions of acres of our land with the same toxic chemicals. […] It’s nonsensical; we can’t protect our drinking water unless and until we get PFAS out of all pesticides.”

Ubiquitous environmental contaminants, like PFAS, have severe consequences, especially on the health of vulnerable individuals. Various pesticide products act similarly to PFAS. Individuals can encounter these substances simultaneously, resulting in more severe health outcomes. Therefore, advocates urge that policies enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Many states are issuing regulatory limits on various PFAS in drinking water, groundwater, and soil. However, EPA must require complete product testing and disclosure of ingredients for proper PFAS regulation. Furthermore, the agency must identify the unreasonable of exposure to toxic pesticides by citing the productivity and profitability of organic and ecological pest management practices. Solutions like buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management and regenerative organic agriculture eliminate the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. Given the wide availability of nonpesticidal alternative strategies, families and industry workers can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on why organic is the healthy choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. Additionally, learn more about how the lack of adequate pesticide regulations can adversely affect human and environmental health by visiting the Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Regulatory Failures Mount, Threatening Health and Safety.”

Spring is here, so grow your spring garden the organic way by Springing Into Action, pledging to eliminate toxic pesticide use.

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

Source: Analytical Report, Center for Biological Diversity