(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2023) A study published in Global Change Biology adds to research demonstrating that climate change can exacerbate the adverse impacts of pesticide exposure on managed and wild bees. Temperature can alter the sublethal effect pesticides, particularly the neonicotinoid (neonic) imidacloprid and the sulfoximine sulfoxaflor, have on bumble bee behavior tied to fitness and pollination services. Both an increase and decrease in temperature can cause diverging thermal responses in bumble bee behavior. However, increasing temperature bares more severe behavior abnormalities than cooler temperatures.

The pervasiveness of pesticide exposure combined with climate change threatens global species biodiversity. As has been widely reported, pollinators (such as bees, monarch butterflies, and bats) are a bellwether for environmental stress as individuals and as colonies. Pesticides intensify pollinators’ vulnerability to health risks (such as pathogens and parasites), with pesticide-contaminated conditions limiting colony productivity, growth, and survival. Now more than ever, people are changing their sentiment toward sustainability, with two-thirds of consumers stating the importance of limiting climate change impacts and 88 percent supporting greater pollution reduction. The globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk. With the increasing rate of biodiversity loss, advocates say it is essential for government agencies to hold the pesticide industry accountable for the direct (i.e., excessive agrochemical use) and indirect (i.e., water pollution from runoff) impacts on ecosystems.

The study notes, “Our findings highlight the importance of multi-stressor studies to quantify threats to insects, which will help to improve dynamic evaluations of population tipping points and spatiotemporal risks to biodiversity across different climate regions.”

The study investigates six behaviors of bumblebees exposed to imidacloprid and sulfoxaflor at three different temperatures (21 ̊C/69.8 ̊F [Low], 27 ̊C /80.6 ̊F [Medium], 30 ̊C / 86 ̊F [High]). The behaviors under observation include: “1. Likelihood of being responsive; 2. Likelihood of movement; 3. Rates of walking; 4. Rate of food consumption; 4. Flight distance; and 5. Flight velocity.”

Of the six behaviors, imidacloprid significantly impacts the responsiveness, likelihood of movement, walking rate, and food consumption rate at lower temperatures and reduces flight distance by over 50 percent at higher temperatures. Sulfoxaflor impacts bumble bee walking rate at medium temperatures and reduces flight distance by 24 percent, but not as significantly as imidacloprid. With temperature predicted to increase, lead researcher from the Department of Life Sciences (Silwood Park) at Imperial College London, Richard Gill, Ph.D., highlights, “The drop-off in flight performance at the highest temperature suggests a ‘tipping point’ has been reached in the bees’ ability to tolerate the combined temperature and pesticide exposure. This seeming cliff-edge effect happens over the span of just three degrees, which changes our perception of pesticide risk dynamics given such temperature changes can commonly occur over the space of a day.”

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. Monarchs are near extinction, and commercial beekeepers continue to experience declines that are putting them out of business. The continued loss of mayflies and fireflies disrupts the foundation of many food chains. Additionally, the decline in many bird species has links to insect declines. Since the 1970s, three billion birds have vanished. 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. 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.

Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routinely finds widespread pesticide contamination of surface waters throughout the U.S. Scientists warn that neonicotinoids and other pesticides pose a direct threat to both insect and non-insect wildlife, including birds, aquatic animals, and other wildlife, which absorb pesticide sprays and vapors through respiration, as well as ingestion via food. Industrial agriculture and its use of hazardous pesticides, particularly systemic insecticides like the neonicotinoid class, are harming insect life and biodiversity throughout the globe. 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. With rampant pesticide use and ubiquitous contamination, it is imperative that lawmakers and regulators embrace stronger measures to reverse the ominous trajectory society continues to follow, especially with the ongoing global insect apocalypse.

The wide range of temperatures in temperate regions can significantly impact bee health and survival more severely when combined with pesticide exposure, demonstrating synergistic (combined) effects on flight performance within a three-degree Celsius increase. However, the synergistic impacts of pesticides and climate change are not a new phenomenon. A 2023 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) utilizing a climate and land use model confirms that recorded temperature during the warm seasons has a greater impact on bee declines, with a twofold increase in negative stressors. However, bees are not the only insects a risk of chemical exposure. Research published in 2017 highlighted a major red flag for insect populations worldwide, finding a 77 percent decline in German nature preserves of flying insect biomass. 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).

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 impacts of the climate crisis, especially on vital pollinators, advocates argue that it is essential to incite change by enhancing pesticide policy and regulation that eliminate use. 

Dr. Gill, concludes, “…[T]he frequency to which bees will be exposed to pesticides and extreme temperatures under climate change are predicted to increase. Our work can help to inform the right concentrations and application times of pesticides across different climatic regions of the world to help safeguard pollinators, such as bees.”

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 state representative, can do to protect our pollinators. For more information on the insect apocalypse, see Beyond Pesticides’ article in the Pesticides and You journal, “Tracking Biodiversity: Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse.”

Additionally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that agriculture, forestry, and other land use contributes about 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, while organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters carbon in the soil. Learn more about the possibility of sequestering more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions by switching to organic management practices by reading Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming. For more information about organic food production, visit the Beyond Pesticides Keeping Organic Strong webpage. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure. Buying, growing, and supporting organic agriculture 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: Science Daily, Global Change Biology

(Beyond Pesticides, April 5, 2023) A collective of Mayan beekeepers (Colectivo de Comunidades Mayas) in Mexico are implicating chemical industry giant Bayer/Monsanto in a massive die-off of more than 300,000 bees among their combined apiaries. According to Mexico News Daily, the total value of losses represent a staggering $663,000 U.S. dollars (12 million pesos). The incident is the latest instance of the pesticide  and agrichemical industry setting up shop in a local community and wrecking the health of the local ecology.

Mayan beekeepers explain that Bayer/Monsanto recently started operations on a ranch near Crucero Oxá in the southern Mexican state of Campeche. A local businessman placed the 50 hectare ranch on loan to the company. Since that arrangement, the company has aerially sprayed row crops like corn and soy with undisclosed chemicals. “One of Bayer’s engineers or technicians allowed us to take samples from one of their crops after the bees started to die,” said beekeeper José Manuel Poot Chan, to the newspaper La Jornada Maya. “We are exhausting all possible legal instances, while members of the Welfare Ministry already came to offer humanitarian social aid to cover part of the damages.”

Beekeepers suspect that the company is using the site to test new pesticides it is developing. This is not at all unheard of for a tropical environment. In the United States, giant chemical corps have been the focus of ongoing campaigns by grassroots health advocates in Hawaiian counties for its hazardous use of experimental pesticides. For instance, in 2016 Syngenta/ChemChina was fined nearly $5 million for exposing a dozen agricultural workers to an unregistered pesticide. According to data gathered by the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, in 2014 alone there were 1,381 field test sites in Hawaii and 178 sites in California.

Bee kill incidents from aerial spraying campaigns also have a saddening history. In 2016 in Dorchester County, SC, over two million honey bees were killed after an aerial mosquito spray campaign dropped the hazardous organophosphate insecticide Naled over yards and farms. These incidents show the importance and necessity of embracing pesticide alternatives on a broad scale.

To the Mexican government’s credit, there are efforts to move in that direction. Mexican President López Obrador announced in 2020 that his government would phase out glyphosate and work to embrace a more sustainable approach to agricultural production. Víctor M. Toledo, the Mexican Minister of the Environment, said the government’s goal is to produce food that is “safer, healthier and more respectful of the environment (más seguro, más sano y respetuoso con el medio ambiente).” The government also indicated it would aim to support time-tested practices developed by indigenous farmers. The United States, for its part, has worked on behalf of the chemical industry to pressure the Obrador administration to rescind this intended phaseout. While the U.S. government was successful in stopping similar actions in Thailand, there is no current indication that Mexico will rescind this decree.

In the context of these proclamations, the actions by Bayer/Monsanto are certainly not doing anything to endear itself to the local community. “I see no hope; on the contrary, the use of these products has worsened while [also] affecting those of us who are dedicated to beekeeping, and [it’s] harming our bees,” said Leydy Pech, beekeeper and longtime activist leader for Maya beekeepers to La Jornada Maya. In 2020, Ms. Pech received the international Goldman environmental prize for her work stopping Monsanto from producing genetically engineered soybeans in seven Mexican states.

These incidents and the dire situation with pollinator populations in the state underscore the need to place actions behind positive proclamations. It is evident that Bayer/Monsanto is incapable of being a good neighbor, given the inherent hazards associated with the core of their business practices. In an open letter posted in a recent tweet, Mayan beekeepers are calling on the government to open an investigation and urgently prohibit pesticide fumigation in the region.

These disaffected Mayan communities are part of global resistance efforts against the actions of agrichemical corporations. In Hawaii, advocates in Maui County are responding to this threat in a variety of ways. Since the start of the pandemic, work has focused on homegrown food security. Rather than direct local resources to chemical dependent farming practices, Maui lawmakers are embracing grassroots work to establish a local food hub, and organic agriculture in the community ag park.

Join Beyond Pesticides in urging the current U.S. administration to hold polluters like Bayer/Monsanto accountable for their actions, and adopt a new direction for pesticide regulation that challenges the so-called benefits of pesticides, and protects farmworkers, pollinators, and broader biodiversity.

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

Source: Mexico News Daily (also see tweet in Spanish from Colectivo de Comunidades Mayas

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2023) The pesticide industry focused the entirety of their “legislative day” late last month on an effort to roll back local democratic decision making and implement federal pesticide preemption of local governance in the Farm Bill. “Something that most people don’t know,” J.D. Darr, the director of legislative and regulatory affairs for the National Pest Management Association told Pest Control Technology (PCT), “is that the Ag Committee does have oversight of a small sliver of FIFRA. So, the Farm Bill is a really good vehicle for us making regulatory decisions surrounding pesticide.” Contrary to Mr. Darr’s statement, pesticide reform advocates are well aware of the threat the pesticide industry poses in the 2023 Farm Bill, having defeated a similar effort in 2018, and repeated attempts to implement pesticide preemption in the preemption-free states of Maine and Maryland. Reform advocates are pushing Congress to include in the Farm Bill diametrically opposing language already contained with Senator Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act.

The pesticide industry’s lobby day attempted to soften the industry’ image in Congress by including a range of non-pesticide related issues, such as a “friendly political discussion” between conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg and NPR reporter Mara Liasson, sponsored by multinational chemical company FMC. Other sessions were sponsored by major pesticide producers, such as BASF and Corteva (formerly called DowDuPont).

In an interview with PCT, Mr. Darr forwarded a range of unfounded myths about the viability of local authority. It is critically important that the public and members of Congress understand the true facts behind the industry’s dangerous falsehoods. There is nothing democratic, sustainable, or healthy about an effort that is focused squarely on creating conditions to apply ever more toxic chemicals in local communities. Here are the major falsehoods pesticide corporations are trying to sell U.S. politicians on:

Myth: Federal and state law provide adequate protections from toxic pesticides. (Mr. Darr says state agencies are “adequately reviewing pesticides.”)

Fact: Deficiencies in the federal pesticide regulatory process are well documented and date back decades. Problems with inert ingredient disclosure, failure to regulate endocrine (hormone) disruptors, the frequency of ‘conditionally’ registered pesticides without important health and safety information, assumption of complete label compliance, and lack of consideration for sensitive and vulnerable populations are merely a few of the grave insufficiencies within EPA’s pesticide registration process. These concerns, and tendency for state regulatory agencies to merely rubber stamp EPA approvals provides a role for local communities to play in protecting their resident’s health and environment.

Myth: Local officials do not have the expertise to restrict pesticides. (Mr. Darr says at the local level, staffing and resources are “kind of lacking.”)

Fact: This claim flies in the face of common sense. Local officials are in fact likely the most knowledgeable individuals in a community regarding sensitive sites may need protections from toxic pesticides. In the Wisconsin v Mortier Supreme Court decision that established the rights of localities, the justices referenced the importance of local rights over local factors, like climate, population, geography and water supply. Local officials should have the right to protect their most vulnerable community members like children and the elderly from toxic exposure. They know the playgrounds, local swimming holes and drinking water sources, the conservation areas with vulnerable species, and other sensitive or unique local environments better than state and federal officials. They are also savvier than that claim gives them credit for –scientific resources are readily available for local lawmakers wishing to read up on the dangers and alternatives to pesticides. In any case, Beyond Pesticides knows of no local policies where lawmakers did not consult or hear testimony from experts on both sides of an issue when considering pesticide restrictions. This issue is well studied, and unfortunately the argument is merely an attempt to stifle democratic conversations in local communities. 

Myth: Allowing local authority will hurt local pesticide or lawn care businesses. (Mr. Darr says “our member companies are forced to deal with a bit of regulatory uncertainty…”)

Fact: While there hasn’t been an extensive amount of scientific study specifically on local pesticide reform policies, the research we do have does not bare out that argument.

A peer-reviewed study conducted on the implementation of Toronto, Canada’s pesticide law (a policy similar to those passed in Maine and Maryland localities) found that lawn care company businesses actually increased by 30% during the implementation phase of their ordinance, as pesticide use decreased among both homeowners and lawn care companies. Again, this is common sense, as folks uneasy about using what may be perceived as ‘new’ natural land care methods will look to established experts or new green companies to manage their landscapes. Rather than hurt local companies, these laws incentivize a new green, sustainable industry in communities.

Myth: Local authority will create a patchwork of laws that would be too difficult for land care officials to follow. (Mr. Darr says NPMA companies also have to deal with “…just a patchwork of localities…which is really burdensome”)

Fact: This has not been borne out in any states where there is no pesticide preemption. We have present, existing examples that disprove this argument. In both Maine and Maryland the laws passed to date are nearly identical in restricting the use of all but organic and minimum risk pesticide use. There is no evidence for this ‘patchwork theory’ as communities generally look towards their neighbors for similar or consistent policy language (very few local communities want to be first out the gate).

Even if it were the case, local businesses navigate these issues all the time– they work through local zoning, smoking and other health codes, water use limits, or other restrictions aimed at addressing unique local situations. Part of running a business is understanding and adapting to local laws.  

Local leaders say that local communities must have the right to protect the health of their residents and local ecology from the hazards associated with toxic pesticides. Large multinational companies should have no say in this process but are working to influence lawmakers to bully local communities into permitting the use of toxic products that go against their community’s values. Help Beyond Pesticides and our allies push back against inclusion of this regressive, anti-democratic language in the Farm Bill by taking action and sending a letter to your members of Congress today.  

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

Source: PCT(1), PCT(2)

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2023) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has opened its public comment period, with comments on organic standards due by 11:59 pm EDT April 5. April 5 is also the deadline for registering for the upcoming public comment webinar on April 18 and 20, which precedes the online meeting April 25-27—in which the NOSB deliberates on issues concerning how organic food is produced. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov.

As always, there are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong (KOS) and the Spring 2023 issues page, where you can find Beyond Pesticides’ comments on all issues facing the NOSB at this meeting. In the spirit of “continuous improvement,” we urge you to submit comments (please feel free to use our comments on the KOS page) that contribute to an increasingly improved organic production system. If you have already submitted comments on the key issues we have suggested (below), please take a look at the Beyond Pesticides’ KOS page and pick an issue to comment on. (The public is welcome to cut-and-paste from the Beyond Pesticides’ comments posted on its KOS page.) Here are some high priority issues for Beyond Pesticides:

Prohibit the Routine Allowance of Ingredients Processed with Ion Exchange. Because the ion exchange process is a chemical process, all organic ingredients processed in this manner must be subject to review by the NOSB. Ion exchange creates synthetic ingredients through chemical change—removing some components and substituting other chemicals—that are used in processed food. It is not simply filtration. Chemicals in the ion exchange resins may leak into the food product. Yet, the Handling Subcommittee of the NOSB is proposing to allow any and all resins without review. To maintain the integrity of the organic label, resins must be subject to full National List (National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances) review to determine whether these ingredients meet organic standards, rather than establishing a blanket allowance of ion exchange in organic processing.

Organic Agriculture is Climate-Smart Agriculture. In a draft letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the NOSB has written an excellent primer on how organic agriculture responds to the climate emergency. An important caveat is that NOP and certifiers must hold organic producers to the letter and spirit of the Organic Foods Production Act, which requires that organic production be soil-based, incorporate diversity, and protect the environment. Operations based on hydroponics or confined animal facilities, and those that replace native ecosystems with organic farms do not meet those requirements. The NOSB has made its position clear on those issues and must insist that NOP and certifiers carry out NOSB recommendations and consistently enforce the law—for the sake of reducing climate change, biodiversity loss, and human health impacts, as well as fairness. The NOSB should also stress the need for USDA to dramatically increase support for converting chemical-intensive agriculture to organic. It is critical that the National Organic Program ask, “What more should USDA be doing to advance organic?” As the Board states, the resiliency of organic is established: “Organic is the solution to mitigating climate change and responding to it.” However, despite the astronomical growth in organic consumption in the U.S., conversion to organic agriculture lags behind demand. USDA could and should require the adoption of organic/climate-smart practices a prerequisite for receiving the benefits of its programs and abandon its promotion of chemical-intensive agriculture supported by the biotech/chemical industry.

Plastic mulch is under consideration this year as a part of its five-year review cycle. This is part of the larger issue relating to the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plastic—and the microplastic particles resulting from its use—on human health and the environment. Plastics manufacture requires transportation of hazardous chemicals, such as those involved in the recent derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Plastic mulch should not be relisted as allowable in organic production. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic processing and packaging.

The NOSB should use the review (or sunset) process to eliminate nonorganic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that may comprise 5% of organic-labeled processed foods. The intent of the law is to allow restricted nonorganic ingredients (fully disclosed and limited) when their organic form is not available. However, materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and we can now grow virtually anything organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” The materials on §205.606 up for sunset review this year are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be taken off the National List of allowed materials.

>>Submit Comments Now.

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

Thank you for keeping organic strong!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2023) A report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies the most recent event in the very long chronicle of EPA dysfunction that — put charitably — constitutes failures to enact its mission, and more accurately, sometimes crosses the line into malfeasance. In the report, OIG concludes that EPA’s 2021 PFBS Toxicity Assessment failed to “uphold the agency’s commitments to scientific integrity and information quality,” and that the agency’s actions “left the public vulnerable to potential negative impacts on human health.” As reported by The Guardian, “Trump administration appointees at . . . EPA meddled in agency science to weaken the toxicity assessment of a dangerous chemical.” Last year, Beyond Pesticide concerns about the myriad risks and harms of pesticides intersected with those about the PFAS (Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances) family of chemical compounds, of which PFBS is a member, when a study found very high levels of PFAS in multiple pesticide products.

The EPA OIG explains why it undertook the evaluation that led to this report: “to determine whether the EPA followed applicable policies and procedures to develop and publish the January 19, 2021 perfluorobutane sulfonic acid toxicity assessment. Two weeks after publication, the EPA removed the toxicity assessment from its website, citing political interference and Scientific Integrity Policy violations. . . . The EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy, established in 2012, states that science is the backbone of the EPA’s decision making and that the Agency depends on the integrity of its science to protect human health and the environment. All EPA employees — including scientists, managers, and political appointees — must follow the Scientific Integrity Policy.”

PFBS (perfluorobutane sulfonate) is one of thousands of PFAS “forever chemicals” that are emerging as a ubiquitous and serious threat to human and organismic health. These compounds do not break down in the environment, and can move through soils, contaminate water resources, and bioaccumulate in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. The Guardian writes that PFBS “is toxic at low levels. Research has linked the chemical to kidney disease, reproductive problems and thyroid damage, and it has been found throughout the environment, including in an estimated 860,000 Americans’ drinking water.”

Concurrent with the recent Biden administration EPA announcement of new proposed federal standards for PFAS compounds in drinking water, the Environmental Working Group published an interactive map of the nearly 3,000 (and rising) number of sites in the U.S. (and two territories) contaminated by PFAS chemicals. EPA warned, in June 2022, that PFAS compounds, linked to reproductive, immune, cardiovascular, and endocrine (especially thyroid) anomalies and to several kinds of cancer, are an even greater health threat than was previously known. Many advocates have noted that the proposed new federal standards are still inadequate because they are less stringent than the interim advisory levels for safe consumption EPA set out last year — lifetime exposures of no more than 0.004 to 0.02 ppt (parts per trillion), depending on the type of PFAS compound.

The OIG report notes “unprecedented” interference on the part of Trump EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and other political appointees in the PFBS assessment. At the 11^th hour, Mr. Wheeler ordered the insertion of a range of toxicity values, rather than a specific limit. The compromised assessment, which would have guided drinking water standards for the chemical, as well as targets that polluters would need to meet in pollution cleanup — thus, allowing companies to remediate PFBS to higher, more-dangerous levels — was published just four days prior to the inauguration of President Biden. The OIG report notes that “The new numbers were inserted without being fully scientifically vetted, and they lacked ‘technical and quality assurance review.’” Kyla Bennett of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) notes that “[t]hey were trying so hard to get [the assessment] out before Trump left office.”

The Biden administration yanked the 2021 PFBS assessment in February 2021 because of its determination that there had been political interference. According to The Guardian, it was republished several months later “using what it said is sound science, and declared it had resolved the issue.” But some EPA scientists related to the newspaper that “several employees willingly worked with the Trump appointees to weaken the assessment, and they were never reprimanded or fired. The scientists say the controversy is part of a deeper problem afflicting EPA: industry influence on career staff, and an unwillingness from the EPA to address it.

‘The issue is part of the larger rot at the agency of career staff working with industry to weaken the EPA,’ a current agency scientist familiar with the situation said. The scientist did not use their name for fear of reprisal.”

After the 2021 assessment was pulled, the Biden administration declared in a statement that the EPA evaluation of PFBS had been “compromised by political interference as well as infringement of authorship.” The Guardian reports that, “During its review, the administration took no action against career employees who implemented the political appointees’ changes. Those employees ‘made the changes happily,’ according to PEER’s Kyla Bennett, of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), but remained at the agency.”

According to The Guardian’s coverage, internal emails from the ebbing days of the Trump EPA, as well as comments in the OIG report, indicate that career employees in the agency’s OCSPP (Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention) either asked for the toxicity metric changes or did not object to them. Reportedly, the sole career employee who opposed the order for changes to the PFBS assessment was Orme-Zavaleta, who told The Guardian that Administrator Wheeler’s order “flew in the face of scientific integrity.” Former EPA scientist Betsy Southerland told the paper that the changes were “something that industry has always wanted.”

Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly highlighted the too-cozy relationship between the chemical industries and EPA, with particular attention to the impacts on EPA’s registration and regulation of pesticides. A 2021 press release on a letter sent to the Biden Administration by Beyond Pesticides and PEER (with 35 other groups) summarized the issues: “The Office of Pesticides Programs within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has become so captured by industry that it has lost sight of its health and environmental mission. . . . [T]he groups are urging the Biden administration to adopt reforms within OPP to ensure pesticide approval and use decisions are science-based.”

It continues, “Inside OPP [EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs], marginalization of science remains cause for celebration and the result has been repeated ecological and public health disasters. . . . The letter recounts a litany of improper pesticide approval decisions, some of which were blocked in court, while still others are being reversed under Biden. But the groups say these cases are symptomatic of a larger institutional illness that calls for thoroughgoing reforms. The cumulative effects of years and decades of this regulatory abuse are untold human deaths, disabilities, and illnesses. Industry has been forced to pay out billions of dollars for damages claims over OPP-approved products. The groups also point to the decline of pollinators — the key to American food security — due to the indiscriminate application of highly potent pesticides. The health of non-target wildlife, as well as our soil and waters, is under chemical siege.” 

Beyond Pesticides has covered many of the transgressions of EPA during the Trump administration, including those related to pesticides (e.g., dicamba, chlorpyrifos), scientific integrity, lack of transparency and accountability, poor enforcement of regulations, and water protection, among others. Investigative journalists Cary Gillam, Sharon Lerner, and PEER have all bird dogged EPA on its chemical and pesticide policies and regulations; Beyond Pesticides has featured their work (and others’) in various Daily News Blog entries. See, for example, coverage on EPA’s ongoing failures and malfeasance: EPA reliance on industry research; the “revolving door” between industry and EPA; chemical industry influence on the agency; the corrupt alteration of scientific information, as related to the pesticide dicamba; and so many instances of EPA disregarding scientifically demonstrable harms that they cannot reasonably be listed here.

Beyond Pesticides’ three-part series, based in part on Ms. Lerner’s work, goes directly to these issues: undermining of EPA function by industry influence, the susceptibility of EPA officials and managers to corrupt behavior, and the ongoing failure of the agency to align its efforts with its own 2012 Scientific Integrity Policy, here and here. Further, the many transgressions of the Trump EPA are a dramatic demonstration of how whip-sawed EPA’s operations and approach can be with the advent of administrations whose politics harbor animus toward regulation — even though the agency’s job is to protect human and environmental health.

As is the practice for the offices of federal Inspectors General in reports on their internal agency investigations, the EPA OIG made recommendations to the agency. Three of those are directed to the assistant administrator for Research and Development; they (1) “aim to reduce procedural confusion and strengthen existing policies, procedures, and guidance by clarifying if and when comments expressing scientific disagreement can be expressed; (2) making clear if and when toxicity ranges are acceptable; and (3) using the OIG as a resource for high-profile scientific integrity concerns that relate to political interference or that assert risk to human health or the environment.” Another is directed to the assistant administrator for Mission Support: “to update policies and procedures on environmental information quality to require additional quality assurance reviews for EPA products.” The last goes to the deputy administrator of EPA: “to strengthen the EPA’s culture of scientific integrity, transparency, and accountability of political leadership actions when changes occur as a result of policy decisions.”

Whether and how EPA chooses to adopt these recommendations remains to be seen. Yet even this OIG report — though potentially helpful in righting EPA’s ship — does not address the comprehensive overhaul needed at EPA to ensure it pursues its mission with integrity, based in science, and with protection of health and environment at the helm.

As Beyond Pesticides recently wrote, “[EPA’s] track record, on so many pesticides [and chemicals broadly], is to deal with one compound (under a narrow range of circumstances and/or narrow time frame and/or specific exposure levels) at a time. Beyond Pesticides has dubbed this the ‘whack-a-mole’ struggle on pesticides. Each regulatory baby step at EPA, each judicial settlement or knock-down of a particular pesticide, each bit of research demonstrating harms — these represent small, incremental advances on a pesticide [and broad “chemical saturation”] problem that is vast in scope. But this approach is wholly inadequate to the devastation that [dangerous chemicals] are causing, and it continues the “collision course” we are on re: human health and well-being, biodiversity collapse, and the climate crisis. A precautionary approach . . . is far more suited to the task of genuinely protecting public health and the environment.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/23/trump-appointees-epa-toxic-chemical-pfas-pfbs-toxic?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2023) A study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety finds that the commonly used herbicide, atrazine, promotes breast cancer development through suppression of immune cell stimulation, and thus function, and upregulation of enzymes mediating tumor development. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), breast cancer is a disease that causes breast cells to grow out of control, with the type of breast cancer depending on the cells themselves. Several studies and reports, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, identify hundreds of chemicals as influential factors associated with breast cancer risk.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, causing the second most cancer-related deaths in the United States. Past studies suggest genetic inheritance factors influence breast cancer occurrence. However, genetic factors only play a minor role in the incidence of breast cancer, while exposure to external environmental factors (i.e., chemical exposure) appears to play a more notable role. One in ten women will receive a breast cancer diagnosis, and genetics can only account for five to ten percent of cases. There are grave concerns over exposure to endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals and pollutants that cause adverse health effects. Therefore, advocates point to the need for national policies to reassess hazards associated with disease development from exposure to chemical pollutants. The study notes, “This study demonstrated that atrazine accelerated the cell cycle and encouraged the proliferation and invasion of breast cancer tumor cells. Furthermore, atrazine can reduce anti-tumor immunity by decreasing lymphocyte infiltration and modulating cytokine production inside the tumor microenvironment, thereby promoting tumor immune escape and breast cancer progression. To fully understand the mechanism underlying atrazine’s immunosuppression of breast cancers, further research is needed.”

Beyond cancer, atrazine is a notoriously toxic herbicide known to cause different health issues, including skin and respiratory diseases, cancer, and kidney/liver damage. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmental pollution from pesticides—can drive breast cancer development.

The researchers examine how exposure to atrazine impacts 4T1 breast cancer cell development, facilitating tumor metastasis (spread from the primary site of origin into different parts of the body) and angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels to support tissue growth). Exposure to atrazine significantly increases breast cancer cell spread, tumor size, and the expression/upregulation of MMPs (matrix metalloproteinases) enzymes, mediating precursor tumors to breast cancer. The percentage of lymphocytes in the thymus and spleen responsible for coordinating the immune response by stimulating other immune cells (CD4 + and CD3) are lower in atrazine exposure cohorts, with the CD4 + /CD8 + immune cell ratio lower than control groups. The abundance of CD4 + and CD8 + lymphocytes that infiltrate tumors decreases, suggesting atrazine’s suppression of the local and systemic immune function on tumors and upregulation of tumor growth promotes breast cancer development.

The connection between pesticides and associated cancer risks is nothing new. Several studies link pesticide use and residue to various cancers, from more prevalent forms like breast cancer to rare forms like kidney cancer nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor). The link between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses is stark, with over 63 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent of commonly used school pesticides showing links to cancer. Past research demonstrates the mechanism by which cancer can develop after pesticides enter the bloodstream. An experimental study showed that pesticide exposure produces reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are highly unstable and cause potential DNA and cell damage that propagates cancer development. Additionally, pesticides can increase cancer risk through alternate mechanisms, including genotoxicity (gene damage), epigenetics (gene expression), immunotoxicity, tumors, and endocrine (hormone) disruption.

Research demonstrates that endocrine disruption is prevalent among many pesticide products like herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and pesticide manufacturing by-products or contaminants like dioxin (TCDD). These chemical ingredients can enter the body, disrupting hormones and causing adverse developmental, disease, and reproductive problems.

Regarding atrazine, EPA registers the pesticide as a restricted-use, and only certified pesticide applicators can use the chemical because of its effects on health and ecology. However, encountering pesticides can happen at any point during the pesticide’s production, transportation, storage, or application. The general population mainly encounters atrazine through drinking water, as reports of atrazine contamination demonstrate the chemical’s widespreadcontamination of waterways (e.g., rivers, streams, surface/groundwater). However, licensed pesticide applicators may also encounter atrazine via inhalation during crop treatments. Furthermore, atrazine can volatilize into the atmosphere by up to 14 percent of the applied volume during treatments.

Hormone-related cancers have ties to endocrine disruption and immune disruption. The endocrine and immune systems transmit signals to one another as multiple immune processes are involved in endocrine diseases. Thus, hormones generated by the endocrine system greatly influence breast cancer and other hormonal cancer (e.g., prostate, thyroid, etc.) incidents among humans. Although most types of breast cancers are hormonally responsive and thus dependent on the synthesis of either estrogen, progesterone, or too much of the protein called HER2, G protein-coupled estrogen receptors (GPERs) regulate estrogen through non-genetic cellular pathways, forgoing attachment to standard molecular receptors, leading to triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Triple-negative breast cancer has a higher rate of recurrence and worse clinical outcomes than other breast cancers. Xenoestrogens, like atrazine (external estrogen and synthetic compounds sources), can stimulate GPER upregulation and activation in cancer cells. However, although the connection between pesticides and associated cancer risks is nothing new, this study demonstrates the upregulation of MMP enzymes in cancer cells (4T1-Luc) associated with breast cancer development. The researchers consider these cancer cells ideal models to study the immune mechanisms, especially for TNBC, as the cells in TNBC lack receptors for estrogen or progesterone hormones, as well as limited HER2 protein occurrence, and TNBC does not respond to hormonal therapy medicines or medicines that target the HER2 protein.

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Hence, studies concerning pesticides and cancer help future epidemiologic research understand the underlying mechanisms that cause cancer. With far too many diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, eliminating pesticide use is critically important to the safeguarding of public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) is a vital resource for additional scientific literature that documents elevated cancer rates and other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on breast cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases.

Proper prevention practices like buying, growing, and supporting organic can eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. For more information on how organic is the right choice for farmers and consumers , see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2023) A commonly used slug killer known as metaldehyde can hamper the growth of garden vegetables. This finding, published in the journal Scientific Reports, provides a helpful reminder for gardeners to seek out non and less toxic management approaches as spring comes into full swing and pests arrive. While slugs can be devastating to seedlings this time of the year, some simple approaches can help reduce pest pressure while maintaining the quality and integrity of one’s garden plot.

Metaldehyde is a molluscicide that is applied through a bait, causing slugs to expel mucus and completely dry out. It has been in use since the 1940s, but like many pesticides from that era, there are a range of hazardous impacts that were not adequately studied at the time and are only beginning to be understood today. In mammals, ingestion of the chemical has been linked to neurotoxicity, including tremors, loss of coordination, rapid breathing and heart rate, vomiting, seizures and even death. Although humans are less likely to eat the baits, these risks are particularly pronounced for children and pets.

Data on the impacts this material poses to plant growth is few and far between. To remedy this, and better understand whether metaldehyde could impact yields, scientists utilized Allium cepa, or onion plants, as a model test organism.

Onion bulbs were purchased and divided into four different treatment groups with increasing levels of metaldehyde exposure (in the form an aqueous solution), as well as an unexposed control group. Scientists observed growth patterns and the genotoxic impacts of exposure to the material.

While the control group saw 100% germination success, this rate decreased as metaldehyde concentrations increased. It follows that the highest rate of exposure resulting in the greatest inhibition of plant growth. Adverse impacts were also seen to root growth and root elongation, and onions exposed to the chemical recorded a consistently lower weight than those unexposed. These were merely the apparent physical impacts; metaldehyde also resulted in statistically significant DNA damage to exposed bulbs. DNA fragmentation is seen in root tip cells, and effects are noted on the activities of antioxidant enzymes, indicating elevated stress levels in the plants.

“The results of this study highlighted the need for new and detailed studies on the undesirable effects of metaldehyde on non-target organisms, including humans,” the authors say.

Commercial slug baits should not be necessary in the garden. Although the National Organic Program permits the use of an alternative to metaldehyde, iron phosphate, in slug and snail control, its efficacy relies on a synergy between iron phosphate and a so-called “inert” ingredient known as EDTA. In 2014, Beyond Pesticides called on the National Organic Standards Board to delist iron phosphate slug products due to the risks that EDTA poses to soil organisms, as well its ability to contaminate soil, sediment and local waterways.

The good news for gardeners dealing with snail and slug problems is that management is still possible without these more toxic baiting products. Work to reduce moisture and consider the type of mulch that is being applied –straw can be an excellent mulch, but there are times in which its use can attract slugs. Never water at night, and consider tactics like drip irrigation in particularly damp, slug-prone areas as slugs are attracted to moisture. Hand-picking slugs out of the garden with a disposable glove and placing them into soapy water isn’t a favorite activity among any gardener, but it can be an effective way to reduce populations. Domestic foul can also be helpful at lowering slug populations but need to be closely monitored around growing crops.

There is evidence that effective biological controls are coming closer to commercialization. Researchers at Oregon State University (OSU) have been on the case for many years now, and made a promising discovery in 2020 when they found a nematode that effectively ‘liquified’ slug populations. The OSU research team also discovered that slugs can be attracted with simple bread dough. While that research utilized bread dough to attract and metaldehyde to kill, many traps and baits on the market, such as the Snailer, can work with bread dough and water without the need for additional pesticide, as they bar pests from exiting and cause the slug or snail to drown.

For more information on managing these problematic pests, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage on least toxic control of snails and slugs.

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

Source: Scientific Reports

Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2023) High concentrations of fully intact, never broken down DDT remain on the California seafloor decades after it was dumped off its southern coast in the middle of the 20^th century. “We still see original DDT on the seafloor from 50, 60, 70 years ago, which tells us that it’s not breaking down the way that [we] once thought it should,” University of California Santa Barbara scientist David Valentine, PhD, told the Los Angeles Times. “And what we’re seeing now is that there is DDT that has ended up all over the place, not just within this tight little circle on a map that we referred to as Dumpsite Two.”

These findings underscore the enormity of legal and regulatory decisions to approve production of hazardous chemicals. While many may believe the legacy of DDT ended with its ban in the early 1970s, the California findings raise a deeper problem not only with U.S. chemical policy, but also the response from well-meaning environmental nonprofits that continues to play out to this day. As many in the environmental community invest tremendous resources in seeking to ban problematic pesticides or chemicals of the day after the contamination has occurred (DDT being a prime example), the associated challenges of time, cost, and limited success, point to the critical need for environmental laws to assess the full life-cycle (manufacture, transportation, storage, use, and disposal) of a chemical’s potential poisoning and contamination before coming to market. Advocates maintain that this front-end analysis must prevent the allowance of toxic substances in light of the availability of nontoxic practices and products. 

In 2000, a legal fight alerted the world to the fact that Montrose Chemical Corp, the main manufacturer of DDT throughout the mid-20^th century, had dumped over 100 tons of DDT into the Los Angeles sewer system, contaminating the Palos Verdes Shelf along the coast. While a plan was set in place for this location, effectively no attention was given to evidence from shipping logs that, after WW2, DDT was regularly loaded onto barges and dumped in massive quantities a few miles out to sea. In 2020, this stockpile was rediscovered, discovered by Dr. Valentine on a hunch as he set out to study other aspects of the sea floor.

Research published last year finds that this massive stockpile has hampered wildlife recovery efforts of along coastal California. Dolphins, sea lions, other marine mammals, and the iconic California condor have all been found burdened with contamination from DDT and related compounds. In total, these animals recorded an astounding 415 different chemicals in their bodies. Critically, condors that spend their time along the coast contain seven times more DDT in their blood than findings from inland condors. This contamination places us back at square one, with reports as far back as 2006 showing thinning eggshells within condor nests.

The recent findings have generated interest from the federal government, which has put over $10 million into further researching the extent of the contamination. The finding are a Pandora’s box of revelations. The dump site is shockingly larger than initially assumed, and is not limited to DDT. As John Lyons, acting deputy director of the EPA’s Region 9 Superfund Division, told the Los Angeles Times, “When the DDT was dumped, it is highly likely that other materials — either from the tanks on the barges, or barrels being pushed over the side of the barges — would have been disposed at the same time.” For the DDT itself, evidence suggests that it is concentrated in a layer that is a mere two and a quarter inches below the surface of the sea floor, meaning that any disturbance effectively has the ability to generate contamination. According to the Los Angeles Times, researchers could not even retrieve a ‘control’ sample from the ocean floor as it came up contaminated with DDT.

Place these findings in the context of an understanding that the campaign to ban DDT was successful. With these data the only response can be an attempt to contain further damage. But it is critical that from these events we learn and apply lessons for future fights against toxic pesticides. It is not enough to merely ban a pesticide. To this day, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s answer to eliminating the remaining stocks of a banned pesticide is to use it up before the ban takes effect. In other words, remaining barrels are not dumped in a specific location but diluted throughout the nation and world.

For example, even with the known, Stockholm Convention-banned wood preservative pesticide pentachlorophenol, U.S. regulations banning the chemical provide a generous five-year phase-out to allow for the use of remaining stocks. Although this material is on its way out after decades of poisoning and contamination, over the course of its lifecycle it has created numerous Superfund sites that have harmed generations of families and continues to this day. Moreover, this decision makes little impact on the broader wood preservative industry, which can continue to manufacture wood products coated with materials like copper chromium arsenate or creosote, another chemical that has a multigenerational legacy of harm.  

While eliminating ongoing damage and immediate threats are critical aspects of environmental work, the environmental community must shift its focus to demanding the reframing of environmental law to address the full life-cycle of a chemical’s poisoning and contamination. Beyond Pesticides has long sought for the adoption of alternatives assessments in the pesticide registration process. With this approach, the precautionary principle is embraced, and if nonchemical or less toxic alternatives are currently available for a proposed new chemistry, that material will not be registered. In order to safeguard health and the environment now and for future generations, it is critical to seek and pass laws with a shelf-life as long as the toxicological activity of the materials it regulates. By embracing living laws and regulations that stop the production of toxic pesticides at the source, we can avoid burdening future generators with the same hazardous legacy we must now confront.  

For more information on Beyond Pesticides priorities for federal pesticide reform, and to join us in seeking these reforms, see the article “Groups Tell EPA’s Pesticide Program It’s a Failure, Call for Immediate Reforms.”

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

Source: Los Angeles Times

Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2023) In a move labeled “risk mitigation”—that is, mitigation of the risk to its shareholders—Bayer-Monsanto announced in 2021 that it would phase out Roundup™ products containing glyphosate for the residential lawn and garden market as of January 2023. In taking this action, Bayer-Monsanto is making no admissions, and glyphosate products will still be available to farmers. However, Lowe’s and Home Depot are still selling the glyphosate-based lawn and garden products.

Tell Lowe’s and Home Depot to eliminate Roundup™ and other toxic pesticides, promote organic practices, and sell organic compatible products. 

In fact, since this is a voluntary reformulation, and Bayer-Monsanto has decided its own timing, the company cannot be held accountable to anything. The company could change its mind, and stores can continue to sell the glyphosate-based products as long as they want. And keep in mind that replacement versions of Roundup™ products are also toxic. Roundup® Dual Action, for example, contains the following active ingredients: triethylamine salt of triclopyr, fluazipop-P-butyl, diquat dibromide, and ammonium salt of imazapic.

Thus, Bayer/Monsanto announces that it is changing the formulation of Roundup and moving away from glyphosate, while continuing to sell Roundup™ products formulated both with and without glyphosate—leaving consumers unaware of their risks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not taken any meaningful action to restrict glyphosate, and so we continue to see the threats to people and ecosystems associated with the chemical’s use. Of course, some of those who have been harmed by Roundup have secured large jury verdicts against Bayer-Monsanto for the harm inflicted and the Supreme Court, in failing to take an appeal from Bayer-Monsanto has upheld those jury verdicts. But glyphosate is the tip of the iceberg in a sea of toxic pesticides that have no place in our society. We know, for instance, that neonicotinoid insecticides have indiscriminately harmed pollinators, birds, and living organisms (terrestrial and aquatic) that are crucial to ecosystems that support life.

So, the alternative is to fiercely advance organic practices and hold responsible corporations to do the same. To do otherwise is to ignore the existential threat that petrochemical pesticides pose to health, biodiversity, and climate.

Tell Lowe’s and Home Depot to eliminate Roundup™ and other toxic pesticides, promote organic practices, and sell organic compatible products.

Letter to Lowe’s and Home Depot

In a move labeled “risk mitigation” — that is, mitigation of the risk to its shareholders — Bayer-Monsanto announced in 2021 that it would phase out Roundup™ products containing glyphosate for the residential lawn and garden market as of January 2023. In taking this action, Bayer-Monsanto is making no admissions. Lawn and garden glyphosate products will still be available if companies like yours sell it and until supplies are exhausted.

My understanding is that your stores still sell glyphosate-based lawn and garden products. As you know, Bayer-Monsanto’s decision on Roundup is a voluntary reformulation, and therefore the company has decided its own timing. I do not think that the continued sale of Roundup is responsible corporate behavior.

Please know that replacement versions of Roundup™ products are also toxic. Roundup® Dual Action, for example, contains the following active ingredients: triethylamine salt of triclopyr, fluazipop-P-butyl, diquat dibromide, and ammonium salt of imazapic—ingredients that are reproductive and developmental toxicants, sensitizers, and toxic to aquatic and other organisms.

When it comes to weeds, gardeners need good tools that enable them to control them with minimal effort and damage to their plants. Although gardeners differ in their preference for style of garden hoe, all must be sharp to operate efficiently, so files for sharpening should be located near the hoes, and customer service representatives should be prepared to demonstrate their use.

Weed-free and chemical-free organic mulches — such as straw or wood chips — are garden essentials for both weed control and long-term organic fertility. Speaking of fertility, natural fertility builds healthy soil for growing strong plants that resist insect and disease damage, while synthetic fertilizers kill valuable soil organisms. Healthy soils retain water and are especially helpful to plants in times of drought. Stores should stock fertility products approved for use in organic production.

We need to adopt practices in sync with nature that supports soil biology, cycles nutrients for plants naturally, retains moisture and water, and increases resiliency. Please:

1. Remove Roundup from your stores now.
2. Remove all toxic lawn and landscape pesticides from your shelves.
3. Remove synthetic fossil fuel-based fertilizers.
4. Fill your shelves with products compatible with certified organic products.
5. Teach consumers of methods and products that support soil health, a clean environment, and vibrant landscapes.

See https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/lawns-and-landscapes/overview for more information.

(Beyond Pesticides. March 24, 2023) The news on March 20 yielded a telling juxtaposition as the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report asserting that the world is on the “brink of catastrophic warming” — even while Congressional Republicans passed a measure to allow corporate profiteers to make that warming worse. Fortunately, President Biden vetoed that “ESG” bill, which sought to overturn a Labor Department rule that eased the ability of pension and 401(k) fund managers to consider environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) impacts of investments and shareholder rights decisions. (On March 23, House Republicans tried, but failed, to override the veto.) The IPCC‘s definitive report finds that humanity is very close to a dangerous climate threshold, but that “it does not mean we are doomed” if humans rapidly transition off of burning fossil fuels. Beyond Pesticides endorses both investment rules that advance protection of the climate, people, and the environment, and dramatic action on climate — including the cessation of use of fossil-fuel-derived synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and the transition to organic agriculture and land management.

The IPCC report, says The Washington Post (WaPo), asserts that the world is very likely to blow by the 1.5°C (2.7°F) Paris Agreement goal (of global average temperature increase above preindustrial temperatures) by the early 2030s. WaPo reports that, “Beyond that 1.5°C threshold, scientists have found, climate disasters will become so extreme that people will not be able to adapt. Basic components of the Earth system will be fundamentally, irrevocably altered. Heat waves, famines and infectious diseases could claim millions of additional lives by century’s end.”

The report prompted U.N. Secretary General António Guterres “to demand that developed countries such as the United States eliminate carbon emissions by 2040 — a decade earlier than the rest of the world. With few nations on track to fulfill their climate commitments and with the developing world already suffering disproportionately from climate disasters, he said, rich countries have a responsibility to act faster than their low-income counterparts.”

WaPo continues: “Calling the report a ‘how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb,’ Guterres announced on Monday an ‘acceleration agenda’ that would speed up global actions on climate. Emerging economies including China and India — which plan to reach net zero in 2060 and 2070, respectively — must hasten their emissions-cutting efforts alongside developed nations, Guterres said.” Both the Secretary General and the IPCC report call for humans to phase out — rapidly — use of gas, oil, and coal, which generate more than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The February 28 House vote on the Republican-led ESG measure passed, 216–204, passed, with all Republicans voting “yea,” and one Democrat — Representative Golden (ME) — crossing over party lines to vote for it. Democrats Castro (TX), Cleaver (MO), Davis (IL), Garcia (IL), Lofgren (CA), Sarbanes (MD), and Wild (PA) did not vote. On March 1, Republicans prevailed in the Senate vote, 50–46, in which they all voted for the measure, along with Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (WV) and Jon Tester (MT); both are up for re-election in 2024 in conservative-leaning states. Democratic Senators Merkley (OR), Feinstein (CA), and Fetterman (PA) did not vote.

The Biden Labor Department rule on ESG, which now prevails because of the President’s veto, aims to protect the interests of people who have assets in pension and 401(k) accounts by allowing plan managers to choose stocks, bonds, funds (and other instruments) with the risks of investment choices as part of the calculus. The ESG rule applies to plans that invest $12 trillion, in the aggregate, on behalf of more than 150 million people.

There are demonstrable financial risks that come with investing in companies involved in worsening the climate crisis, polluting environments, endangering the health of workers and the public, and engaging in non-transparent, inequitable, and insufficiently accountable corporate practices. Companies that disregard (or, as via the Trump rule, could not consider) ESG criteria expose themselves to risks of consumer boycotts, environmental disasters, and/or reputation scandal, among others.

And, according to coverage by The Globe and Mail, “[T]he majority of ESG-focused investments outperform the broader market,” in part because they enjoy lower capital costs and have better access to debt due to their reduced risk. In 2022, ESG funds lagged non-ESG funds for the first time because of the Russian war on Ukraine, which caused upheaval in energy market dynamics. (See more on sustainable investing from McKinsey&Company here.)

Many companies now incorporate ESG into their operations; according to McKinsey Sustainability, more than 90% of S&P 500 companies and 70% of Russell 1000 companies generate ESG reports of some sort. Bankrate reports that roughly two-thirds of privately owned companies have put ESG initiatives in place, and 89% of investors weigh ESG issues in making investment decisions. Abrdn, a UK-based investment company, concludes that “ESG factors bring lower volatility and therefore lower risk, and consequently higher risk-adjusted returns.”

Research out of the London School of Economics has found that, as of 2018, the global economy had suffered losses of $24 trillion USD due to climate change; researchers concluded that ESG is an effective tool in countering climate change because it guides investment toward companies whose operations reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ADEC Innovations’ coverage of the research identifies multiple examples of climate progress traceable to ESG.

The upswell in ESG activity — some of which is likely greenwashing by companies — has propelled the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to take a look at the ESG landscape. JDSupra notes that in 2022, the FTC “published a Notice soliciting public comment on proposed updates to its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, colloquially known as the ‘Green Guides.’” The Green Guides were created to help companies avoid making “unfair or deceptive” environmental marketing claims.

Much has changed since the guides were last updated in 2012, with many more companies (in part because of the influence of ESG) now touting their products or services as “environmentally friendly” or “environmentally conscious.” The FTC is reviewing the guides with an eye to these developments. In addition, and potentially importantly, “While the Green Guides are currently just that — non–legally binding guidelines — one of the FTC’s comment requests asks whether the Green Guides should be codified as federal regulations, carrying the force of law.”

On March 20, WaPo covered the Presidential veto and wrote, “In his letter informing Congress of the veto, Biden said the Labor Department rule ‘protects the hard-earned life savings and pensions of tens of millions of workers and retirees across the country’ and allows retirement plan fiduciaries to make ‘fully informed investment decisions by considering all relevant factors. The Republican-led bill would force retirement managers to ignore these relevant risk factors, disregarding the principles of free markets and jeopardizing the life savings of working families and retirees.’ The Republican bill, he said, would stop plan fiduciaries from ‘taking into account factors like the physical risks of climate change and poor corporate governance, that could affect investment returns.’”

In addition, ESG policies attract investors who want to advance environmental/climate, good governance, and/or social responsibility. The Republican measure to kneecap the new rule is another use of the Congressional Review Act to attempt to nullify a rule of a Biden administration agency in what many pundits are calling the latest in the Republican war against “wokeness” — broadly and in this case, in business practices.

With the raging climate crisis ongoing, the conservative Right (which at this juncture harbors most Republicans) appears hell-bent on countering progress on emissions reductions. Indeed, in January 2023, WaPo reported on a group, Consumers’ Research, that has been working largely behind the scenes to prevent financial institutions from dealing with the reality of climate change. WaPo wrote, “Bankrolled by mysterious donors, a little-known group named Consumers’ Research has emerged as a key player in the conservative crusade to prevent Wall Street from factoring climate change into its investment decisions.”

Among the organization’s recent activities was joining a late-2022 pressure campaign brought by 13 state attorneys general to “investigate” Vanguard for its “meddling with [the] energy industry to achieve progressive political goals at the expense of market efficiency. . . . Within days, Vanguard announced it was quitting a coalition called the Net Zero Asset Managers Alliance and shelved its own modest pledges to cut the amount of greenhouse gas emissions linked to companies in which it invests. Leaders of Consumers’ Research were surprised — and elated.”

In May 2022, The New York Times reported on the (at least parallel) organized Republican effort to punish companies for climate (and other “woke”) actions. This is done sometimes through laws pushed through by Republican-dominated state legislatures; it also comes via direct pressure from Republicans on state agency leaders who have the power to make regulations in their states; and/or pressure on “independent” organizations that rate or accredit companies. The NYT wrote, “Across the country, Republican lawmakers and their allies have launched a campaign to try to rein in what they see as activist companies trying to reduce the greenhouse gases that are dangerously heating the planet.”

The Republican Congressional attempt to derail President Biden’s rule on ESG was clearly another salvo in attempts to beat back action on the climate crisis, which many conservatives promote as another flash point in their “culture wars,” and to prop up their beloved fossil fuel industry. As WaPo says so well: “If you took Republicans’ feigned outrage at what they call ‘woke Wall Street’ seriously, you might think they were undergoing a dramatic ideological repositioning. Though conservatives have long declared their commitment to limited government and laissez faire economics, today’s Republicans are eager for government to make more economic decisions for market actors, at least on issues that fit in with their larger culture war. But look more closely and you’ll also see another version of an old story: The GOP helping out its favored industries while claiming it’s good for everyone.”

Much more attention and response are needed on the part of the public to demand robust and immediate action on the climate crisis, and to let legislators and other officials at all levels know how critically important this issue is. Beyond Pesticides asks you to take action: join organizations working on climate change; call/write/pester your federal and state legislators to support action; write letters to the editor for the largest newspaper near you; organize locally with other climate activists; and support organizations that are doing effective climate work.

Remember that the future is not yet written, and although humanity is in a tough spot — which is made worse by powerful people who care only for power and profit — as IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee said, “Mainstreaming effective and equitable climate action will not only reduce losses and damages for nature and people, it will also provide wider benefits. This [report] underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that, if we act now, we can still secure a liveable, sustainable future for all.”

Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/03/20/climate-change-ipcc-report-15/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/20/biden-veto-investment-rule-republicans/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2023) A case report article published in Frontier in Public Health confirms one of the first reported deaths from inhalation of the fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone) during work, resulting in acute renal (kidney) failure, hyperkalemia (high potassium levels in the blood), and brain edema (swelling). 1,3-D is a highly toxic fumigant used on a variety of crops, but primarily on potatoes, tobacco, strawberries, peanuts, and tomatoes to manage unwanted nematodes in soils. The chlorine-containing compound used in a greenhouse space entered the body of a 50-year-old man in China, being absorbed through the respiratory tract. Despite dilution from his wife, the compound was still strong enough to cause harm to human health. Without proper ventilation and personal protective equipment, wearing merely a surgical mask did not adequately defend against exposure to 1,3-D.

This case represents the broader issue of how toxic chemical compounds can enter the body, causing physiological damage. Specifically, pesticides can increase the permeability (absorptiveness) of the blood-brain barrier that filters various molecules entering the brain from the circulatory system. However, the permeation of pesticide molecules elevates the expression and accumulation of soluble proteins in the brain involved in neuroinflammation, which plays a critical role in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s diseases (PD), and Huntington’s diseases (HD). Considering over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts, including pesticides, are chemicals commonly present in human blood and urine samples, neurotoxicity risk increases when crossing the brain barrier. Therefore, cases like this highlight the importance of understanding how chemicals interact with the body to induce long-term health and disease prognosis. 

A 50-year-old man, who worked in the family greenhouse, inspected the greenhouse between the hour of 10 pm to 3 am without proper ventilation, without wearing respiratory protection, and bare-chested. Before these 5 hours, the man’s wife diluted 1,3-D with water at a 1:50 ratio and irrigated the enclosed greenhouse using the diluted 1,3-D on the floor surface at the door and a trench in the field. After application, the man entered the greenhouse alone for inspection. Upon returning home, the man began to experience headaches, dizziness, and other discomforts for three days before other symptoms arose, including blurred vision, unclear speech, and worsened dizziness. By the end of the third day, the man presented to the emergency department of a local hospital with dizziness, nonchalance (out of it), confusion, as well as newly developed irritability symptoms. Despite a cranial CT scan, the brain displayed no abnormalities on the third and fourth days. However, doctors shortly transferred the man to the ICU. By the fifth day, CT examinations showed unclear portions of the brain (sulci and cisternae), suggesting atrophic changes (wasting or thinning of tissue) in the brain, and on day six, a craniocerebral magnetic resonance examination showed widespread enlargement of the brainstem, uneven nerve signal, and a narrowed fourth ventricle (a series of interconnected hollows within the brain that contain cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]). The brain tissue exhibited widespread swelling, the downward shifting of the cerebellar tonsil, and indistinguishable sulci and cisternae. Additionally, the three paired main arteries that supply blood to the brain (bilateral anterior, middle, and posterior cerebral arteries) were nearly invisible.

The case determined that: “Walking in the damp climate, high temperature, and poorly ventilated greenhouses, when exposed to 1, 3-dichloropropene for a short time, the patient inhaled 1, 3-dichloropropene and quickly experienced dizziness, fatigue, nausea, unconsciousness, breathing difficulties, and other symptoms. Combined with the results of the serological test and brain magnetic resonance imaging, the symptomatic presentation was consistent with the manifestation of acute 1, 3-dichloropropene poisoning.”

The nervous system is an integral part of the human body, including the brain, spinal cord, and a vast network of nerves and neurons, all of which are responsible for many bodily functions—from sensation to movement. However, exposure to chemical toxicants, like pesticides, can cause neurotoxic effects or exacerbate preexisting chemical damage to the nervous system. The impacts of pesticides on the nervous system, including the brain, are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Mounting evidence over the past years shows that chronic exposure to sublethal (low) levels of pesticides adversely affects the central nervous system (CNS) and neural receptors, such as connections between nerves, the brain, enzymes, and DNA. Specifically, researchers identify agricultural chemical exposure as a cause of many adverse CNS impacts and neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, advocates say it is essential to avoid toxic chemical exposure to lessen potential acute and chronic health risks.

Whether 1,3-D exposure is short-term or long-term, certain concentrations are harmful to the human body in a closed environment, like the greenhouse in this case. Absorption through the respiratory tract may allow the compound to cross the blood-brain barrier, depose in the brain tissue, then inhibit the central nervous system and cause diffuse brain tissue edema, leading to acute damage to the heart (including the vascular system), lung (respiratory), and kidney (renal) function, eventually resulting in death. Additionally, EPA first classified 1,3-D as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” in 1985 until the primary manufacturer, Dow Chemical Company, requested EPA conduct the current cancer re-evaluation, resulting in 1,3-D downgrading from “likely” to “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity.”

For those who may consider this issue outside of their concern, note that a recent study focusing on the Western United States determined fumigant pesticides have close links to county-level cancer rates. Not only does this compound cause respiratory stimulation response and central nervous system inhibition after inhalation, but the volatile organic compound also contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and poor air quality.

There is a lack of complete understanding of the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Pesticides’ impact on the nervous system, including the brain, are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals or during critical windows of vulnerability and development. Although occupational and environmental factors like pesticides adversely affect human health, regulatory reviews have numerous limitations in defining real-world poisoning, 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 exact research surrounding occupational and residential pesticide exposure to make complete determinations, thus highlighting the importance of fully recognizing uncertainty with regulatory decisions that are precautionary. 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 dementia-like diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, and other impacts on cognitive function. 

Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. 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. 

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

Source:  Frontier in Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2023) Pesticide use on golf courses in the United States poses significantly more risk to human health than those in Europe, according to a study published this month in Science of the Total Environment. The findings highlight yet another area of land management where the U.S. is dangerously behind the European Union, as these countries are set to ban pesticides in parks, playgrounds, and playing fields, and have established a 50% reduction goal for agriculture by 2030. Meanwhile U.S. agencies continue to perpetuate widespread toxic pesticide use, with U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack even working to counter the EU’s reduction goals through a separate, “market-oriented” initiative alongside pesticide industry-friendly countries like UAE and Brazil.

Researchers found that pesticide risks from golf courses in the U.S. were on average 15 times higher than those in the EU. In order to come to that conclusion, surveys were sent out to courses in eight regions: East Texas, Florida, the Midwest, Northeast, and Northwest in the U.S., and the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Norway in Europe. Recorded answers (including product applied, date, rate, and area of application) were incorporated into the development of a hazard quotient (HQ), a ratio of pesticide exposure to a chemical’s toxicity. High hazard quotients indicate high risks to human health, while lower numbers indicate less risk. Such a model only captures the acute effects of pesticides, and not chronic impacts, but can nonetheless provide important data about pesticide dangers.

The highest single HQ for a golf course was found in Florida at 40,806. While the region with the highest average hazard quotient was U.S. Northwest at 13,696, with the lowest was found in Norway and Denmark at 64. In East Texas and Florida pesticide greens represented the greatest risk, but in all other locations fairways had the highest HQ. Fungicides posed the greatest health risk in Florida, the Midwest, Northeast, and Norway, while herbicides filled this role in East Texas, the Northwest, and Denmark. Insecticides posed the greatest risk for golf courses in the UK.

Although scientists hypothesized that golf courses in more southern regions of the U.S., with their longer growing seasons, would pose a greater risk than those with shorter seasons, this findings did not pan out. Economic factors also played less of a role than researchers expected. Only in Europe and the northern U.S. were any correlations found, with pesticide budget significantly factoring into pesticide risk. However, in all regions, pesticide use intensity was strongly associated with the number of maintenance employees on staff and the pesticide budget per hectare.

Overall scientists zeroed in on one defining factor differentiating pesticide risk on a region’s golf course: the regulatory environment. As the study explains, “Golf courses in regulatory environments where <100 pesticide products were available had a median CWA-HQ [component-weighted-average hazard quotient) of 248, which was significantly lower than mean pesticide risk on golf courses located in regulatory environments which allowed >100 pesticide products, which had a mean CWA-HQ of 7031.”

Indeed while the EU regulates pesticides based on hazards, the inherent toxicity of a chemical pesticide, the U.S. regulates based on risk, looking at the chance a pesticide will have a harmful effect on human health or the environment. “The risk based system used by the EPA has led to a much higher number of pesticides being available for golf courses in the US,” the study notes. In Denmark and Norway, less than 20 pesticide products are permitted to be applied to golf courses.

It is worth emphasizing that this review only focused on acute risks posed by pesticides. Chronic impacts present a greater long term threat to human health, as consistent exposure over years of playing or golf course maintenance adds to one’s exposome, the sum total of toxic exposures over one’s lifetime. While research is few and far between, a factor primarily based on the difficult in getting pesticide use reports from golf courses, the research available indicate elevated risk of various cancers (brain, prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and nervous system disorders among golf course superintendents.

Beyond Pesticides encourages proactive engagement with golf courses that heavily apply toxic pesticides, particularly in areas around homes, hospitals, playgrounds, and other sensitive sites. The program page Golf, Pesticides, and Organic Practices provides examples of courses that have gone organic or are moving in the right direction. As well as a strategy for advocates to follow to ‘Green Your Local Course.’

For more on the dangers of golf course pesticide use, including a personal, heart-felt story of how these dangers translate to real-world impacts, readers are encouraged to watch Ground War, a documentary created by Andrew Nisker after his healthy and fit dad suddenly developed an environmental-related cancer.

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

Source: Science of the Total Environment
Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2023) Placing honey bee hives in agricultural areas creates stress that leads to microbial imbalances, according to research published in Scientific Reports by Croatian scientists this month. The research highlights the fragility and absurdity of chemical-driven agricultural systems dependent upon both pollinators and products that harm or kill off these sensitive species. While regulators in the United States continue to prop up unsustainable practices, more and more consumers are seeking out and engaging with the key alternative to this system by supporting organic farms and foodstuffs at their farmers market and grocery store.

Scientists began by creating 33 colonies from three apiaries within an agricultural region in Croatia, utilizing four brood frames, two honey frames, and mated queens. Of these 33 newly created hives, 22 were relocated to a separate agricultural region, and 11 were placed roughly six miles away from a nature preserve and considered a semi-natural area. A separate group of 10 hives that had been established on a small island (Unije, Croatia) in the Adriatic Sea were included in the study in order to represent a completely natural location.

After roughly two weeks of colony formation, scientists collected samples to represent the multiple different microbial niches within bee hives. These include bee gut, bee bread, hive entrance and internal hive air; in sum researchers term this the ‘apibiome’ of a given colony. Using a process called rRNA gene amplification, scientists conducted an analysis of the relative abundances of different bacteria detected. Focus was placed on identifying bacteria that were distinct between the three different study groups.

Hives located in primarily agricultural regions reveal a lower level of species evenness, indicating an imbalance in the abundance of species found within a hive’s apibiome. In particular, these hives had lower levels of bacteria considered beneficial for honey bees. There is also evidence of a stress response pathways within bee guts. The findings fall along a gradient, with the semi-natural hives representing a marked improvement over hives located in agricultural regions after the two-week shift. Natural hives, according to the study, “displayed bacterial profiles associated with good health, and were enriched in Acetobacteraceae and the gut core members Snodgrasella, Lactobacillus and Commensalibacter (involved in nutrient acquisition and immune responses).”

Researchers indicate that the bacterium of Arsenophonus genus were most prevalent within the agricultural hives and declined along a similar gradient from ag to natural environments. This indicates that these bacteria may be a key indicator of stressors and poor colony health brought on by difficult living conditions.

“The microbiota of the Unije Island hive is more balanced, its proportion of beneficial microorganisms is higher and in a semi-natural environment the proportion gradually decreases, whereas in the agricultural environment the composition of the hive is highly imbalanced, more opportunistic bacteria are found and it is more sensitive to diseases,” explained Iratxe Zarraonaindia, PhD.

These data match up closely with prior research on the damage that agricultural pesticide use can do to individual honeybee microbiomes. A study published in 2016 found that mixtures of various pesticides results in adverse changes to the make-up of honeybee gut bacteria. Another study on pesticide mixtures published six years later found that such adverse changes to a honeybee’s gut increases susceptibility to disease and pathogens, and likely reduces a pollinator’s life span.  A meta-analysis conducted in early 2022 determined that pesticides create these disturbances in one of two ways – either by directly harming microbes or by indirectly harming pollinators, resulting in gut microbial shifts.

Researchers continue to find new ways in which chemical-intensive agriculture is harming pollinators and the wider environment, underscoring the need for alternative systems that do not utilize these dangerous practices. It is imperative for those concerned about pollinator protection to engage with and help grow these alternatives.

Beyond Pesticides has long embraced organic agriculture as the key response to the damages brought about by pesticide-laden food production. But even organic can be subject to weakening and corporate attack, necessitating an engaged consumer base. Join Beyond Pesticides today in urging Organic to Lead the Way by contributing your voice to strong organic agriculture at upcoming the National Organic Standards Board meeting.

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

Source:  Scientific Reports, Phys.org press release

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2023) As a means of taking on the challenges of health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency, the review and updating of organic standards requires the public involvement in the current public comment period. This is required to keep organic strong and continually improving.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through April 5, 2023. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on April 18 and 20 and deliberative hearing April 25-27—concerning how organic food is produced. Sign up for a 3-minute comment to let U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) know how important organic is at the webinar by April 5. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov. by 11:59 pm EDT April 5. Links to the virtual comment webinars will be provided approximately one week before the webinars.

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

The NOSB plays an important role in bringing the views of organic consumers and producers to bear on USDA, which is not always in sync with organic principles and not giving sufficient support to the critical need to end the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. There are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Spring 2023 Beyond Pesticides’ issues webpage. Here are some of our high priority issues for the upcoming meeting:

Prohibit the Routine Allowance of Ingredients Processed with Ion Exchange. Because the ion exchange process is a chemical process, all organic ingredients processed in this manner must be subject to review by the NOSB. Ion exchange creates synthetic ingredients through chemical change—removing some components and substituting other chemicals—that are used in processed food. It is not simply filtration. Chemicals in the ion exchange resins may leak into the food product. Yet, the Handling Subcommittee of the NOSB is proposing to allow any and all resins without review. To maintain the integrity of the organic label, resins must be subject to full National List (National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances) review to determine whether these ingredients meet organic standards, rather than establishing a blanket allowance of ion exchange in organic processing.

Organic Agriculture is Climate-Smart Agriculture. In a draft letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the NOSB has written an excellent primer on how organic agriculture responds to the climate emergency. However, the letter needs to stress the need for USDA to dramatically increase support for converting chemical-intensive agriculture to organic. It is critical that the National Organic Program ask, “What more should USDA be doing to advance organic?” As the Board states, the resiliency of organic is established: “Organic is the solution to mitigating climate change and responding to it.” However, despite the astronomical growth in organic consumption in the U.S., conversion to organic agriculture lags behind demand. USDA could and should require the adoption of organic/climate-smart practices a prerequisite for receiving the benefits of its programs and abandon its promotion of chemical-intensive agriculture supported by the biotech/chemical industry.

Plastic mulch is under consideration this year as a part of its five-year review cycle. This is part of the larger issue relating to the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plastic—and the microplastic particles resulting from its use—on human health and the environment. Plastics manufacture requires transportation of hazardous chemicals, such as those involved in the recent derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Plastic mulch should not be relisted as allowable in organic production. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic processing and packaging.

The NOSB should use the review (or sunset) process to eliminate nonorganic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that may comprise 5% of organic-labeled processed foods. The intent of the law is to allow restricted nonorganic ingredients (fully disclosed and limited) when their organic form is not available. However, materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and we can now grow virtually anything organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” The materials on §205.606 up for sunset review this year are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be taken off the National List of allowed materials.

>>Submit Comments Now.

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

Thank you for keeping organic strong!

Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage, where we post background and Beyond Pesticides’ comments on all the issues before the National Organic Standards Board this session.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2023) The U.S. House of Representatives’ Republican majority voted on March 9 to overturn a Biden administration rule that expands the definition of and protections for the “waters of the United States.” The rule, Revised Definition of Waters of the United States, clarifies that thousands of wetlands, smaller streams, and other kinds of waterways are included under the Clean Water Act’s protection provisions. The overturning resolution now goes to the Senate, and is expected to be taken up very soon; President Biden has said he will exercise his veto power if it reaches his desk. Were that veto overridden, this rollback would put at greater risk the nation’s waterways, from all sorts of pollution, including the more than 90% of the nation’s rivers and streams that are contaminated with five or more pesticides, according to Beyond Pesticides 2020 coverage.

You can contact your U.S. Senators HERE to let them know you want them to support Clean Water by voting against legislation that undermines protection of our waterways.

The rules promulgated by EPA and other federal agencies to protect the nation’s waters arise primarily from 1972’s Clean Water Act (amended in 1977 and 1987). That act, although referencing various kinds of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), does not actually define what that means. The interpretation of a definition has been an ongoing political kerfuffle for 15 years, according to Bloomberg Law, which asserts that the definition has is has been expanded and narrowed multiple times, depending on administrations.

Finalized in late December 2022, the rule is scheduled to go into effect on March 20. (See this Fact Sheet on the rule.) The Biden WOTUS rule, according to E&E News Greenwire, “would give federal protection to large waterways, like interstate rivers and streams and wetlands that are adjacent to them.” On the matter of which wetlands qualify for federal protection under the new WOTUS definition, the rule does not so much draw “bright-line rules” about, “for example, wetlands that are more than a specific number of feet from a jurisdictional water [being] not ‘adjacent.’” (The Obama WOTUS rule did draw such “bright lines” about federal jurisdiction.) Instead, “a more nuanced approach is required” because the impacts of a wetland on a larger waterway is variable with region, climate, and local hydrodynamics. The rule does say, “The agencies can state, based on nearly 45 years of implementation . . . that in a substantial number of cases, adjacent wetlands abut (touch) a jurisdictional water. . . . [O]n the whole, nationwide, adjacent wetlands are within a few hundred feet from jurisdictional waters.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through the final rule, repeals the previous, Trump administration rule that scaled back water protections that had been in place with the Obama rule. Beyond Pesticides wrote about that in early 2020: “President Obama’s WOTUS, aka Clean Water Rule, has provided protections from pesticide runoff and other pollutants to millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams. . . . The WOTUS rule was created to provide greater protections from pollution, and to ‘bring clarity to decades of political and legal debate over which waters should qualify.’ The rule included many smaller waterways and wetlands that function as recharge areas or tributaries to larger water bodies.”

Then, Republicans and industry/trade/business groups clamored loudly against the more-protective Obama administration definition of WOTUS. The same is happening today with the Biden rule, which the same general crew of opponents claim constitutes regulatory overreach that is “burdensome” to private enterprise, property rights, and — essentially — what they consider their “right” to pollute. This position ignores the reality of pollution of the nation’s water resources — not only the ubiquity of impacts, but also, the variety and extent of harms to human health, ecosystems, and biodiversity, as well as the disproportionate impacts of both water pollution and its sources on low-income communities and communities of color.

In bringing this to a House vote, Republicans employed the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn final rules of federal agencies, and is typically used on recently enacted rules and during changes of administration (accompanied by a shift in majority control in the House or Senate). With their recently acquired House majority (222–213), Republicans were able to pass the measure to overturn the Biden WOTUS rule with a 227–198 vote.

Voting for the rollback were 218 Republicans (1 voted against); 197 Democrats voted against it (9 voted for); and 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans failed to vote. Democratic House members who voted to overturn the rule included Representatives Sanford Bishop and David Scott (GA), Jim Costa and Jimmy Panetta (CA), Angie Craig (MN), Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Donald Davis (NC), and Jared Golden (ME); Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) was the one Republican who voted against the measure.

As this measure moves to the Senate, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (WV) has already declared his support for it. The Associated Press notes that Senator Manchin is a “frequent Biden antagonist” who “represents an energy-producing state and frequently clashes with Democrats on environmental issues.” Given the Senate Democrats’ narrow majority (51–49), Senator Manchin’s defection, coupled with recent Senate absences of Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Fetterman for health reasons — if those absences continue — could pose a challenge for Senate Democrats, Bloomberg Law asserts.

Senator Manchin commented, echoing Republican and industry talking points, that the Biden rule “would interject further regulatory confusion, place unnecessary burdens on small businesses, farmers and local communities, and cause serious economic damage.” Republican Representative David Rouzer (NC), Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chair, commented to the Associated Press: “The EPA rule ‘needs to be repealed so Americans across the country are protected from subjective regulatory overreach making it harder to farm, build and generate economic prosperity.’”

The Biden Administration has countered that its clean water rule would actually responsibly guide business and agriculture, and that overturning the rule would generate more uncertainty. EPA, on its website, says that the “final rule establishes a clear and reasonable definition of ‘waters of the United States’ and reduces the uncertainty from constantly changing regulatory definitions that has harmed communities and our nation’s waters.”

The agency further notes, “The agencies developed this rule with consideration of the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act and the statute as a whole, relevant Supreme Court case law, and the agencies’ technical expertise after more than 45 years of implementing the longstanding pre-2015 ‘waters of the United States’ framework. This rule also considers the best available science and extensive public comment to establish a definition of ‘waters of the United States’ that supports public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth.”

Meanwhile, litigation on the WOTUS definition sits with the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS); a decision for the plaintiff, according to Earthjustice, “could gut the Clean Water Act.” The case, Sackett vs. EPA, was brought by Michael Sackett, an Idaho property owner who sued EPA over its ruling that he and his wife needed a permit to infill a wetland (and build a home on it) next to an Idaho lake, and were in violation of the Clean Water Act. The plaintiff has asked SCOTUS to determine whether a lower court applied the correct standards in its ruling for EPA, and whether EPA has authority over the Sacketts’ private property. The crux of the case re: the federal rule is whether (and which) wetlands meet the definition of “waters of the United States.” Plaintiffs were distressed by the December 30 announcement of the final rule — prior to a SCOTUS decision in the case.

Of course, industry interests have come out in force, filing many amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in support of the plaintiffs. Those entities include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; conservative organizations the Cato Institute, Liberty Justice Center, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation; the National Federation of Independent Business; the National Association of Home Builders; the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association; 14 agricultural organizations; and a host of conservative, regional “legal foundations,” among others. In Jun 2022, Earthjustice filed an amicus brief on behalf of Native tribes seeking to defend existing water protections for waterways on which they depend for food, economy, and culture. A SCOTUS decision in the case is expected soon.

The organization American Rivers explains the stakes of the case well: “The Supreme Court decision . . . means more than just redefining the Clean Water Act. Siding with polluters would mean denying communities across the country access to clean water — a fundamental human right. If [SCOTUS] rules against the EPA, the drinking water of one in three people in this country will be at risk. Countless wetlands and streams across the country — vital for fish and wildlife habitat and flood protection for communities — are also at risk. For example, the Court could remove protections for 80% of streams in the Southwest alone. . . . [I]n the case of Sackett v. EPA, big polluters are arguing that [SCOTUS] should weaken the scope of the Clean Water Act. This means countless streams and wetlands all over the country would no longer be protected — and polluters could have free rein to use our nation’s waters as sewers once more.” 

The support among business, industry, and agriculture groups for the SCOTUS plaintiff and the House vote on WOTUS (and Republican spin on it) lays bare the aims and determination of those who profit from polluting. The House resolution on WOTUS was introduced by two Republicans — Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Sam Graves (MO) and Representative Rouzer — and cosponsored by 170 others. The House website titles its press release on the vote “House Votes to Overturn Flawed, Overreaching Biden WOTUS Rule.” (The Senate resolution was introduced by Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito [WV]).

Representative Graves commented in the press release: “American families, farmers, small businesses, and entire communities are suffering under the economic crises caused by the disastrous Biden policies of the last two years. The last thing they need is this Administration’s inexplicable decision to move the country back toward the overreaching, costly, and burdensome regulations of the past, which is exactly what this WOTUS rule does.” Representative Rouzer amped up the provocative language, saying, “President Biden’s new WOTUS rule is a nuclear warhead aimed squarely at our farm families, small businesses, homebuilders, every property owner, and entire communities because of its overreaching definition. Cloaked under the guise of clean water, all this rule does is expand the federal government’s control over states, localities, and private landowners, making it harder to farm, build, and generate economic prosperity.”

Earthjustice summarizes the case for this protective rule and its WOTUS definition: “[It] is based on vigorous science. The agencies that made the new rule reviewed hundreds of scientific articles when making this rule and worked through thousands of public comments to develop a framework for protecting our nation’s waters from industrial pollution. The rule is not perfect, but it is a crucial step toward restoring protection to a network of waterways that support healthy ecosystems, and economies. More than three in four people support stronger federal protections for our nation’s waters.”

Beyond Pesticides encourages members of the public to advocate strongly with their U.S. Senators to uphold the Biden WOTUS rule, which represents badly needed protection for the nation’s waterways, and the ecosystems, organisms, and people who depend on them — essentially, everyone and everything. Click HERE to take action by contacting your U.S. Senators. 

Sources: https://apnews.com/article/biden-clean-water-manchin-republicans-epa-environment-1bb64abf01d910f4c4763ad49883a8cb and https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/house-passed-water-rule-baits-bidens-veto-with-absent-democrats

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2023) Highly hazardous PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are leaching out of plastic containers and contaminating food products, according to research published in Environment Technology and Letters this month. The data confirm the results of prior research focused on the propensity of PFAS to contaminate various pesticide products through the storage containers. That data led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a warning over the potential for direct PFAS contamination of food. The current study, conducted by scientists at Notre Dame University, confirms these worst fears and shows that the containers of commonly used products like ketchup and mayonnaise are leaching out levels that post a threat to human health. “Not only did we measure significant concentrations of PFAS in these containers, we can estimate the PFAS that were leaching off creating a direct path of exposure,” said study coauthor Graham Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Notre Dame.

In breaking news on Tuesday, EPA is setting standards for two PFAS, PFOA and PFOS at no more than 4 parts per trillion in drinking water. While testing will be required, this measure is limited by its scope, requiring only monitoring of a few other PFAS compounds.

At issue are HDPE (high density polyethylene) containers, a type of plastic that may or may not be fluorinated prior to filling them with various materials. Fluorinating these containers “allows for cheaper and more efficient production of plastics that contain desirable properties, primarily increased barrier properties,” according to the study. In other words, fluoridation is being used to address the potential for gasses, water vapor, light and other factors that would impact the quality of product in the packaging. The material is as common as your milk jug and used to store a wide variety of substances – from foodstuffs to shampoo, motor oil, detergents and pesticides.

Using food samples retrieved from glass jars, scientists tested them by adding samples to both fluorinated and non-fluorinated HDPE containers. Scientists tested the amount of PFAS in these containers using plain water, methanol, and acetone as reference. And food samples added to both treated and untreated HDPE containers, including ketchup, olive oil, and mayonnaise were also analyzed for their PFAS levels. Further tests were conducted where containers and food were heated, to determine if that increased the effects. Testing methods employed a similar approach recently taken by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to measure PFAS in foods.

Results from even nonfluorinated containers represented a risk, ranging from 10 parts per trillion to 880 parts per trillion. Fluorinated containers hit between an astounding 45,120 and 94,810 ppt. These numbers include a summation of a range of PFAS analytes, including PFOA, PFDA, PFBA, and many others.

Food samples left in these containers did contain PFAS in a range of 2,660, 5,950, and 7,190 correspondingly in olive oil, ketchup, and mayonnaise. Heat also increased the leaching process significantly. As the study indicates, “In fluorinated containers, sums of PFAS concentrations were 27 times higher in samples exposed at 50 °C than those exposed at room temperature, demonstrating that exposure to elevated temperatures significantly increased the migration of PFAS from the containers into the water.”

In sum, the study finds that using an estimated five servings per week of just one of the food products measured would be 770 to 2,680 ppt per kilogram of body weight each week. The study provides a comparison to the European Union, where  a tolerable weekly intake limit of 4,400 ppt per week was set. Given that a few dabs of mayo or ketchup over the course of the week can nearly reach this level, the risks come into clear focus.

If this was not concerning enough, this is far from the only source of PFAS chemicals in our environment. This process is also occurring with pesticides stored in HDPE containers, and there is also significant concern regarding leaching from wastewater treatment plants, which consistently record high PFAS outflow. Combined, these represent additional threats of contamination to the land were food is grown and the water used on crops, which in many places around the country includes that very same wastewater outflow.

There are also issues EPA has not addressed: with evidence from another recent study that certain insecticides may contain PFAS levels as high as 19,200,000 parts per trillion, and that these applications leach into food grown on site, currently existing global contamination adds another concerning data point to the risks individuals in the US and around the world are encountering with PFAS.

“We measured concentrations of PFOA that significantly exceeded the limit set by the EPA’s 2022 Health Advisory Limits,” said Dr. Peaslee. “Now, consider that not only do we know that the chemicals are migrating into the substances stored in them, but that the containers themselves work their way back into the environment through landfills. PFAS doesn’t biodegrade. It doesn’t go away. Once these chemicals are used, they get into the groundwater, they get into our biological systems, and they cause significant health problems.”

Beyond Pesticides is calling on Congress to act on bipartisan bill — the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act —legislation introduced by the Maine Delegation modeled on a policy the state of Maine recently passed.

Act now by telling your U.S. Senators and Representative to cosponsor the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act. If they are already cosponsors, thank them. Tell EPA to stop the spread of legacy chemicals.

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

Source: University of Notre Dame, Environment Technology and Letters

(Beyond Pesticides, March 15, 2023) In a move that will improve land access for Mauiʻs organic farmers, Maui County Council passed Bill 160 (Kula Agricultural Park Phase I Expansion Area),  reserving 262 acres in the Kula Agricultural Park for practices that comply with the Organic Foods Production Act and USDA organic standards, and removing barriers in the application process in favor of emerging farmers.

Councilmember Gabe Johnson, chair of the Agriculture, Diversification, Environment and Public Transportation Committee, sponsored the bill. “Regenerative agriculture is a forward-thinking system that works to nurture soil, protect water resources and biodiversity, and combat climate change,” said Mr. Johnson. “We need to create an environment that supports our farmers and agriculture economy.”

Maui County currently has an operational 445 acre Agriculture Park, available for lease at the affordable rate of $100 per acre per month. All users of the current Agriculture Park practice chemical-intensive methods, making it an unsuitable area for organic farmers. In 2018, Maui County purchased an additional 262 acres to expand the Agriculture Park, and Bill 160 reserves the expansion area for organic practices, giving organic farmers the same opportunity for affordable land access. The Kula Agriculture Park expansion will be available for lease after the county completes the planning and infrastructure phase.

Maui County imports about 85% of its food, leaving the population vulnerable in times of disaster or supply chain disruption, and making the cost of food high. Maui County and the State of Hawaiʻi are taking action to change that, and increase the amount of food produced locally, and environmental advocates have been pushing to define what kind of agriculture they would like to see as a solution.

Autumn Ness, director of Beyond Pesticides Organic Land Management and Farm Support Program, worked on Bill 160 with Mr. Johnson and says, “Not all agriculture is good agriculture, and as we seek to increase agriculture and food security, that cannot come with increased petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use, at the cost of our health and environment.” She continues: “We can increase food production, remediate our soils, keep our near shore waters clean, conserve our precious water resources, and keep our residents healthy, all at once. Organic agriculture does that.”

Family Farmer Training Networkʻs Georgia Pinsky supported Bill 160.  Ms. Pinsky said, “I work with beginning farmers who are motivated to grow food and steward the land, but one of the biggest barriers to their success is access to affordable land. Bill 160 is a game changer for them.”

Ms. Ness challenges the notion that “no one wants to be a farmer these days,” saying that: “The conventional commodity crop agriculture model isnʻt attractive to many young Maui farmers. Thatʻs what the system has been set up to support, and people who want to farm to organic standards have trouble navigating outside of that.”

There are three farmer training programs on Maui, with full cohorts every year; Go Farm, through the University of Hawaiʻi, Farmers Apprentice Mentorship Program through the Hawaiʻi Farmers Union, and The Family Farmer Training Network. Representatives from each program report that almost 100% of the graduates want to practice organic or regenerative farming.

 “We, as a community, have to build systems that support their success,” says Mr. Johnson.  “Our future depends on them.”

Bill 160 comes on the heels of multiple actions that are intended to work together to create an environment that supports and prioritizes regenerative organic farming and land management.

In 2020, Maui County Council funded an agricultural microgrant program, which is now in its third year of funding.  Applicants are eligible for up to $25,000 in grants for expenses that will help them increase food production.  Preference is given to Native Hawaiian, women, and farmers of color.

In 2020, in the midst of COVID shutdowns, Beyond Pesticides co-founded Maui Hub, to support Mauiʻs local farmers through the crisis, with a long-term goal to build a dependable market that will facilitate the large-scale increase in local, organic food production. It is in its third year, and still growing.

In 2021, Maui County passed the strongest public lands organic policy in the country, prohibiting the use of all synthetic pesticides and fertilizers on any county-owned lands, including parks and roadways.

“Itʻs exciting to see our community begin to prioritize organic agriculture as the solution to so many crises we face,” says Ms. Ness.  She continued: “We are still in the beginning stages of evening the scales in a system that has favored conventional and plantation agriculture for over 100 years. We have a long way to go, but we are committed to making regenerative, traditional Hawaiian, and organic agriculture the norm on Maui, becoming an economic driver that has positive benefits for generations.”

Visit Maui County Council’s website at https://tinyurl.com/Bill160CD1FD1 to read Bill 160. For more information about Beyond Pesticidesʻ work in Hawaiʻi, please contact: [email protected].

Photo: Maui County Council Member Gabe Johnson on his organic farm. Mr. Johnson was an organic farmer prior to being elected to represent the island of Lānaʻi on the Council.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2023) A study published in Environmental Research and Public Health finds occupational pesticide exposure increases the risk of sleep disorders among farmworkers and pesticide applicators. Specifically, many pesticides, like organophosphates (OPs), are detrimental to neurological function through inhibition of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE) responsible for ending a neurotransmission event after relaying the necessary information. Without an end to neurotransmission events, individuals experience a buildup of acetylcholine, resulting in convulsions, headaches, weakness, impacts on bodily senses, and other cognitive/mental changes. In addition to illnesses from chemical exposure, inadequate sleep has links to several chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and depression. Therefore, given research links to sleep-related disorders and bodily functions, including endocrine, metabolic, neurological, and cognitive disorders, studies like this can help government and health officials identify how pesticides’ impact on the brain elevates health concerns. The study notes, “The study’s findings can be used to create strategies for addressing mental health issues and promoting mental health and quality of life.”

Researchers assess the sleep patterns among individuals living in southeast Spain, near the coast of Almeria, where chemical-intensive agriculture from greenhouses is prevalent. Of the 380 participants in the study, 189 were greenhouse workers, while 191 were control subjects. Using the Oviedo Sleep Questionnaire in Spanish, the researchers collected data on sleep patterns and disturbances during the annual occupation health survey assessment. The risk of insomnia is significantly higher among agricultural workers than in the control group, especially for those without proper personal protective equipment (PPE) like gloves or masks. Among pesticide applicators, like gardeners and landscapers, insomnia risk occurs in those who do not wear goggles or masks. Therefore, the risk of sleep disorders increases with occupational pesticide exposure.

Numerous occupational hazards are associated with chemical exposure, especially among individuals with occupations that involve regular exposure to xenobiotic (foreign substance) compounds. The agricultural sector has a long-standing history of synthetic chemical use, which disproportionally affects farmworkers‘ health. Furthermore, farmworkers’ children are at greater risk as their immune system response is immature and especially vulnerable to stressors from pesticide exposure. Synthetic chemicals in pesticides can accumulate in bodies, causing an amalgamation of health effects. These effects can range from heightened risks of various cancers (e.g., prostate, hepatic, liver, etc.) and endocrine disruption to mental health problems (e.g., depression), respiratory illnesses (asthma), and many other pesticide-induced diseases. However, pesticide exposure is ubiquitous and not only confined to where it is applied. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals can enter homes from the workplace via clothes, shoes, and home-based personal protective equipment (PPE) and accumulate residues on laundry, on carpets, and in art/house dust. Some cases demonstrate that levels of chemicals transported into the house can be high enough to cause an adverse health effect in a resident child or spouse. Although pesticide exposure through the skin or inhalation is most prevalent among individuals working around these toxic chemicals, the general population also experiences pesticide exposure through residues in food and water resources. Therefore, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide compound in their body. These pollutants have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. 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. The increasing ubiquity of pesticides concerns public health advocates as current measures safeguarding against pesticide use do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. Therefore, individuals will continuously encounter varying concentrations of pesticides and other toxic chemicals, adding to the body’s burden of those toxic chemicals currently in use.

This study adds to global research supporting the link between pesticide exposure and sleep disorders, yet this is the first study in Spain to analyze the prevalence of pesticide-induced sleep disorders among those working with or around these chemicals. Exposure to medium and high levels of pesticides results in shortened sleep duration, poorer sleep quality, and insomnia. Therefore, pesticides can interrupt normal non-rapid eye movement (NREM) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep patterns. REM sleep is active, meaning more brain activity takes place (e.g., dreaming) compared to NREM sleep, which can be the beginning of sleep, light sleep, or deep sleep. REM and NREM sleep play an important role in childhood development, learning/memory, and immune system support. Thus, pesticide exposure interrupts these processes leading to further health issues. For example, REM sleep disorder can be a precursor to neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease and types of dementia. Studies have shown that more than 50 to 80 percent of people with REM sleep behavior disorder go on to develop a neurodegenerative disorder year later or even decades. Besides the neurotoxicity of pesticides, these toxic chemicals also can function as an endocrine disruptor that affects hormone function, including melatonin responsible for sleep. The study highlights the significance of PPE as a premier way to mitigate chemical exposure resulting in sleep disorders. However, replacing toxic, conventional, synthetic pesticides with organic pesticides can reduce the risk of sleep disorders, regardless of PPE.

The researchers conclude, “The use of PPE and adherence to safe practices during the handling of pesticides in agricultural activities can reduce the total exposure to pesticides and thus avoid the negative effect of pesticides on health and the occurrence of some disorders, such as sleep disorders.”

Humans spend approximately one-third of their life sleeping, and some animals even more so, signifying how important sleep is for normal bodily function, health, and well-being. Various pesticide products act similarly or in conjunction with other chemical 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. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure 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 Brain and Nervous System Disorders, Learning/Developmental Disorders, Endocrine Disruption, Body Burdens, and other diseases.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. 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. 

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

Source: Environmental Research and Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2023) The United Nations has just announced on March 4, 2023, an agreement on a new high seas treaty. The treaty, which must be adopted by member states and then ratified by at least 60 countries to take effect could be a critical development for meeting the UN’s COP15 “30 by 30” goal of protecting 30% of the world’s land and sea by 2030 to slow and arrest global biodiversity losses.

The treaty represents a step toward implementation of President Biden’s “America the Beautiful Initiative” set in 2021, proclaiming “the first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President –a goal of conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.” However, he U.S. has a poor track record on approval of UN environmental treaties; approval requires a two-thirds majority affirmative vote in the Senate, and failure on that would block a Presidential signature and ratification.

Meanwhile, a report just reissued by an international coalition of scientists led by Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco documents the widespread and growing pollution of the ocean. The full report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” is published in the Annals of Global Health (DOI: 10.5334/aogh.2831).

Tell President Biden to sign the UN high seas treaty. Tell EPA and Congress to protect the ocean from toxic pollution.    

Professor Philip Landrigan, M.D., the director of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and the Global Observatory on Planetary Health summarize the importance of actions to protect the oceans, “Simply put: Ocean pollution is a major global problem, it is growing, and it directly affects human health.” The UN treaty recognizes the need to address “biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems of the ocean, due to, in particular, climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, such as warming and ocean deoxygenation, as well as ocean acidification, pollution, including plastic pollution, and unsustainable use.”

The UN treaty will promote the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted in 1982, by establishing protected areas on the high seas—that is, the vast portion of the ocean that is outside of national boundaries—and providing for an overhaul of environmental impact assessments for actions affecting the ocean.

But signing and ratifying the treaty are only first steps. In order to comply with the treaty, nations must take concrete steps to promote the objectives of the treaty when making decisions under other laws, ensuring “that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.” As shown by the Global Observatory’s report, whose findings are drawn from 584 scientific reports, these impacts include:

• Pollution of the oceans by plastics, toxic metals, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, sewage, and agricultural runoff that is killing and contaminating the fish that feed 3 billion people. 

• Coastal pollution spreading life-threatening infections. 

• Oil spills and chemical wastes that threaten the microorganisms in the seas that provide much of the world’s oxygen supply. 


Action is needed now to stop the ongoing collapse of marine ecosystems. Researchers blame chemical pollution from pesticides, farm fertilizers, and oil spills in the water. The same chemicals that contribute to the insect apocalypse on land are contributing to the loss of keystone aquatic and marine organisms. For example, neonicotinoid insecticides, which have been detected in rivers, streams, and lakes in 29 states, present detrimental impacts on keystone aquatic organisms and result in a complex cascading impact on ecosystems. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2017 risk assessment for the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, found, “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.” These surface waters eventually drain into the ocean.

EPA has responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Clean Water Act to protect human health and the environment from these threats. Despite its acknowledgement that current benchmarks are not adequately protective, EPA describes its review process as requiring studies of the most sensitive organisms and a range of publicly available environmental laboratory and field studies.

Industrial agriculture, supported by EPA’s registration of toxic pesticides, results in emissions of climate-changing nitrogen oxides and loss of soil health. It is also a major contributing factor to nitrate run-off and the need for petroleum-based chemicals whose production results in oil spills. It is within the power and authority of EPA to reverse the threats to biodiversity and human existence.

Letter to EPA:

The United Nations has just announced an agreement on a new high seas treaty. The treaty represents a step toward implementation of President Biden’s “America the Beautiful Initiative,” the “first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President –of conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030”—endorsing the United Nation’s 30 x 30 plan to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030.

Meanwhile, a report just reissued by an international coalition of scientists led by Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco documents the widespread and growing pollution of the ocean. The report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” is published in the Annals of Global Health (DOI: 10.5334/aogh.2831).

Professor Philip Landrigan, M.D., director of the observatory and of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program, summarizes the need to protect the oceans, “Simply put: Ocean pollution is a major global problem, it is growing, and it directly affects human health.” The UN treaty, recognizing the need to address “biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems of the ocean, due to, in particular, climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, such as warming and ocean deoxygenation, as well as ocean acidification, pollution, including plastic pollution, and unsustainable use,” will promote the implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

But signing and ratifying the treaty are only first steps. Compliance with the treaty requires concrete steps to promote the objectives of the treaty when making decisions under other laws, ensuring “that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.” As shown by the Global Observatory’s report, whose findings are drawn from 584 scientific reports, these impacts include: pollution of the oceans by plastics, toxic metals, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, sewage, and agricultural runoff that is killing and contaminating the fish that feed 3 billion people; coastal pollution spreading life-threatening infections; oil spills and chemical wastes that threaten the microorganisms in the seas that provide much of the world’s oxygen supply. 


Action is needed now to stop the ongoing collapse of marine ecosystems. Researchers blame chemical pollution from pesticides, farm fertilizers, and oil spills. The same chemicals that contribute to the insect apocalypse on land are contributing to the loss of keystone aquatic and marine organisms. For example, neonicotinoid insecticides, which have been detected in rivers, streams, and lakes in 29 states, present detrimental impacts on keystone aquatic organisms, with a complex cascading impact on ecosystems. EPA’s 2017 risk assessment for the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, found, “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.” These surface waters eventually drain into the ocean.

EPA has responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Clean Water Act to protect human health and the environment from these threats.

The same industrial agriculture that is supported by EPA’s registration of toxic pesticides and results in emissions of climate-changing nitrogen oxides and loss of soil health is also a major contributing factor to nitrate run-off and the need for petroleum-based chemicals whose production results in oil spills. It is within the power and authority of EPA to reverse the threats to biodiversity and human existence.

EPA must reevaluate its risk-benefit analysis to recognize the existential threats posed by toxic pesticides and the industrial agriculture they support. EPA must, instead, promote organic agriculture that does not create such threats.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

The United Nations has just announced an agreement on a new high seas treaty. The treaty can be a step toward realization of President Biden’s “America the Beautiful Initiative,” the “first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President –of conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030”—endorsing the United Nation’s 30 x 30 plan to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030.

A report by an international coalition of scientists led by Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco documents the widespread and growing pollution of the ocean. The report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” is published in the Annals of Global Health (DOI: 10.5334/aogh.2831).

Professor Philip Landrigan, M.D., director of the observatory and of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program, summarizes the need to protect the oceans, “Simply put: Ocean pollution is a major global problem, it is growing, and it directly affects human health.” The UN treaty, recognizing the need to address “biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems of the ocean, due to, in particular, climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, such as warming and ocean deoxygenation, as well as ocean acidification, pollution, including plastic pollution, and unsustainable use,” will promote the implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

But signing and ratifying the treaty are only first steps. The treaty requires concrete steps to promote its objectives when making decisions under other laws, ensuring “that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.” As shown by the report, whose findings are drawn from 584 scientific reports, these impacts include: pollution of the oceans by plastics, toxic metals, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, sewage, and agricultural runoff that is killing and contaminating the fish that feed 3 billion people; coastal pollution spreading life-threatening infections; oil spills and chemical wastes that threaten the microorganisms in the seas that provide much of the world’s oxygen supply. 


Action is needed now to stop the ongoing collapse of marine ecosystems. Researchers blame chemical pollution from pesticides, farm fertilizers, and oil spills. The same chemicals that contribute to the insect apocalypse on land are contributing to the loss of keystone aquatic and marine organisms. For example, neonicotinoid insecticides, which have been detected in rivers, streams, and lakes in 29 states, harm keystone aquatic organisms, with a complex cascading impact on ecosystems. EPA’s 2017 risk assessment for the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, found, “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.” These surface waters eventually drain into the ocean.

EPA has responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Clean Water Act to protect human health and the environment from these threats.

The same industrial agriculture that is supported by EPA’s registration of toxic pesticides and results in emissions of climate-changing nitrogen oxides and loss of soil health is also a major contributing factor to nitrate run-off and the need for petroleum-based chemicals whose production results in oil spills. It is within the power and authority of EPA to reverse the threats to biodiversity and human existence.

Please ensure that EPA re-evaluates its risk-benefit analysis to recognize the existential threats posed by toxic pesticides and the industrial agriculture they support and promotes organic agriculture that does not create such threats.

Please encourage President Biden to sign the High Seas Treaty and the Senate to approve its ratification.

Thank you.

Letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield:

The United Nations has just announced an agreement on a new high seas treaty. The treaty represents a step toward implementation of President Biden’s “America the Beautiful Initiative,” the “first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President –of conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030”—endorsing the United Nation’s 30 x 30 plan to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030.

Meanwhile, a report just reissued by an international coalition of scientists led by Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco documents the widespread and growing pollution of the ocean. The report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” is published in the Annals of Global Health (DOI: 10.5334/aogh.2831).

Professor Philip Landrigan, M.D., the director of the observatory and of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and the Global Observatory on Planetary Health summarizes the importance of actions to protect the oceans, “Simply put: Ocean pollution is a major global problem, it is growing, and it directly affects human health.” The UN treaty, recognizing the need to address “biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems of the ocean, due to, in particular, climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, such as warming and ocean deoxygenation, as well as ocean acidification, pollution, including plastic pollution, and unsustainable use,” will promote the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December.

But signing and ratifying the treaty are only first steps. In order to comply with the treaty, nations must take concrete steps to promote the objectives of the treaty when making decisions under other laws, ensuring “that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.” As shown by the Global Observatory’s report, whose findings are drawn from 584 scientific reports, these impacts include: pollution of the oceans by plastics, toxic metals, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, sewage, and agricultural runoff that is killing and contaminating the fish that feed 3 billion people; coastal pollution spreading life-threatening infections; oil spills and chemical wastes that threaten the microorganisms in the seas that provide much of the world’s oxygen supply. 


Action is needed now to stop the ongoing collapse of marine ecosystems. Please encourage President Biden to sign the High Seas Treaty.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2023) Following years of discussions and negotiations, 193 United Nations member countries have just approved — for the first time — a draft treaty for protection of the globe’s “high seas” and their denizens. The March 4 adoption of the draft marks the achievement of a potential legal framework for such protections, but is also the beginning of “a long journey to ensure the world’s oceans are adequately protected for future generations,” according to coverage by NewScientist. As research out of Boston College identifies, our oceans are badly polluted by multiple substances — including pesticides and other agricultural runoff; industrial and petrochemical waste; and the synthetic chemicals embedded in plastics — that threaten human health. The treaty, which must be adopted by member states and then ratified by at least 60 countries to take effect could be a critical development for meeting the COP15 “30 by 30” goal of protecting 30% of the world’s land and sea by 2030 to slow and arrest global biodiversity losses. Beyond Pesticides has long covered the ecological harms of ocean pollution. 

The treaty represents a step toward implementation of President Biden’s 2021 “America the Beautiful Initiative,” proclaiming “the first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President — a goal of conserving at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.” That said, the U.S. has a poor track record on approval of UN environmental treaties; approval requires a two-thirds majority affirmative vote in the Senate, and failure on that would block a Presidential signature and ratification.

Consensus on the draft treaty — titled “Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction” — was not easy. Since 2004 nations have been in discussions about how to create environmental protections for international waters, but these repeatedly got bogged down around issues related to fishing rights, resource rights, funding, and allocation of the benefits of marine genetic resources (MGRs) derived from deep-sea corals, seaweeds, sponges, krill, and bacteria — in which the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries are very interested. Since 2022’s COP15 summit, pressure from global NGOs and the so-called “high ambition coalition” (the U.S., United Kingdom, European Union [EU], and China) has mounted, and is credited with helping to get consensus on the treaty “over the line.” Promises of more funding, including roughly US$857 million from the EU, also greased the wheels.

This treaty addresses the world’s “high seas,” defined as oceans that lie in international waters and thus, are not subject to national regulations. Stockholm University’s Frida Bengtsson was quoted by NewScientist: “The high seas belong to everyone; juridically, they’re seen as ‘the common heritage of mankind,’ just as space or the moon.” The high seas include the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, and Southern oceans, which host important areas of unique marine habitat and significant biodiversity that are under real threat from pollution, overfishing, and climate change. Roughly two-thirds of our oceans — covering about half the planet — are in the “high seas” category, which also means there are few legal protections in place for them, especially related to environmental threats or risks.

The world’s oceans occupy half of the planet’s surface and comprise two-thirds of oceanic real estate. They generate half of the oxygen humans breathe, host 95% of the biosphere of the Earth, and are, in the aggregate, the largest carbon sink. They are a primary regulator of global climate; and they are in trouble.

The research referenced above was the first to conduct a focused examination of ocean pollution’s impacts on human health; it reviewed nearly 600 scientific reports on various aspects of maritime contamination. Published in Annals of Global Health and released at the Monaco International Symposium on Human Health & the Ocean in a Changing World, the research paper concluded that ocean pollution is worsening, and that when the toxins from that pollution return to terra firma, they threaten the health and well-being of more than three billion people worldwide.

Lead researcher Philip Landrigan, MD is director of the Boston College Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and the university’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health, commented in a news release: “People have heard about plastic pollution in the oceans, but that is only part of it. Research shows the oceans are being fouled by a complex stew of toxins including mercury, pesticides, industrial chemicals, petroleum wastes, agricultural runoff, and manufactured chemicals embedded in plastic. These toxic materials in the ocean get into people, mainly by eating contaminated seafood. . . . We are all at risk, but the people most seriously affected are people in coastal fishing communities, people on small island nations, indigenous populations, and people in the high Arctic. The very survival of these vulnerable populations depends on the health of the seas.”

The research team’s central findings were these:

• mercury pollution is widespread in the oceans, accumulating to high levels in predator fish; once in the food chain, this poses documented risks to people who consume these fish
• burning coal is the primary source of mercury contamination; mercury toxins vaporize as coal burns and eventually land in ocean waters
• coastal pollution — industrial waste, agricultural runoff, pesticides, and human sewage — has increased the incidence of damaging algal blooms, which produce toxins associated with neurological harms, dementia, amnesia, and death
• plastic waste in the oceans (to the tune of 8 to 10 million tons a year) is ubiquitous; it breaks down mechanically into microplastic particles that contaminate and can kill fish, seabirds, and other marine organisms; virtually all humans now harbor these microplastics in their bodies

The 5 Gyres Institute has amplified very recent research (published on March 8) that identifies a shocking metric: there is now a great and growing “plastic smog” in the world’s oceans, comprised of 170 trillion plastic particles. From the paper abstract: “Today’s global abundance is estimated at approximately 82–358 trillion plastic particles weighing 1.1–4.9 million tonnes. We observed no clear detectable trend until 1990, a fluctuating but stagnant trend from then until 2005, and [then] a rapid increase until the present. This observed acceleration of plastic densities in the world’s oceans, also reported for beaches around the globe, demands urgent international policy interventions.”

Read recent Beyond Pesticides coverage of the damaging impacts of ocean pollution (from plastics, synthetic agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, pharmaceutical waste, etc.) on marine biodiversity, and on plankton, in particular. Plankton, which comprise small and microscopic plant, animal, bacterial, and fungal organisms, are the basis of the ocean food chain. They are consumed by krill, which are eaten by fish, which are then consumed by larger ocean creatures, and by terrestrial animals — including billions of human beings. Plankton could credibly be considered “über-keystone species” for their function as the basis of the marine (and a significant part of the terrestrial) food chain. Their plummeting numbers — a global population drop of 40% since 1950 — should sound a dire alarm.

The researchers’ recommendations on mitigating the pollution pipeline to our oceans include:

• create, expand, and safeguard marine protected areas
• shift rapidly from use of fossil fuels for energy to renewables (wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal)
• eliminate coal combustion entirely, and tightly control all industrial uses of mercury
• reduce plastics production and ban production of single-use plastics
• promote effective waste management and recycling
• reduce agricultural releases of nitrogen, and phosphorus, as well as animal waste, industrial discharges, and discharge of sewage into coastal waters
• execute robust monitoring of ocean pollution and extend pollution control programs to cover all countries
• support research on the extent, severity, and human health impacts of ocean pollution

Given the state of the world’s oceans, and the peril represented by their intensive contamination, this treaty cannot happen fast enough. In 2022, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission outlined the variety of threats our oceans face:

• climate change warms and acidifies waters, causing death of coral reefs and threats to other ocean organisms, as well as thermal expansion of sea water (water molecules become more distant from one another) because of warmer temperatures, leading to more wetland flooding, erosion, and contamination of littoral agricultural lands
• plastic pollution causes physical damage to ocean creatures (entanglement, suffocation, lacerations, infection, and internal injury); 80% of ocean plastic originates with terrestrial human activity, largely littering/inappropriate plastic disposal; 8 million tons of plastic end up in the oceans every year
• nonpoint source pollution is the runoff from land to ocean (including pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural lands and other managed turf), precipitation, and atmospheric deposition
• petrochemical/oil spills
• ocean dumping is intentional discharge from industry, sewers, oil tankers, and entities that discard trash into the seas
• shipping and transport “contribute” waste and trash to the oceans; these activities account for a big chunk of the economic activity supported by oceans (90% of global trade uses sea routes); dredging to expedite shipping disturbs ecosystems; maritime transport generates 30% of global emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides; the shipping industry also generates noise pollution that harms marine organisms
• extractive industries, such as deep-sea mining and offshore oil drilling
• fishing and fishing gear contribute significantly to ocean pollution by leaving behind harmful (often plastic) debris; industrial fishing nets (usually plastic), abandoned or lost, are a chief problem

Advocates say that a critically important impact of the treaty would be the creation of international marine protected areas in which destructive activities, such as industrial fishing, deep sea mining, or offshore/deep water petroleum drilling could be restricted. Among the general principles embedded in the draft treat are:
• the Precautionary Principle

• the polluter pays
• the common heritage of humankind
• equity, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits
• integrated, ecosystemic approaches
• recognition of the special circumstances of small island developing states and least-developed countries

In response to affirmation of the draft treaty, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that it would prove “crucial for addressing the triple planetary cris[e]s of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.” World Wildlife Fund’s Jessica Battle commented, “What happens on the high seas will no longer be ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ . . . We can now look at the cumulative impacts on our ocean in a way that reflects the interconnected blue economy and the ecosystems that support it.”

Dr. Landrigan sounds a hopeful note, saying, “The key thing to realize about ocean pollution is that, like all forms of pollution, it can be prevented using laws, policies, technology, and enforcement actions that target the most important pollution sources. Many countries have used these tools and have successfully cleaned fouled harbors, rejuvenated estuaries, and restored coral reefs. The results have been increased tourism, restored fisheries, improved human health, and economic growth. These benefits will last for centuries.”

From its lane, Beyond Pesticide emphasizes that the transition from conventional, chemical-intensive agricultural and land management practices and products to organic would all but eliminate one important source of toxic ocean pollution.

Sources: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2362921-what-is-the-un-high-seas-treaty-and-will-it-save-the-worlds-oceans/ and https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/science-tech-and-health/earth-environment-and-sustainability/landrigan-ocean-report.html

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2023) A study published in Environmental Research finds exposure to organophosphate (OP) compounds during pregnancy, or prenatal OP exposure can cause shortfalls in language development abilities at 18 months, stifling preschool-age language expression. Additionally, a timely and co-occurring study published in Environmental International confirms similar results, highlighting that chlorpyrifos (an organophosphate) impedes neurological and psychological development, including language communication and all motor skills of offspring at 12 and 18 months old. Prenatal development 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 research links to pesticide exposure and neurological and cognitive development, studies like this can help government and health officials identify how pesticides’ impact on the brain elevates health concerns. The Environmental Research authors note, “The etiology [cause] of language development is complex, and this work further highlights the importance of the prenatal environment as a mechanism of influence that are associated with deficits in early language acquisition and ability, which could signal increased behavioral problems and academic difficulties in later childhood that extend into adolescence.”

The study in Environmental Research includes 299 mother-child groups from Norway. Researchers examined chemical exposure in pregnant mothers during gestation week 17 and accessed the related language skills of children at 18 months of age and pre-school age (~4-6 years old). Parents and teachers report the child’s language ability and apply it to structural equation models. Prenatal exposure to OP pesticides has a negative correlation with language ability in both 18 months and preschool-aged children. The results published in Environmental International mirror those of the Norwegian study as researchers assessing neuropsychological development in 12-month and 18-month-old children find the stages of communication and motor skills among children are underdeveloped relative to age.

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 susceptibility to disease. 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 prenatal pesticide exposure even more so. Moreover, women living near areas of high 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 to 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).

Both studies add to the growing evidence of the impacts chemical exposure during pregnancy has on offspring health, specifically neurological development. Additionally, these studies highlight that early childhood developmental pathways are significant for future health. The findings around OP exposure and delayed communication skills are not new. Research underscores one of the mechanisms that allows chemical contamination in a mother’s body to affect the fetus. 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. Like these studies, other studies demonstrate that exposure to pesticides, such as organophosphate insecticides like chlorpyrifos, have endocrine disruption properties that induce neurotoxicity via acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition. The number of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities is increasing in the U.S., and many children in rural areas—where pesticide use is most prevalent—have a higher rate of neurological disabilities. Therefore, it is essential to effectively monitor and assess pesticide exposure for the sake of human health.

There is a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical windows of development. Similarly, the general population is at elevated health risk should from pesticide exposure. Fortunately, 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: Environmental Research, Environmental International

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2023) An old Kerr-McGee Wood Treatment Facility is still causing health issues among residents in Springfield, Missouri. The former site of pressure-treated railroad tie production remains contaminated with creosote, a concoction of dangerous chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols, and creosols. While residents are still dealing with lingering effects of a now shuttered production site, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to reregister creosote (wood preservatives are regulated as pesticides in the U.S.), perpetuating the harm caused by this material despite the wide availability of alternatives.

The wood treatment facility in question operated for nearly 100 years, releasing significant levels of creosote-related chemicals throughout the immediate region. The Kerr-McGee Corporation spun off its liability for a range of hazardous sites previously under its control to a separate company called Tronox, which subsequently declared bankruptcy in 2009. Andarko Petroleum then purchased Kerr-McGee, but, during bankruptcy proceedings, Tronox filed a complaint against both Andarko and Ker-McGee, alleging fraudulent conveyance of the liabilities. As EPA explains, “At the core of the plaintiffs’ complaints is the allegation that the Defendants fraudulently transferred valuable assets out of Tronox and left Tronox with insufficient funds to pay the billions of dollars of liabilities that Tronox owed to involuntary creditors.” A bankruptcy settlement led by the Southern District of New York resulted in the companies being liable for over $5 billion in environmental claims and liabilities, the largest settlement to date on this issue.

While large corporations played a shell game with regulators, everyday residents continued to experience harm from the site. Longtime resident June Smith was interviewed by local new station KOLR10, explaining, “Every Friday night they released the creosote and I have a ditch out there in back and it smelled so bad you could not be outside,” Ms. Smith said. “It would burn your eyes. It would hurt so bad. You didn’t cook out or go outside then because it was awful.”

While burning eyes and bad smells will ruin anyone’s outdoor experience, the impacts of the plant go far beyond mere inconveniences for residents. These minor impacts were merely the acute effects of chemicals that pose much greater long=term risks.

“Everybody in this neighborhood has died of cancer,” Ms. Smith told KOLR10. “I can take you from house to house. One of my best friends at the top of the hill is now dying of cancer. My husband died, so it’s very much bad stuff.”

Unfortunately, such a situation is not isolated to Springfield residents. Dozens upon dozens of Superfund sites around the country are caused by the former production or process of highly hazardous wood preservatives. In Houston, residents announced a lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad for its contamination of properties. Residents, like Latonya Payne, are telling the story of Corinthian Giles, a 13-year-old boy she was the legal guardian of who died of leukemia after a five-year battle with the disease. A recent report found that the Houston community is in the midst of a childhood leukemia cancer cluster, with disease rates five times the national average.

While EPA Administrator Michael Regan toured the region as part of his Journey to Justice tour, EPA is currently in the process of reauthorizing creosote use for another 15 years, despite a history that shows it is impossible to produce and use creosote without causing contamination and poisoning.

Advocates are concerned that EPA is continuing to move too slowly to eliminate toxic wood preservatives and promote safer alternatives. After nearly a century of use, the agency is cancelling the highly toxic wood preservative pentachlorophenol (penta), taking action after Beyond Pesticides joined with local residents, reporters, and legislators to stop its last potential production site in the country.  Yet it has done so with a 5-year phase-out period, ultimately allowing economic decisions to trump the health of vulnerable residents.

Steel, concrete, and composite represent viable alternatives to hazardous wood preservatives and provide a lifespan of 80 to 100 years. And while wood preservatives are likely to require re-treatment, steel, concrete and fiberglass do not. In addition, disposal costs for chemicals used in wood treatment are high and continue to grow, while steel can be recycled. Communities may also choose to bury their utility lines if conditions are appropriate.

Join Beyond Pesticides in urging EPA to immediately ban all toxic wood preservatives in favor of nontoxic alternatives.

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

Source:  KOLR10, EPA Case Summary: Tronox Incorporated Bankruptcy Settlement

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2023) Exposure to glyphosate (Roundup) and its breakdown products is associated with an increased risk of liver and metabolic disorders in children and young adults, according to research published in Environmental Health Perspectives earlier this month. While glyphosate has developed a well-deserved reputation as a carcinogen, research is finding that cancer is one of a myriad of chronic diseases associated with the notorious chemical. As this body of literature grows, growing awareness by the public is increasing pressure on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to cancel its allowed uses.

Researchers began their investigation concerned about the rise of liver disorders and metabolic syndrome among young people. This trend has been pronounced among populations of color. The worrying increase has led many to consider synthetic chemical exposure as a contributing factor, as lack of diet and exercise is unlikely to account for the entirety of the increase.

To better understand these impacts, researchers enrolled existing participants in the CHAMACOS (Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas) study, a long running cohort of mothers and their children born between the years 2000 and 2002 in the Salinas Valley of California. Enrolled participants consistent mostly of farmworker families who were studied (including assessment of body measurements, contaminants in blood and urine, diet, interview questionnaires) at delivery and followed at one to two year intervals. For the present study, 480 participants who completed the 18 year old follow up visit were enrolled in a nested case-control study. Out of this 60 cases were selected based on blood tests for liver damage while 91 controls without liver damage were used as a comparison.  

Scientists reviewed urine samples stored from pregnancy, and at ages 5, 14 and 18 years old. These data were considered against an analysis of the amount of agricultural-use glyphosate occurring in and around each enrolled family’s residence.  

The results confirm there is cause for concern among young people’s exposure to glyphosate. At age 5, urinary levels of glyphosate’s primary breakdown product aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) was associated with an increase in transaminases, liver enzymes that can cause harm at high levels in the body, as well as a nearly 2x increased risk of metabolic syndrome. This trend associating glyphosate exposure with adverse effects held throughout early adulthood. Glyphosate and AMPA exposure significantly increased risk of metabolic syndrome in 14-year-olds. When paired with data on the amount of agricultural use glyphosate in a given area, having lived near an a site where glyphosate was applied from birth until 5 years of age was associated with having metabolic syndrome at age 18.

This is not the first study linking glyphosate to liver damage. A 2015 study determined that chronic exposure to even ultra-low doses of the chemical in drinking water could result in harm to the kidney and liver. A study in 2017 connected the chemical to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and a 2019 study built on those findings, showing higher levels of glyphosate in the urine of individuals diagnosed with NAFLD. A 2022 study likewise found that glyphosate before and after birth induces liver damage, posing a significant risk to pregnant women, infants, and children.

NAFLD and other liver disorders can increase the risk of metabolic syndrome. And a growing body of literature has implicated pesticide exposure and the rise of metabolic disorders and obesity, separate from concerns over diet and fitness. Researcher Bruce Blumberg, PhD, of University California Irvine has published extensively on the issue – a transcript of his 2018 talk to the National Pesticide Forum was published in Pesticides and You and is available on Beyond Pesticides’ Youtube page.

For additional information on the connection between pesticides and chronic disorders, read Sicker, Fatter, Poorer by Leonardo Trasande, MD – see Beyond Pesticides’ review of the book, and Dr. Trasande’s discussion at Beyond Pesticides 2021 workshop on protecting children from pesticides on our Youtube page.  

Help support ongoing actions to eliminate glyphosate use by telling EPA to ban the chemical immediately.

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

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives