(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2013) A few months after the groundbreaking decision to suspend the use of three neonicotinoids shown to be highly toxic to bees, the European Commission is moving forward again with a proposal to restrict the use of the insecticide fipronil, which has also   been identified as posing an acute risk to honey bees. The proposal is backed by a Member State experts meeting in the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health.

This proposal follows a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  scientific risk assessment, published on May 27, 2013, which found that seeds treated with pesticides containing fipronil pose an acute risk to Europe’s honey bee population. According to this assessment, it was found that fipronil poses a high acute risk to honeybees when used as a seed treatment for corn. Specifically, EFSA concluded that high acute risk from dust drift resulting from treated corn exists, and identified several data gaps and study limitations for other field crops. Data on nectar and pollen could not be evaluated.

23 Member States supported the fipronil restriction, 2 Member States voted against and 3 Member States abstained during the standing committee vote. This latest EU-wide restriction comes in the wake of a recent Commission decision to restrict the use of three pesticides that belong to the neonicotinoid family –  imidacloprid, clothianidin   and thiamethoxam, which will come into force on December 1, 2013 as well as a guidance document on a risk assessment of plant protection products on bees published by EFSA on July 12, 2013.

The EU’s proposed measure does the following:

• Restricts the crops where fipronil can be used as a seed treatment;
• Authorizations may be granted for the treatment of seeds that will only be sown in greenhouses. However, this exception does not apply to leeks, shallots, onions and brassica vegetables (such as brussel sprouts, cauliflower or broccoli), where treated seeds can also be sown in the field, as the harvest of these crops takes place before flowering;
• The treatment of maize and sunflower seeds will no longer be authorized.

According to Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective campaign, outside the neonicotinoid class of insecticides, fipronil has been heavily implicated in elevated bee toxicity and decline. The chemical is widely used for indoor and turf pest control in the U.S., and is a generation of insecticide that is highly toxic. Fipronil has been shown to reduce behavioral function and learning performances in honeybees.  One 2011 French study reported that newly emerged honey bees exposed to low doses of fipronil and thiacloprid succumbed more readily to the parasite Nosema ceranae compared to healthy bees,  supporting the hypothesis that the synergistic combination of parasitic infection and high pesticide exposures in beehives may contribute to colony decline. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of pesticides on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows  webpage.

Tonio Borg, Commissioner for Health said, “A few weeks ago, in the aftermath of the restriction on use of neonicotinoids, I pledged to do my utmost to protect Europe’s honey bee population and today’s agreement with Member States, not only delivers on that pledge but marks another significant step in realizing the Commission’s overall strategy to tackling Europe’s bee decline.”

The new restriction on fipronil will apply from December 31, 2013. Seeds that have been treated can be sown up until  February 28,  2014. National authorities are responsible for ensuring that the restrictions are correctly applied.

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

About Fipronil

Fipronil is classified by EPA as a Group C (Possible Human) carcinogen based on rat carcinogenicity studies. It has also been linked to hormone disruption, thyroid cancer, neurotoxicity and reproductive effects in mammals. Fipronil is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, highly toxic to bees, highly toxic to upland game birds, and moderately toxic to waterfowl, but is practically non-toxic to mallard ducks and other bird species. Some fipronil formulations present a risk to endangered bird, fish, and aquatic and marine invertebrates. The metabolite fipronil-sulfone is more toxic to birds, and both fipronil-sulfone and fipronil-thioether are more highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates than fipronil itself. See fipronil on the Pesticide Gateway

Alternatives to Fipronil

Fipronil is used mainly for structural pest control, i.e. control of termites, ants, cockroaches.

However there are many alternatives available for the control of structural pests. The recommended method is the implementation of an integrated pest management plan (IPM) that includes one or more pest control methods, including sanitation, structural repairs that prevent insects from entering structures, mechanical controls and other non-chemical methods.

Least-toxic pesticide options include:

• boric acid & disodium octobrate tetrahydrate
• diatomaceous earth and silica gels
• essential oils
• microbial pesticides
• nonvolitile baits

For more information on pest control alternatives, see the Least-toxic Control of Pests fact sheets at here.

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

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

Source: European Commission Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2013) Capitol Hill is buzzing about a new bill that aims to provide long overdue protections for America’s imperiled pollinators. Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Earl Blumenauer (D- OR) introduced H.R. 2692,   The Saving America’s Pollinators Act, calling for the suspension of neonicotinoids, a class of systemic pesticides that are killing bees.

Tell your Representative to Save America’s Pollinators!

The United States is lagging behind our European neighbors when it comes to the protection of pollinator health. Earlier this year, the EU announced a two-year suspension on these bee-killing pesticides. Now it’s time for the U.S. to act.

The Save America’s Pollinators Act will suspend the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until a full review of scientific evidence and a field study demonstrates no harmful impacts to pollinators.

Following the introduction of the legislation, Reps. Conyers and Blumenauer issued the following statement:

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich): “One of every three bites of food we eat is from a crop pollinated by honey bees. These crops include apples, avocados, cranberries, cherries, broccoli, peaches, carrots, grapes, soybeans, sugar beets and onions. Unfortunately, unless swift action is taken, these crops, and numerous others, will soon disappear due to the dramatic decline of honey bee populations throughout the country.

“For over a decade now, honey bees have been suffering rapid population losses as a result of a phenomenon known as ”˜colony collapse disorder.’ Another decade of these mass die-offs will severely threaten our agricultural economy and food supply. Scientists have reported that common symptoms of this decline are attributed to the use of a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids. The ”˜Saving America’s Pollinators Act’ will address this threat to honey bee populations by suspending the use of certain neonicotinoids and by requiring the EPA to conduct a full review of the scientific evidence before allowing the entry of other neonicotinoids into the market.”

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.): “Pollinators are not only vital to a sustainable environment, but key to a stable food supply. When incidents like the alarming mass bee die-off of more than 50,000 bumblebees that happened recently in Wilsonville, Oregon occur, it is imperative that we take a step back to make sure we understand all the factors involved and move swiftly to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.”

Background:
The systemic residues of these pesticides not only contaminate pollen, nectar, and the wider environment, but have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other beneficial species for pollination, the decline of honey bees and other pollinators demands swift action. Mounting scientific evidence, along with unprecedented annual colony losses at 40 to 90 percent this year, demonstrate the impacts that these pesticides are having on these fragile species.

The Saving America’s Pollinators Act of 2013 has been endorsed by the American Bird Conservancy, Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Environmental Health, the Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice, Equal Exchange, Family Farm Defenders, Friends of the Earth, Food Democracy Now!, Food and Water Watch, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the National Cooperative Grocers Association, the Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide Action Network North America, the Sierra Club, and the Xerces Society.

Let’s BEE Protective and support a shift away from the use of these toxic chemicals by encouraging organic methods and sustainable land management practices in your home, campus, or community.

Take Action to Protect America’s Pollinators Now!

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2013) Farmworkers from across the nation are meeting with their members of Congress today to call for stronger protections for farmworkers from hazardous pesticides. These simple, straightforward and commonsense protections have not been updated for more than 20 years. In February 2013, Beyond Pesticides joined with a coalition of environmental and farmworker organizations to submit a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), urging the agency implement these long overdue revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). An estimated 5.1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to crops annually in the United States, and farmworkers face the greatest threat from these chemicals than any other sector of society, with thousands of farmworkers each year experiencing pesticide poisoning.

The nation’s 1-2 million farmworkers form the backbone of the U.S. agricultural economy  and many are regularly exposed to pesticides.  An average of 57.6 out of every 100,000 agricultural workers experience acute pesticide poisoning, illness or injury each year, the same order of magnitude as the annual incidence rate of breast cancer in the United States. The federal government estimates that there are 10,000-20,000 acute pesticide poisonings among workers in the agricultural industry annually, a figure that likely understates the actual number of acute poisonings since many affected farmworkers may not seek care from a physician. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, they and their children, who often times also work on the farm or live nearby, are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems such as cancer, neurological impairments and Parkinson’s disease. Children, according to a recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) report, face even greater health risks compared to adults when exposed to pesticides.

Underscoring the urgent need for these reforms, Farmworker Justice released a new report yesterday, entitled Exposed and Ignored, How Pesticides are Endangering Our Nation’s Farmworkers.    In testimony on Capitol Hill, Occupational and Environmental Health Director of Farmworker Justice Virginia Ruiz painted a grim picture of the conditions farmworkers and their families face. She stated, “The close proximity of agricultural fields to residential areas and schools makes it nearly impossible for farmworkers and their families to escape exposure because pesticides are in the air they breathe and the food they eat, and the soil where they work and play.” She noted the heartbreaking point that, in order to minimize exposure, farmworkers are told not to hug their children when they come home from work — they must first remove their clothes, and take a shower.

Most workers in the U.S. look to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for standards to protect them from exposure to hazardous chemicals. However, farmworkers are not eligible for protection under these rules. Protection for farmworkers from pesticides is left to the EPA’s authority under the WPS, a standard that is far more lenient than OSHA rules and is fundamentally inadequate.

The farmworkers and advocates are calling for these following changes to the Worker Protection Standard:

Ӣ Provide more frequent and more comprehensible pesticide safety training for farmworkers

”¢ Include information about farmworker families’ exposures to pesticides in the required training materials

Ӣ Ensure that workers receive information about specific pesticides used in their work

”¢ Require safety precautions and protective equipment limiting farmworkers’ contact with pesticides

Ӣ Require medical monitoring of workers who handle neurotoxic pesticides

Despite the straightforward and commonsense nature of these new protections, environmental and farmworker groups have grown increasingly concerned over the possible changes to WPS. After a 2010 EPA document proposed WPS that would determine ways to increase training, improve safety requirements, provide clear emergency information, and create strong protection for applicators, the agency abruptly changed course. A handout distributed at the 2012 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee meeting downplayed the details within those goals, bringing into question the agency’s previous commitments. Advocacy groups are disturbed by EPA’s mercurial attitude towards farmworker protection, and fearful that there will be further delays in releasing WPS. The farmworkers meeting on Capitol Hill this week hope to spur lawmakers to call on EPA to implement these long-overdue standards, and provide funding for much needed national farmworker studies in order to accurately account for the hazardous effects of pesticides on farmworker health.

In testimony on Capitol Hill yesterday, Ed Zuroweste, MD, Chief Medical Officer at the Migrant Clinicians Network, summarized the importance of this issue, stating, “Prevention is key. In a perfect world the elimination of dangerous pesticides would guarantee that workers would not get poisoned. Until we reach that ”˜perfect world’ we should strive to substitute and use less toxic chemicals. We shouldn’t lose track that this should always be our ultimate goal. But since we are still far away from this perfect world, we need to emphasize other ways to keep the worker safe.”

In the absence of widespread adoption of organic practices, worker protections for farmworkers must be strengthened. Consumers can do their part and help encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table every day by purchasing organic. By buying organic, you support an agricultural system that does not heavily rely on the widespread application of dangerous pesticides. Beyond Pesticides recently updated the Eating with a Conscience database to reflect the risk conventional produce poses to farmworker health. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Source: EarthJustice Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2013) They’re wrecking the place; the chemicals they produce are  polluting groundwater  and  poisoning schoolchildren. In the absence of federal and state action, local communities are rising up to confront these agrichemical giants. As a testament to the power of local change, two Hawaiian counties, Kauai and the “Big Island” of Hawaii, have introduced legislation to restrict these practices.  Monsanto, Dow, BASF, DuPont Pioneer and Syngenta are using the Hawaiian Islands as their private testing grounds for experimental pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) crops, but they don’t want residents to know where these fields are and what chemicals they are spraying on them; they don’t think they have that right. Federal and state governments have, in effect, sanctioned these practices and provided cover for these corporations to spray tons of restricted use pesticides  across the islands (18 tons annually— and that’s just on the island of Kauai).

Kauai County Councilmen Gary Hooser and Tim Bynum recently introduced County Bill 2491, which would provide long overdue protections from some of the most egregious chemical intrusions occurring on the island. Commercial pesticide applications from these giant corporations would require a 500 ft buffer zone near schools, hospitals, residential areas, public roadways and sensitive ecological sites such as streams, rivers and shorelines. The testing of experimental pesticides would be restricted only to greenhouses and other contained structures. A moratorium would be placed on the planting of new GE crops on the island, so that an Environmental and Public Health Impact Study (EPHIS) could be performed to properly assess health and environmental effects. All pesticide applications and GE crops would be subject to mandatory disclosure to the county. And the use of any pesticides by these corporations would require prior notification through the public posting of signs.

These requirements are not unreasonable or unduly burdensome; they are commonsense protections for people who are having dangerous experiments occurring in their backyard. As Councilman Hooser remarked to The Garden Island, “This is all about understanding what’s happening, and either putting to rest the fears, if they’re not valid, or putting in place protections if these fears are valid.” This ordinance is about health and life, and the agrichemical companies know that. In fact, that may be the reason why Senate Bill 727 was introduced to the Hawaii state legislature earlier this year.

There is a Hawaii Statute (Section 46-1.5) that grants individual counties “the power to enact ordinances deemed necessary to protect health, life and property, and to preserve the order and security of the county and its inhabitants.” Hawaii State Senate Bill 727 would have struck the words “life” and “health” from that statute, but it was recognized by Councilman Hooser and ultimately garnered enough opposition that it didn’t pass.

The huge public outpouring over this bill is surely a result of the reverberations felt by the citizens of Kauai from the footsteps of these giant agrichemical corporations, footsteps which kick up pesticide-laden fugitive dust that blows into local homes. Residents of Waimea, Kauai have sued DuPont Pioneer for this toxic trespass, alleging that long-term exposure to this dust, in addition to the pesticides drifting from experimental GE fields, has reduced property values, damaged homes, and caused residents to live in danger of pesticide-related health effects.

Applications of restricted use pesticides on the island affected children and their teachers directly in the classroom. After a number of incidents at Waimea Canyon Middle School in 2006 and 2007, administrators and teachers sat down with Syngenta and secured an agreement from the company not to spray before school was out at 3:30 pm. Syngenta broke that promise, according to Maluhia Group, a coalition of Waimea Canyon Middle School staff, parents and community members. There’s even a YouTube video showing the event.  Hawaii’s Department of Agriculture investigated the incidents, but came to the conclusion that Cleome gynandra, known on the islands as “stinkweed”, was the main culprit. However concerned residents are not convinced, as there have never been any recorded medical incidents of widespread poisoning by stinkweed.

Beyond Pesticides is actively supporting efforts in Kauai, and provided testimony for Bill 2491, which you can read here. The ordinance passed its first reading by a unanimous vote of 7-0, paving the way for a public hearing to take place on July 31^st. Expecting another massive crowd, the Kauai County Council has selected a local Performing Arts Center as the venue for the public event.

The “Big Island” of Hawaii County has also moved towards legislation, Bill 79, introduced by Councilwoman Margaret Wille, that would prohibit the planting of any GE crops that are not already grown on the island. Currently, only GE papaya is grown on the Big Island. This bill would prevent the introduction of new, experimental GE crops from being planted. While Bill 79 is a preventative measure for Hawaii County, the Kauai County government is being forced to work backwards, as these experimental GE crops are already being planted on that island.

It is evident and transparently so that, despite industry claims, GE agriculture has not resulted in decreased pesticide use, but instead encouraged resistance in many common weed species, which in turn has caused a dramatic rise in pesticide applications. A rational response to widespread resistance would be the adoption of organic management systems. Instead, industry’s “solution” to resistance is more powerful, more dangerous and highly toxic chemicals. Agrichemical giants are currently making an enormous push to bring combined herbicide-ready crops on to market. This includes Monsanto’s (produced in partnership with their “competitor,” agrichemical giant BASF) dicamba and glyphosate ready cotton and soybean and Dow’s 2,4-D and glyphosate ready corn. However, concern voiced by farmers, consumers, and public health officials during the comment period for these crops forced USDA to delay their introduction before an EIS is performed.

Despite federal government requirements that these new GE crops undergo an EIS, the residents of Kauai have not been afforded this simple protection. Have these new GE crops been experimented with on the island? Have even more toxic combinations been tested? There is absolutely no way to know; and the chemical giants prefer it stay that way.

For more information on the failed promises of GE agriculture, see Center for Food Safety senior attorney George Kimbrell’s speech to Beyond Pesticides 29^th National Pesticide Forum, or our Pesticides and You article “Ready or Not, Genetically Engineered Crops Explode on Market.” You can also learn more about how to get involved in these important efforts through the organization Hawaii Seed, or the website Stop Poisoning Paradise.

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

Source: Huffington Post, The Garden Island
Image Source: The Garden Island

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Prostate , Texas Tech Today

(July 16, 2013 update) On July 15, the Takoma Park City Council unanimously passed the first reading of the Safe Grow Zone ordinance, which could enact important protections for the health of Takoma Park residents and the environment. The ordinance is expected to get a second and final vote at the council’s meeting next Monday. Help us ensure that it passes on July 22! We urge Takoma Park residents to  call or write your Councilmember and tell them you support their efforts to curtail toxic pesticide drift and exposure within the town limits. If you are in the area, please also consider attending the July 22nd meeting to show your support. The meeting will be at 7:30pm Monday at the Takoma Park Community Center, 7500 Maple Ave, Takoma Park, MD 20912. See the current agenda here.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2013) In a show of support for a local initiative that would restrict the use of cosmetic pesticide use on lawns and gardens within the city limits of Takoma Park, MD, the Washington Adventist Hospital announced that as of June 17, 2013 it will no longer use insecticides or herbicides for its grounds maintenance program. The Safe Grow Zone Ordinance before the City Council is intended to protect the health of residents and the environment by stopping involuntary poisoning and nontarget contamination that occurs as pesticides move off of treated  private yards  as a result of  chemical drift and volatility.

“We’re proud to fully support this important community initiative,” said Joyce Newmyer, President of Washington Adventist Hospital in a press release. “We always strive to create the safest environment for the community we serve, and we worked quickly with our landscaping and turf management program managers to implement this change.”

Hospitals have a special obligation to demonstrate leadership in instituting effective and safer pest management in keeping with the medical profession’s basic tenet of “first, do no harm.” See Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Healthy Hospitals for more information on how to get toxic pesticides out of your hospital and advance management practices that take toxic chemical our of structural pest management and adopt organic turf and landscape methods. Washington Adventist Hospital is currently working on effective options for grounds maintenance that fits within the framework of the proposed Safe Grow Zone Ordinance. In addition, the hospital will continue with plans this year to review rainwater management and promote  the use of native and adaptive plants to reduce water needs.

The Safe Grow Zone Ordinance would immediately prohibit the use of cosmetic pesticides on City property, and phase in a public education campaign and restrictions on the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides on private property within the City. It is similar to the Ontario Cosmetic Pesticide Ban, which was enacted back in 2009, and has been mirrored throughout Canada and is supported by the Canadian medical community, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario College of Family Physicians, as well as the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). Under the proposal, residents still would be allowed to use pesticides on invasive species and insects.

Opponents may claim that restricting pesticide use will cost more money, or put the fields at risk for disease and weed infestation, however, in a Cornell University study of turf, chemically maintained turf is more susceptible to disease. Another report prepared by Grassroots Environmental Education concludes that organic approaches can save money. Furthermore, Harvard University saved two million gallons of water a year by managing the grounds organically, as irrigation needs have been reduced by 30 percent.

High quality turf and landscapes can be achieved through proper management of soil health through proper fertilization that eliminates synthetic fertilizers and focuses on building the soil food web and the nurturing of soil microorganisms. This approach eliminates chemicals, adopts compost fertilizers and mulching systems, and focuses on managing weeds and insects through the development of healthier plants and turf that are not vulnerable to disease and infestation.

Many communities, school districts, and state policies are now following a systems approach that is designed to put a series of preventive steps in place that will solve pest (weed and insect) problems. The systems approach is based on three basic concepts: (i) natural, organic product where use is directed by soil testing, (ii) an understanding that the soil biomass plays a critical role in soil fertility and turf grass health, and (iii) specific and sound cultural practices. Experience, such as in Marblehead, Massachusssetts finds that this approach will build a soil environment rich in microbiology that will produce strong, healthy turf that is able to withstand many of the stresses that affect turf grass.

For additional information on land management strategies which eschew hazardous pesticides in favor of an organic, systems approach, see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes webpage. The site also provides an online training, Organic Land Care Basic Training for Municipal Officials and Transitioning Landscapers, to assist in going pesticide-free. With the training, landscapers can learn the practical steps to transitioning to a natural program.

The Takoma Park City Council is scheduled to vote on the ordinance on July 15. If a majority of councilmembers vote in support, there will be a second vote on July 22. For more information on the ordinance, see the City of Takoma Park Public Notice.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2013) Several beekeeping organizations have filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) to reverse a recent decision to register a new  pesticide, sulfoxaflor, which is highly toxic to bees. The beekeepers are not satisfied that their submitted concerns were properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted. Sulfoxaflor is a sub-class of the neonicotinoid pesticides that have been linked to global bee declines. The suit is filed as the beekeeping industry across the country struggles for survival, and faces the costly effects of pesticides upon their businesses.

The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith submitted the case in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting changes in the sulfoxaflor product label, the Biological Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) assessment of the value of pollinators and their established habits, and the EPA’s Risk Assessment Process. The requested changes would acknowledge pollinator’s critical role in the U.S. food supply, and ensure that decisions regarding new pesticides comply with applicable laws.

Another legal challenge submitted in March 2013 by beekeepers, environmental and consumer groups, including Beyond Pesticides, in Federal District Court challenges the agency’s failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. This lawsuit seeks suspension of the registrations of neonicotinoid insecticides- clothianidin and thiamethoxam– which have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, clear causes of major bee kills and significant contributors to the devastating ongoing mortality of bees.  The suit challenges EPA’s oversight of these pesticides, as well as the agency’s registration process and labeling deficiencies.

In May 2013, EPA approved the full registration of sulfoxaflor,  which the agency classifies as highly toxic to honey bees, despite warnings and concerns raised by beekeepers and environmental groups that sulfoxaflor will further endanger bees and beekeeping.   Several comments were submitted to EPA by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, including Beyond Pesticides, stating that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would only exacerbate the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations. However, EPA outrightly dismissed these concerns and instead points to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective or resistant pesticide technologies.

EPA also  says that none of the objections to sulfoxaflor registrations point to any data “to support the opinion that registration of sulfoxaflor will pose a grave risks to bees,” even though the agency itself acknowledges that sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees.   The agency states that even though sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees it does not demonstrate substantial residual toxicity to exposed bees, nor are “catastrophic effects” on bees expected from its use. While sulfoxaflor exhibits  behavioral and navigational abnormalities in honey bees, EPA downplayed these effects as “short-lived.”

Beekeepers have experienced honey bee losses of over 40 percent over the 2012/2013 winter period, with some beekeepers reporting losses of over 70 percent, far exceeding the normal rate of 10-15 percent. Some have even been driven out of business. Current estimates of the number of surviving hives in the U.S. show that these colonies may not be able to meet the pollination demands of agricultural crops. Based on the approved registration, pollinators, especially honey bees, may potentially be exposed numerous times by sulfoxaflor applications as honey bees are moved across the country to pollinate crops, produce the nation’s supply of honey, and recuperate from the rigors of pollination. Since the early 20^th century, ”˜migratory’ beekeepers have provided a critical service to U.S. agriculture by moving their hives seasonally to pollinate a wide variety of crops. Commercial beekeeping adds between $20 to $30 billion dollars in economic value to agriculture each year.

The groups are being represented by the public interest law organization Earthjustice. The appeal process through the courts is the only mechanism open to challenge EPA’s decision; it is commonly used by commodity groups to rectify inadequate pesticide labeling.

The following are their statements:

Jeff Anderson, beekeeper: “EPA’s approval of Sulfoxaflor with no enforceable label protections for bees will speed our industry’s demise. EPA is charged under FIFRA with protecting non-target beneficial insects, not just honeybees. EPA’s Sulfoxaflor registration press release says,   ”˜”¦the final label includes robust terms for protecting pollinators”¦’ This is a bold-faced lie! There is absolutely no mandatory language on the label that protects pollinators. Further, the label’s advisory language leads spray applicators to believe that notifying a beekeeper of a planned application, absolves them of their legal responsibility in FIFRA to not kill pollinators.”

Bret Adee, President of the Board of the National Pollinator Defense Fund: “The EPA is charged with preventing unreasonable risk to our livestock, our livelihoods, and most importantly, the nation’s food supply. This situation requires an immediate correction from the EPA to ensure the survival of commercial pollinators, native pollinators, and the plentiful supply of seed, fruits, vegetables, and nuts that pollinators make possible.”

Randy Verhoek, President of the Board of the American Honey Producers Association: “The bee industry has had to absorb an unreasonable amount of damage in the last decade. Projected losses for our industry this year alone are over $337 million. While not all of the losses are due solely to pesticides, there are strong correlations between pesticide misuse killing bees and impairing colony performance.”

George Hansen, President of the Board of the American Beekeeping Federation: “The honey bee industry is very concerned since the EPA has failed to adequately address our comments about realistic risk to pollinators posed by sulfoxaflor. The EPA continues to use flawed and outdated assessments of long term and sub-lethal damage to honey bees.”

Rick Smith, beekeeper and farmer: “The beekeeping industry has proactively engaged EPA to address concerns for many years.   The industry is seriously concerned the comments it submitted during the Sulfoxaflor registration comment period were not adequately addressed before EPA granted full registration.   The sun is now rising on a day where pollinators are no longer plentiful.     They require protection 365 days a year in order to be abundant at the critical moment their pollination service is required by the plant.   Applying pesticides in a manner which does not expose pollinators during the period a pesticide is acutely toxic, and, knowing sub-lethal and delayed effects, are the cornerstones in their protection.   EPA’s assessment process has chosen not to use long established and accepted published information concerning pollinator foraging habits in the Environment Hazards Section of the Sulfoxaflor label.”

Given the global phenomenon of bee decline and the recent precautions  taken in the European Union regarding bee health with the two-year suspension of neonicotinoid pesticides known to be highly toxic to bees, it is irresponsible that EPA allowed yet another chemical with a high potential to be hazardous to bee health into the environment. It is also counterintuitive to current agency and interagency work to protect pollinators.

Bee Protective: For additional information on what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides Bee Protective webpage.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2013) A recent pesticide contamination incident in Great Britain’s Kennet River has decimated aquatic invertebrate populations on a ten mile stretch of river between the towns of  Marlborough and Hungerford. The contamination occurred after a spill of the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos entered a Marlborough sewage system. The lack of aquatic invertebrates could lead to a dramatic decline of the river’s chalk trout population. A similar incident occurred in Great Britain on the Wey River in 2003, and in Sussex Ouse in 2001. This recent calamity helps to underscore the importance for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), across the Atlantic, to fully implement pesticide restrictions that U.S. conservation groups are seeking to enforce through court action.

The damage to the U.K. river may have been caused by, according to an Express article, only two tablespoons of the neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyifos. Members of the public have been advised by Britain’s Environment Agency to avoid skin contact with the water and not to eat fish caught from the river.  The contamination has occurred at the height of fly-fishing season. Environmental organizations are afraid that a decline in the number of aquatic invertebrates could lead chalk trout and other forms of wildlife to starve. Mark Owen, Freshwater and Environment Campaigns Manger for the Angling, was quoted in an Express article saying, “Even if fish stocks remain untouched there is now precious little left for the fish or other wildlife to eat which is why the Angling Trust is calling for measures to try and recolonize the affected stretches with invertebrates as quickly as possible.”

The chemical that contaminated the river, chlorpyrifos, is a neurotoxic insecticide that was banned from residential applications in the U.S. after EPA determined that cumulative exposure resulted in serious adverse health outcomes, especially for children. EPA has left virtually all agricultural uses, with the exception of tomatoes,  on the market. Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic to bees, birds, mammals, aquatic life, and certain species of algae. Poisoning from chlorpyrifos affects the central nervous system, the cardiovascular system, and the respiratory system, and causes skin and eye irritation. A study of children exposed to chlorpyrifos in utero found that extensive and unusual patterns of birth defects, including brain, nervous system, eyes, ears, palate, teeth, heart, feet, nipples, and genitalia. The published literature and EPA documents contain reports that identify similarities in defects found in test animals and children exposed to chlorpyrifos.

There are also a wide range of adverse environmental effects linked to chlorpyrifos, including toxicity to: beneficial insects, freshwater fish, other aquatic organisms, bird, a variety of plants, soil organisms, and domestic animals. It has been shown to bioaccumulate in fish and synergistically react with other chemicals. Thus, even if no acute health issues are seen in fish contaminated by this incident, chronic problems may arise in the future.

Though chlorpyrifos use is banned for residential application in the U.S., EPA has not taken action to implement strong measures to protect fish from the threat of chlorpyrifos stream contamination. In 2008 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a biological opinion (BIOp) that set forth a plan to protect salmon and other fish from chlorpyrifos and other toxic organophosphates. Part of this plan included restrictions on sprayed within 500 to 1000 feet of waterways. Four years later, in 2012 Conservation groups filed lawsuits against EPA clamming that the agency had still not implemented the restrictions proposed by the NMFS. This lawsuit came after EPA had already been ordered to consult with NMFS after lawsuits in 2002 and 2007. EPA is mandated by law to protect dwindling species like salmon under the Endangered Species Act, and by failing to implement NMFS buffer mandates, EPA is responsible for endangering salmon.

However, last February a U.S. Court of Appeals found that the pesticide restrictions proposed by NMFS were “arbitrary and capricious.” This decision came after The U.S. District Court upheld NMFS’ BiOp in 2011, finding that the BiOp is rationally supported by the “voluminous facts and studies considered by the [Fisheries Service].” Even though this opinion was thrown out, EPA can still force chemical companies to change their labels to include buffer zones and other protections for aquatic life. The recent contamination of the Kennet River underscores the importance for the U.S. EPA to act to protect our threatened waters.

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

Source: Express

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2013) The Chinese government has just announced its work plan to manage and clean up contaminated groundwater in North China Plains, a region where many are completely dependent on groundwater for drinking water. Eighteen percent of water use in China is groundwater. Unfortunately, the report indicates this groundwater is highly contaminated with pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation waste water from agricultural expansion, as well as petrochemical industry wastewater, and domestic and industrial waste. Considering 400 of the approximately 655 cities in China are completely reliant on groundwater for drinking, the plan could not come sooner.

Likely though, “It will be very expensive to clean up, if it is even possible,” said Sun Ge, PhD., research hydrologist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service Southern Research Station. Many of the chemicals are extremely persistent, remaining in the environment years after they were released.

The plan marks progress made after a massive government investigation launched in 2006, which found that groundwater of the North China Plains, home to nearly 130 million people, was almost irreparably contaminated. After six years of investigation and a year of planning, the Chinese Ministry of Land and Resources has finally announced its work plan to manage and clean up contaminated waters.

While the results of the 2006 survey have not been made public, the government has acknowledged that water contamination levels are quite serious. Previous data released by the Land Ministry revealed that 41 percent of the groundwater monitoring sites across the country had poor water quality, including 4,929 monitoring sites spread out over 198 administrative regions. Iron, manganese, fluoride, nitrites, nitrates, ammonium and heavy metals were just some of the contaminants found, with some of them reaching levels above state safety levels.

The report builds on academic research conducted by Zhang Zhaoji, PhD., a hydrogeologist at the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences’ Institute of Hydrology and Environmental Geology in Hebei and project leader for the 2006 survey. Published in the Journal of Jilin University, the results indicated that 35.5 percent of shallow groundwater samples were contaminated by human activities.

The levels of water pollution are “not a surprise, as China is under rapid urbanization and industrialization that bring problems of water pollution for both surface and groundwater,” said Dr. Ge to the journal Nature. Regardless, the effects are already being seen in China. This summer agricultural runoff caused the largest algal bloom ever recorded in China, which has grown twice the size from the previous record years’ bloom. Additionally, fluoride exposure caused almost 38.8 million recorded cases of tooth-enamel damage and 2.84 million cases of bone disease. Humans are exposed to a wide range of fluoride-based compounds from agricultural sources, many of which leach into the groundwater or run off into local streams. While fluoride is often added to water sources to protect from tooth decay, it is also found in almost 150 fluoridated pesticide products. Three of the most widely used herbicides include triflualin, flumeturon, and benefin. Others include sodium fluoride, used as a rodenticide and insecticide; superphosphate fertilizer, used as a fertilizer and animal feed supplement, which contains up to 5 percent fluoride); and cryolite, used in fruit and vegetable crops against leaf eating pests but an aluminofluoride ion.

Although it is difficult to directly link fluoride exposure from water contamination as the primary cause of fluoride-related ailments, undoubtedly, “These diseases are closely related to environ ­mental and geological factors [and are] especially associated with contaminated groundwater,” says Yang Linsheng, PhD., Director of the Department of Environmental Geography and Health at the IGSNRR.

The government work plan states that it intends to divide the North China Plain into 30 units for pollution prevention and control, while simultaneously ranking each by severity levels, from serious to good. The journal Nature reports that they will also commit almost 500  million renminbi (US$81  million) between 2013 and 2020 to increase water pollution assessments, limit agricultural water pollution and point source pollution from industry and landfill, treat polluted waters, and conduct further water clean-up research. As of now, details of the plan are unavailable to the public.

However, the plan is expected to be a boon for the environment, requiring a harsher approval process for new industry products and stricter regulations for industrial and agricultural wastes.  Last week, Chinese authorities  announced that courts were now able to hand down the death penalty in cases of serious pollution.

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

Source: Nature

Photo Source: Grist

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2013) A bill recently introduced in the Ohio State Senate would grant state agencies new regulatory powers intended to stunt the spread of toxic blue green algae in Lake Erie. Senate Bill 150, introduced by Republican State Senator  Cliff Hite, will empower the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) to require reductions in the amount of fertilizer runoff that is produced by farms. Currently the state lacks authority to limit commercial fertilizer runoff. Swift action is needed as blue green algae blooms, which feed off phosphorus in fertilizer runoff, have increased dramatically in Lake Erie since the mid-1990’s.

The proposed legislation would provide ODNR the authority to cite farmers who allow fertilizers to runoff their field. Under the proposed bill, the Chief of ODNR would issue orders to farmers to comply with technical standards, to be created by ODNR,  that “achieve a level of management and conservation practices that will…abate the degradations of the waters of the state by soil amendments.”  Under this legislation, farmers will have to undergo training and receive a certificate from ODA to apply fertilizers and manure. “Farmers would apply for a fertilizer certificate in the same way they obtain pesticide certificates,” Erica Hawkins, an ODA spokeswoman, told the Columbus Dispatch.

The bill, however has several limitations. Importantly, the bill would not require any new permits or certifications for animal feeding facilities. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) produce 133 million tons of manure per year (on a dry weight basis) representing 13-fold more solid waste than human sanitary waste production. Waste is often disposed of in wastewater lagoons, through which the waste can leech into ground water. Runoff from CAFOs also provides nutrients for algae bloom growth. Additionally, the bill does not make individual farmer’s fertilizer and manure-management plans public record. However, the bill will have time to be revised as the bill’s sponsor looks to gather comments from farmers and others over the summer. Ohio State Senator Bob Peterson favors amending the bill by moving ODNR’s power to regulate manure and fertilizer pollution to ODA.

The proposed bill is designed to stop the spread of a toxic blue-green algae bloom in Lake Erie, which scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) predict to be significant this summer. Blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, grow thick after feeding phosphorus in fertilizers, and manure that runoff into nearby streams that feed into Lake Erie. After Cyanobacteria consumes phosphorus it excrete a liver poison that is toxic to humans and aquatic life. The problem is also exacerbated by the increase in invasive species like zebra mussels. Zebra mussels feed on planktonic algae which remove competitors of the toxic algae bloom.

Not only are these blooms toxic, they are also a sink for dissolved oxygen, causing so-called dead zones. Scientists say that the water chemistry of dead zones may also cause the release of additional sediments that would otherwise be stored in cool, oxygenated waters. This could lead to the release of  more toxins, such as mercury, in freshwater marine environments.

Studies have also found that as climate change creates hotter and more frequent extreme weather events, harmful algal blooms caused by fertilizer inputs will strike more often in water bodies like Lake Erie. In addition to the Great Lakes region, this summer the largest algal bloom ever recorded in China has grown twice the size from the previous record years’ bloom.

Agriculture is not the only source of excessive phosphorous pollution. Residential use of lawn care fertilizers represents a significant portion of the phosphorous load that runs into local water bodies in the U.S. For information on steps you can take to reduce the phosphorous contamination coming from your community, see Beyond Pesticides article, Maintaining a Delicate Balance.

Organic farming and land management uses natural, less soluble sources of nitrogen, phosphorous and magnesium, including cover crops, compost, manure and mineralized rock, that promote increases in soil organic matter and a healthy soil structure. Healthy soil structure allows water to infiltrate the ground slowly, rather than escaping across the surface and carrying soil particles, nutrients, and other inputs with it. Healthy soil structure also allows plants to establish vibrant root systems that resist erosion. For more information on the importance of an organic systems approach as a solution to pesticide use, see Beyond Pesticides’ article, Increasing Biodiversity As If Life Depends on It.

For additional information on the Lake Erie algae bloom, visit our Threatened Waters: What the Science Shows page. For additional information water quality, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Threatened Waters page.

Source: Columbus Dispatch

Photo Source: Great Lakes Echo

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2013) In light of recent action in Europe to suspend to use of certain neonicotinoid pesticides, Beyond Pesticides joined 12 other environmental and advocacy organizations in urging the Obama administration to direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to follow the European Union’s (EU) lead in recognizing that risks posed by these pesticides are unacceptably high, and suspend the use of these chemicals in the U.S. to protect pollinators and the nation’s agricultural economy.

The letter urges the Obama administration to not only direct EPA to follow Europe’s lead in suspending certain neonicotinoid pesticides uses, but requests even more protective measures, including a minimum two-year suspension for all outdoor uses of neonicotinoid insecticides pending resolution of their hazards to bees and beneficial organisms. Highlighting the negative environmental and economic impacts of outdoor uses of the EPA-approved neonicotinoid insecticides: imidacloprid, clothianidin  , thiamethoxam, dinetofuran and acetamiprid, as well as a recognition that the initial risk assessments for these chemicals fail to adequately consider key risks to bee health, the letter to President Obama notes that it, “would not be responsible to continue to allow these threatening compounds to be used so broadly.”

On average, U.S. beekeepers lost 45.1% of the colonies in their operation during the winter of 2012/2013, with many reporting over 70 percent losses of their bee colonies. Recently, over 50,000 bumble bees,   representing approximately 300 colonies, were killed after the application of a neonicotinoid pesticide to trees in Oregon. Given that bee pollination is a $20 to $30 billion per year contributor to U.S. agriculture and vital to the majority of fruit and vegetable produce, current impacts on bees are rapidly evolving into devastating, perhaps irreversible, losses to farmers, consumers and the economy as a whole, which relies on domestically-produced bee-pollinated food and fiber crops.

The neonicotinoid class of insecticides has been identified as a leading factor in bee declines. Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides used primarily as seed treatment for corn and soybeans, as well as in home and garden products. See list of neonicotinoid products to avoid.   These chemicals contaminate nectar and pollen, as well as soil and surface water.   Foraging and navigational disruptions, immune suppression and learning/memory disorders have been documented in bees exposed to even low levels of these chemicals. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of neonicotinoids on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows  webpage.

In March 2013, commercial beekeepers and environmental organizations filed an emergency legal petition with EPA to suspend use of the pesticides linked to honey bee deaths, urging the agency to adopt safeguards. Meanwhile in Europe, the European Commission passed a continent-wide suspension on the neonicotinoids -imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, citing unacceptable hazards to bees, which is supported by a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report that finds the neonicotinoid class of insecticides of “critical concern” to bee health. Unfortunately, in the U.S., response from federal regulatory agencies is stymied. Despite the groundbreaking decision in Europe, EPA released a report which failed to address the overwhelming scientific evidence of neonicotinoid-related bee deaths or present any sustainable solution to address the bee crisis.

The letter also brings several key acknowledgments by federal officials made in public statements at recent meetings, in media statements, in EPA documents and other venues to the Administration, including:

”¢ EPA’s enforcement guidance for neonicotinoid use is inadequate.

”¢ EPA’s bee kill incident reporting system is inadequate.

Ӣ Labels on neonicotinoid products are inadequate to mitigate adverse environmental effects, specifically to avoid seed dust-mediated mortality to honey bees and other beneficial insects in or near corn fields.

Ӣ Current corn planting machinery poses significant dust-off risks and needs changing, while also recognizing that such changes will likely take many years and stating that EPA lacks authority to mandate machinery changes.

Ӣ Bee health and populations, and crop pollination, are in a near-crisis state based on several synergistic factors including insecticide use.

Ӣ EPA has not consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on potential effects on threatened or endangered species under Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the neonicotinoid insecticides.

According to the concerned groups, EPA has refused to exercise its regulatory power to address the major contribution of these insecticides to bee declines. Instead, the agency has pointed to land use decisions, crop planting choices by farmers, pathogens, bee nutrition and other factors outside the agency’s authority,  while  failing to adopt measures that could offer long-term sustainable  protection of  bee populations. The letter also cites emerging science which documents extensive surface water contamination and impacts on non-target organisms such as aquatic invertebrates, birds and other pollinators.

“We could face a second “Silent Spring” above and beyond the threats to managed and wild pollinators,” the letter states. Additionally it states that  EPA’s planned 2018 deadline to complete its Registration Reviews for the major neonicotinoids “is far too slow in view of their potentially calamitous risks.”

The signatories to this letter include: Beyond Pesticides, The Center for Food Safety, Pesticides Action Network North America, Friends of the Earth, The Xerces Society, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Food and Water Watch, Center for Environmental Health, American Bird Conservancy, and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2013) In the wake of massive bee kills, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) is placing temporary restrictions on the use of pesticides with the active ingredient dinotefuran. Dinotefuran, a neonicotinoid pesticide, was confirmed as the cause of one massive bee die-off in Wilsonville, Oregon, and suspected as the cause of another bee die off in Hillsboro, Oregon. This temporary restriction will be in place for 180 days for a limited number of dinotefuran uses. Environmental advocates have sued EPA  on neonicotinoid  pesticides, citing its regulatory process  as deficient in  protecting bees and other beneficial organisms.

Just as Pollinator Week 2013 began, an estimated 50,000 bumblebees, likely representing over 300 colonies, were found dead or dying in Wilsonville. According to the Xerces Society, this was the largest known incident of bumblebee deaths ever recorded in the country. After a preliminary investigation, ODA confirmed that the massive bee die-off was caused by the use of the insecticide dinotefuran. Then, it was reported by The Oregonian that hundreds of bees were found dead after the same pesticide was used in the neighboring town of Hillsboro. Dan Hilburn, director of plant programs at the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), told Oregon Live that he had “never encountered anything quite like it in 30 years in the business.”

The new rule, which has already gone into effect, prohibits  the use of dinotefuran on any plant. According to the new rule, “This includes, but is not limited to, applications on landscape trees and shrubs, nursery and greenhouse plants, turfgrass, forests and agricultural crops.” Making an application of dinotefuran could result in the revocation of an applicator’s license or the imposition of a civil penalty. Regulators acknowledge that carrying out this new rule will be difficult to enforce on individual homeowners. Products containing dinotefuran are not being taken off shelves, so residents can still purchase these toxic chemicals. Dinotefuran use in flea collars, and ant and roach control will still be allowed under this new rule. Though this ban is a step in the right direction, it underscores the obvious risk neonicotinoid pesticides create for pollinators.

First introduced in the early 1990”²s as an alternative to the acutely toxic organophosphate and carbamate classes of pesticides, neonicotinoids are now the most widely used insecticides in the world. Neonicotinoids, including dinotefuran, can be broadly applied as a spray, soil drench, or seed treatment, and the ability of these chemicals to translocate through a plant as it grows has led to their widespread use in landscaping and agriculture.

Once these systemic pesticides are taken up by a plant’s vascular system, they are expressed through the pollen, nectar and guttation droplets from which pollinators such as bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids kill sucking and chewing insects by disrupting their nervous systems. Beyond these chronic toxic effects neonicotinoid are also extremely acutely toxic to pollinators as the recent incident in Oregon helps illustrate. Beginning in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides also began to take over the seed treatment market.  Clothianidin  and  imidacloprid  are two of the most commonly used neonicotinoid pesticides. Both are known to be toxic to insect pollinators, and are lead suspects as causal factors in  honey bee colony collapse disorder. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of neonicotiniods on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows  webpage.

Bumblebees have recently experienced dramatic population declines, a fate that is similar to other pollinators. Bumblebees are crucial to pollination of several different crops in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Blueberries, raspberries, blackberries and crop seed production, which are grown in Oregon, all rely on bumblebees for pollination. Mace Vaughn, pollinator conservation program director with the Xerces Society, told Oregon Live, “Bumblebees are the single most important natural pollinator in Oregon.”

These staggering bumblebee losses are an important reminder that quick action is needed to protect pollinators. Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective campaign has all the educational tools you need to help pollinators. Sign the    Pesticide Free Zone Declaration  and pledge to maintain your yard, park, garden or other green space as organically-managed and pollinator friendly, or use our  model resolution  to transform your community and raise awareness about pollinator health. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective webpage.

Source: Oregon Live

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2013) Twenty-two groups, including Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Consumers Union, and the National Organic Coalition join Beyond Pesticides in urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to increase the allowable residue limits (tolerances) for glyphosate (Roundup) on certain food commodities, saying an increase in glyphosate tolerances and associated increases in glyphosate use puts the public at additional unreasonable risk. Given the recent science that has come out on glyphosate, human and environmental risks cannot be ignored, the groups say. Increasing tolerance limits would increase the dietary exposure risks from this chemical, which is unacceptable given that commercially viable alternatives are in place for growing food and controlling weeds. EPA is poised to raise the allowable limits of the herbicide glyphosate in certain food commodities like carrots, sweet potato, and mustard seeds.

Some of the allowable limits, or tolerances, will more than double. Increasing the levels of Roundup on food will pave the way for an overall increase in the use of this chemical in agriculture. Roundup is toxic to human and environmental health. In fact, a recent MIT study finds that glyphosate’s interference with important enzymes in the body can lead to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Drinking water contaminated with Roundup can lead to congestion of the lungs and increased breathing rate, as well as kidney damage and reproductive effects. Increasing tolerances on glyphosate means not only higher dietary exposure but also more glyphosate use.

Beyond Pesticides Is Telling  EPA the following:  

According to the letter, while EPA in the tolerance setting process has focused on human health effects from dietary exposure, the agency as a part of this process must consider that its tolerance decision also drives the allowable use patterns of glyphosate. Therefore, this tolerance decision affects overall environmental health, which EPA is obligated to consider in its rulemaking when adjusting tolerances. Without this analysis of environmental impacts associated with tolerance setting, EPA is not fulfilling its statutory responsibility under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” [7 U.S.C. 136a] Food tolerances should serve as a deterrent to pesticide misuse and abuse. Theoretically, tolerance limits help ensure that pesticide applications do not exceed federal application rates, and that the human population is not exposed to residues that can adversely impact health. These set limits must be based on human health data and should not be amended without complete information or to simply accommodate special interests.

While major commodities like corn and soybeans are not affected by the tolerance adjustments, increasing tolerances can pave the way for further increases in glyphosate applications given the prevalence of genetically engineered (GE) crops tolerant to glyphosate (Roundup Ready crops) and the simultaneous increase in glyphosate resistant weed species across the country.

Adjusting tolerances for crops like carrots, sweet potato, and oilseed crops should not be done without adequate review of all the current independent, peer-reviewed science on glyphosate. While EPA suggests that increases in glyphosate exposure and use do not pose unreasonable risks to human and environmental health, recent independent, scientific, peer reviewed data paint a very different picture.

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

Tell EPA No More Roundup In Our Diet

Organic Solutions Pave a Way Forward

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

For more information on this issue, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450. For the future of food, our health, and the environment, tell EPA to say “No” to more Roundup in our food by July 1st, 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: The Prostate , Texas Tech Today

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

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

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

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

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

****Sample Letter****

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

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

Thank you for consideration of my comments.

Organic Solutions Pave a Way Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Environmental Health News

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Daily Voice

Photo Courtesy: Darien Patch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Nature News

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source (including image): Greenpeace Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Oregon Live
Xerces Society Press Release

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

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

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

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

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

Payments to Third Party Allies

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

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

Stifling the Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Environmental Health News and 100Reporters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Supports collaboration honey bee research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Greenwire