(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2013) The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that farmers cannot replant patented genetically engineered (GE) seed as it violates licensing agreements. This means that farmers must pay industry giants like Monsanto for seed each growing season, sealing the agribusiness giant’s quest to  fundamentally  alter  the nature  of farming. This ruling is a blow to farmers who have been persecuted by Monsanto for ”˜trespassing’ on patent rights due to saving seed.

The case, Bowman v. Monsanto, is a patent case which argues that Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman infringed on Monsanto’s GE soybean patent rights by purchasing from a third-party seed supplier instead of Monsanto, and benefited from successive harvests of the GE crop. Monsanto said Mr. Bowman’s plantings violated the company’s patent agreement that farmers are required to sign when they purchase GE seed. First, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed and told Mr. Bowman to pay nearly $85,000 in damages. Mr. Bowman appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which handed down its decision on Monday.

The Center for Food Safety (CFS), which filed a brief on behalf of Mr. Bowman, put forward a legal framework to the court to safeguard the right of farmers to save seed. Unfortunately, since the 1980s, seed patent rights have been granted to agrichemical corporations that have since then patented a number of varieties of GE seed, including corn, soybean, cotton and canola. Now, five companies account for 58 percent of the world’s commercial seed sales. These patents mean farmers cannot save seed for future plantings and can be held liable if their crop is contaminated with GE material. According to CFS, the Bowman case represents the mounting trend of seed and agrichemical companies investigating and prosecuting farmers for alleged patent infringement. CFS notes that as of December 2012, Monsanto has filed 142 alleged seed patent infringement lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in 27 states. Sums awarded to Monsanto in 72 recorded judgments total over $23 billion.

“The Court chose to protect Monsanto over farmers. The Court’s ruling is contrary to logic and to agronomics, because it improperly attributes seeds’ reproduction to farmers, rather than nature,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety.

Mr. Bowman bought soybean seed from Monsanto, but strained by the high cost of the seed (the average cost to plant one acre of soybeans has risen 325 percent, while corn seed prices are up by 259 percent), bought cheaper seed the next year from a local grain elevator where farmers store harvested soybeans. Since over 90 percent of soybean seed in the U.S. is GE, Mr. Bowman was guaranteed to acquire GE seed that he then planted, tested for herbicide tolerance, and harvested successive GE soybean crops. In writing the decision for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said that Mr. Bowman is perfectly free to purchase grain elevator beans to eat or feed to livestock, or even to resell, but he could not plant the beans from the grain elevator in his own fields, test them for herbicide tolerance, and then harvest, re-harvest and re-harvest multiple times, without paying Monsanto for use of its patented product.

According to Justice Kagan, Monsanto would get “scant benefit” from its invention, and Mr. Bowman and other farmers would reap great rewards from the GE seed without paying for it, thereby threatening the incentive for invention that is at the heart of patent law. The court also rejected Mr. Bowman’s argument that since soybeans naturally self-replicate by sprouting, it was therefore nature, and not Mr. Bowman, that made replications of Monsanto’s patented invention.

GE crops are largely engineered to be tolerant to Monsanto’s flagship product, Roundup – an herbicide with broad spectrum activity. Once crops are tolerant to Roundup (and other herbicides), farmers can spray indiscriminately to fields without affecting their crop. However, the advent of these crops have led to environmental contamination of GE plant material that have contaminated farms, including organic farms, and wild plant species, which has led to the increase of “superweeds” highly resistant to chemical control. Just last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) determined that an environmental assessment into new varieties of GE 2,4-D tolerant crops is required in response to overwhelming concerns expressed by farmers, consumers, and public health officials.

Beyond Pesticides joined with CFS, farmers and other environmental groups across the country to appeal a court ruling dismissing Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto. The plaintiffs in this case are suing preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crop ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s GE seed. Two of the plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations in the case highlighting the prevalence of contamination by GE seed. Both Chuck Noble, an alfalfa farmer from South Dakota, and Fedco Seeds, a seed distributor in Maine, have repeatedly discovered GMO contamination in purportedly conventional seed they sought to purchase. To protect themselves from being contaminated, they have had to adopt expensive and time-consuming genetic testing procedures. Other plaintiffs have simply stopped growing certain types of crops due to the threat of contamination. The decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this case is expected in spring 2013.

Sources: CFS Press release , CFS’ Report   Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers, and Washington Post

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2013) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has determined that environmental impact statements (EIS) are required for Dow and Monsanto’s   new genetically engineered (GE),  2,4-D resistant crops.  According to Reuters, Dow had anticipated that their new crop would be on market by year’s end. Monsanto released a statement calling the move “unexpected.” USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is requiring the reviews in response to overwhelming concern expressed by farmers, consumers, and public health officials during the comment period for these new herbicide-resistant crops.

Dow’s new GE corn, dubbed “Enlist,” tolerates repeated applications of both glyphosate and the powerful herbicide 2,4-D, while Monsanto’s GE cotton and soybean (produced in partnership with their “competitor,” agrichemical giant BASF)  is resistant to the herbicide dicamba. Both companies champion their crops as solutions to the widespread occurrence of weeds resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, even though the ultimate cause for this resistance can be traced to overuse of the chemical on “Roundup-Ready” crops. A 2011 study in the journal Weed Science found at least 21 different species of weeds to be resistant to applications of Monsanto’s Roundup. Even without the presence of herbicide-ready crops, recent research reveals weed resistance to 2,4-D  developing in areas of the western United States. As evidenced by these reports, new GE crops will not “solve” resistance issues, but merely push the problems of weed management further down the road.

The actions by the agrichemical industry represent a very dangerous precedent for USDA to endorse, as an approval of these products essentially indicates that the United States’ answer to herbicide resistance is more powerful, more dangerous and highly toxic chemicals.  Many environmental groups have expressed concern about an impending spike in 2, 4-D and dicamba usage, which will be exacerbated by new herbicides that combine these chemicals with glyphosate. These new blended herbicides will be sprayed repeatedly during the growing season after weeds emerge and begin to compete with crops. Both 2, 4-D and dicamba are highly susceptible to drift and dicamba is known to volatilize (evaporate) and travel upwards of two miles from the point of application. The spraying of more 2, 4-D and dicamba during periods when specialty crops and home gardens are at their greatest risk of exposure is likely to increase the incidence of pesticide contamination and resultant damages. Growers of fruit, vegetable, and other non-row crops are particularly concerned about the potential introduction of these crops.

According to APHIS, there were approximately 500 individual comments and 31,000 petition signatures against Monsanto/BASF’s dicamba resistant plants, and 8,200 individual comments and 400,000 petition signatures against Dow’s 2,4-D resistant plants.

USDA has lost court challenges in the past due to hasty approvals of GE crops without an EIS.

2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide that kills broadleaf weeds by inducing rapid growth. The chemical has been linked to numerous human health problems, including cancer, particularly soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and harm to the reproductive system. 2,4,-D is made up roughly half of the herbicide known as Agent Orange, which was used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War. Research by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that babies born in counties where high rates of chlorophenoxy herbicides are applied to farm fields are significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits, and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates. The results also show a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.

Dicamba is a chlorinated benzoic acid herbicide that, among other potential health effects, is neurotoxic and has been connected with reproductive and developmental problems in humans. The herbicide is extremely mobile in soils, regardless of organic matter or clay content, and has high water solubility. Dicamba residues are both quite persistent (2 months to 1 year) and able to move vertically in the soil column.

EPA does not test the human or environmental health implications of chemical mixtures, so these combined herbicides will be a novel hazard for farmers and rural communities.

Agriculture does not have to work this way. Farmers do not have to remain stuck on a pesticide treadmill that demands ever greater synthetic inputs and rewards chemical suppliers at the expense of community, worker, farm and environmental health. Organic agriculture is an ecologically-based management system that prioritizes cultural, biological, and mechanical production practices and natural and least-toxic  inputs. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that chemical inputs such as synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics are marketed as “solving.”

Source: USDA APHIS Press Release, Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, May 13, 2013) According to preliminary results of a survey by the Bee Informed Partnership, 31.1 percent of managed honey bee colonies in the U.S. were lost during the 2012/2013 winter.   Though these preliminary loss reports are similar to the past six year average of 30.5 percent, the new loss numbers represent a 42 percent increase compared to the previous winter. Survey participants indicate that they consider a loss rate of 15 percent as “acceptable,” but 70 percent of participants suffered losses greater than this. With continued winter bee losses of over 30%, and concern whether there will be enough bees to pollinate U.S. crops this year, beekeepers and environmentalists say it is imperative  that regulators act by banning the neonicotiniod pesticides that have been implicated in the global decline of honey bee populations.

In addition to this national report, several state level incidents of large scale honey bee colony losses have been reported. In a recent incident in Florida, citrus groves experienced an acute foliar poisoning that resulted in severely damaged colonies. Oranges had an early bloom this year, and were still blooming near the end of April. One beekeeper’s colonies suffered immense losses due to drift  from an application of Montana 2F, an imdacloprid-based insecticide, from a neighboring grove. 1000-1500 colonies were killed, while 10,000-13,000 colonies suffered severe damage. Citrus trees were sprayed while bees were actively foraging during daylight hours. The foliar application directions on Montana 2F’s label clearly state, “Do not apply during bloom or within 10 days prior to bloom or when bees are actively foraging.” Imidacloprid is one of the neonicotinoid pesticides that have been linked to dramatic bee declines. Recently, the European Commission voted to ban the use of these chemicals.

In Maryland, close to 60 percent of the managed hives died during the 2012/2013 winter, according to the state bee inspector and local beekeepers. “This is the worst I’ve seen in 35 years. We didn’t all get stupid at once. I don’t know what it is, but it isn’t our stupidity,” said Steve McDaniel, a 35-year beekeeper and retired chemist. Maryland depends on a robust honey bee population to pollinate a large volume of the state’s crops.  These crops ”” apples, melons, berries and pumpkins ”” are valued in excess of $40 million.

In Canada, beekeepers are calling on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to allow commercial beekeepers to import package bees from the U.S. because of higher than expected bee losses this past winter. Some beekeepers reported average losses of up to 50 percent of their hives. Though weather is seen as a major factor in the wintering losses of Canadian honey bees, the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists also argue that the use of systemic pesticides are connected to these dramatic bee loses.

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

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

For more information on bee losses please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinators and Pesticides page.

Sources: American Bee Journal , Baltimore Sun, Bee Informed Partnership, The Vancouver Sun

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 10, 2013) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on May 8 a final rule to revise and update use patterns and data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides. Though the new rule is the first revision to EPA data requirements for antimicrobial pesticide registrations since 1984,   remaining inconsistencies among data submissions and data gaps, these new rules are a step in the right direction when it comes to regulating antimicrobial pesticides, considering the proliferation of consumer products that contain these chemicals. However, even with these new rules in place, certain antimicrobial pesticides that are already in consumer products, such as triclosan, will  still present serious hazards for  human and environmental health.

More than 5,000 antimicrobial products are currently registered with EPA. Initially designed for hospitals and clinics, many antimicrobial pesticides are found in products ranging from household cleaners to mattresses and bedding, cosmetics, toys, toothpaste and even chopsticks. Antibacterial products are being marketed to the health conscious without firm evidence of real benefits and amid growing concern about unintended externalities. One prime example of this is triclosan, which is formulated into hundreds of personal care products, toys and textiles. Studies show that triclosan is an endocrine disruptor, accumulates in human fatty tissue and can influence the onset of bacterial resistance.

Recently, the Associated Press reported that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will rule on the safety of the antibacterial chemical triclosan this year, after 40 years of delay. FDA published several draft guidelines over the years but never finalized the results, which has allowed companies to keep the chemical in their products. Though the FDA review of triclosan is not connected to these new rules finalized by the EPA, it does show that federal agencies are slowly, but finally, moving towards determining the safety of the antimicrobial chemicals. EPA will also review the safety of triclosan this year.

Under these new rules, eleven new data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides are being codified. This codification of the rules is important because, according to comments released by Beyond Pesticides in 2009, “Often the agency [EPA] would conduct case by case determinations to instruct registrants on what data was needed for antimicrobial pesticides.” This process leads to inconsistent data being submitted by registrants. These new rules set up unique data requirements specifically for antimicrobials and create a uniform process.

Some of the new data requirements establish evaluations for: developmental neurotoxicity; immunotoxicity; photodegradation in soil; soil residue dissipation; ready biodegradability study; porous pot study; activated sludge sorption isotherm study; and modified activated sludge, respiration inhibition test. Additionally, EPA will require a down-the-drain analysis for every product with an applicable use or exposure scenario.

According to Beyond Pesticides’ 2009 comments, “This [down-the-drain] model proposed by the agency to estimate concentrations of chemicals in surface waters, as a result of disposal of consumer products into wastewaters, is a useful tool to assist wastewater treatment agencies with the wastewater treatment process, and to monitor the fate and effects of these chemicals once in the waterways.”

However, Beyond Pesticides’ 2009 comments also point out some of these new rules’ short comings. First, under these new rules, EPA will delineate between high and low indirect food use exposures to antimicrobial pesticides. Continual low dose exposure over time can result in high exposure as antimicrobial chemicals, like triclosan, can build in fat tissue. Continual low dose exposure has been shown in the scientific literature to pose significant long term risk, especially for developing infants.

Second, the EPA should take a closer look at chemical mixtures currently found in the nation’s waterways and their possible synergistic effects. Several studies detail the presence of varied concentrations of pharmaceuticals in surfaces waters, including several antimicrobials. However, the evaluation does not evaluate how these chemicals interact with each other in the environment, or their combined effects on human and environmental health.

The news rules will go into effect on July 8, 2013.

For more information on antimicrobials or antibacterials please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Antimicrobials and Antibacterials page.

Source: EPA

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2013) A review of the scientific literature of the toxic effects of glyphosate, one of the most popular weed killers in the U.S. and the active ingredient in Roundup, links the herbicide  to a wide range of diseases and suggests  that more research is needed. The review, conducted by a scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), looks at the mechanisms through which the adverse effects may be happening and points to  the chemical’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, which plays the crucial role of detoxifying xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate can enhance the negative effects of other environmental toxicants on the body. Authors argue that this has been a critically overlooked component in research on glyphosates’ toxicity to mammals.

We “have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated,” Stephanie Seneff, PhD, lead author and research scientist at MIT, told Reuters.

Not surprisingly, Monsanto, the developer of Roundup, the leading product containing glyphosate, has attempted to discredit the study, claiming that its product has a long track record of being safe – read Another Bogus “Study.” However, Beyond Pesticides has assembled  extensive documentation on the human health and environmental risks of glyphosate. It has been linked to a number of serious human health effects, including increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity, and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. One of the inert ingredients in product formulations of Roundup, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), has also been shown to kill human embryonic cells. In 2009, Beyond Pesticides, submitted comments to the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) showing new and emerging science which illustrates that glyphosate and its formulated products pose unreasonable risk to human and environmental health, and as such should not be considered eligible for continued registration.

Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the U.S. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans, and cotton. Additionally, glyphosate persists in streams throughout the growing season in Iowa and Mississippi, but is generally not observed during other times of the year. The pervasiveness of glyphosate in our food supply, and the general myth that it is “essentially nontoxic,” the researchers argue, may make glyphosate one of the most dangerous chemicals in the environment.

The paper concludes: “Given the known toxic effects of glyphosate reviewed here and the plausibility that they are negatively impacting health worldwide, it is imperative for more independent research to take place to validate the ideas presented here, and to take immediate action, if they are verified, to drastically curtail the use of glyphosate in agriculture.”

The peer-reviewed paper, “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases,” is published in the April 2013 journal Entropy.

To see more scientific research on the effects of pesticides on human health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, which supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. Public policy must advance this shift, rather than continue to allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2013) In apparent contradiction to its stated intention to protect pollinators and find solutions to the current pollinator crisis, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the unconditional registration of the new insecticide sulfoxaflor,  which the agency classifies as highly toxic to honey bees. Despite warnings and concerns raised by beekeepers and environmental groups, sulfoxaflor will further endanger bees and beekeeping. EPA continues to put industry interests first to exacerbate an already dire pollinator crisis.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           In January, the agency proposed   to impose conditional registration on sulfoxaflor due to inconclusive and outstanding data on long-term honey bee brood impacts. At that time, the agency requested two additional studies —a study on residue impacts, and a field test to assess impacts to honey bee colonies and brood development. This week, EPA granted full unconditional registration to sulfoxaflor stating that there were no outstanding data, and 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 exhibited behavioral and navigational abnormalities in honey bees, EPA downplays these effects as “short-lived.” The agency says it has reviewed 400 studies in collaboration with its counterparts in Australia and Canada to support its decision. However, these studies do not seem to be currently available in the public scientific literature.

Instead of denying or suspending registration in the face of dire pollinator losses, EPA instead has chosen to mitigate sulfoxaflor impacts to bees by approving a reduced application rate from that initially requested by the registrant, Dow AgroSciences LLC, as well as increasing the time interval between successive applications. EPA also approved new pollinator label language it believes to be “robust” to protect pollinators. Sulfoxaflor labels will state language such as;

“Do not apply this product at any time between 3 days prior to bloom and until after petal fall;”

and advisory pollinator statement;

“Notifying known beekeepers within 1 mile of the treatment area 48 hours before the product is applied will allow them to take additional steps to protect their bees. Also limiting application to times when managed bees and native pollinators are least active, e.g., before 7 am or after 7pm local time or when temperature is below 55^oF at the site of application, will minimize risk to bees.”

However, beekeepers have noted that 48 hour notice is oftentimes insufficient to move their hives to a safer location and that prior notification is not always provided. Label statements, like those authorized for sulfoxaflor, not only underscore the risks to bees, but like most pesticide product labels are unrealistic since sulfoxaflor is a systemic pesticide whose residues can continue to exist in the plant (including pollen and nectar) for longer periods of time that well surpasses the recommended application intervals, and therefore exposes bees to residues longer than suggested. Similarly, label language such as this is extremely difficult to enforce at the use level.

Several comments were submitted by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, like Beyond Pesticides, that stated 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 pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies.  EPA also noted that none of the objections to sulfoxaflor registrations pointed 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. Instead, the agency says, “Comments suggested that pesticides can pose risks to bees and that the agency should not allow yet another pesticide to threaten bees.”

EPA’s response to Beyond Pesticides and other commenters can be found here.

The agency’s approval of sulfoxaflor and its attempts to mitigate risks to honey bees highlight the real deficiencies in the agency’s risk assessment process. Risk assessment approaches have historically underestimated real-world risks, and attempts to mitigate adverse impacts with measures that prove insufficient and impractical.  These risk assessment approaches make determinations that the risks are “reasonable,” while failing to take into account numerous circumstances and realities that make honey bees vulnerable to chemical exposures, including user failure to adhere to application rate guidelines, and local environmental conditions that may predispose crops, and other plants, to accumulate higher chemical residues, especially in nectar and pollen. In addition to risks to bees, sulfoxaflor is also classified as “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” based on the incidence of tumors and carcinomas in mice and rats.

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 will allow 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.

Sulfoxaflor is a new active ingredient, whose mode of action is similar to that of neonicotinoid pesticides —it acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects. Even though it has not been classified as a neonicotinoid, it elicits similar neurological responses in honey bees, with many believing that sulfoxaflor is the new generation of neonicotinoid. Sulfoxaflor will be registered for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, wheat and others.

BEE Protective : Pollinators need our help!   This spring create pollinator friendly habitat by planting bee attractive flowers and grasses that provide food and forage for bees and other pollinators.  Avoid sulfoxaflor and neonicotinoid products.

Pledge your garden or backyard as a pesticide free zone for pollinators.

Source:  EPA New Release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2013) After 40 years of delay, the Associated Press reports that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will rule on the safety of the antibacterial chemical triclosan this year. Triclosan is present in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products, appearing in some of these products in a formulation known as Microban. The agency’s review comes amid growing pressure from politicians and consumer advocates concerning the safety of this chemical in terms of both human health and the wider environment.

In 1972, Congress required FDA to set guidelines for many common antibacterial chemicals found in over-the-counter soaps and scrubs. FDA published tentative guidelines for chemicals used in liquid hand soaps and washes by 1978, stating triclosan was “not generally recognized as safe and effective.” This was due to a lack of scientific research demonstrating the chemical’s safety and effectiveness.

FDA published several draft guidelines over the years but never finalized the results. This has allowed companies to keep the chemical in their products. Last summer, FDA said its triclosan review would be completed by the end of 2012. The agency then pushed back the date to February 2013. After February passed without a review, a federal appeals court in March said that a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council aimed at forcing FDA to complete its review could move forward. A lower court had previously tossed out the lawsuit, but the three-panel judge in March resinstated the case, noting that NRDC presented evidence that triclosan could be dangerous.

FDA is now planning to complete its review; FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said the evaluation of triclosan is “one of the highest priorities” for the agency, but did not offer an explanation for the delay.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will also be reviewing the safety of triclosan this year.

Beyond Pesticides, with 15 organizations,  filed a citizens petition to FDA in October 2005, requesting the agency to ban all non-medical uses of triclosan.  In 2009, Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with Food and Water Watch and 80 other groups, submitted an amended petition to  FDA and a new petition to  EPA,  citing  violations of numerous federal statutes. Echoing these petitions, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) also submitted letters of concern to both EPA and FDA. In FDA’s response, the agency acknowledged that soaps containing triclosan offer no additional benefit over regular soap and water. FDA stated that “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients” and announced plans to address the use of triclosan in cosmetics or other products. FDA also expressed concern about the development of antibiotic resistance from using antibacterial products and about triclosan’s potential long-term health effects.

Beyond Pesticides has provided extensive documentation of the potential human and environmental health effects of triclosan and its cousin triclocarban. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development. It is also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in umbilical cord blood and human milk. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found that triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with concentrations that have increased by 50% since 2004.

Last August, research from the University of California, Davis led by Dr. Issac Pessah, Ph.D., showed triclosan’s ability to impair muscle function, particularly in the heart. In the presence of triclosan, the normal communication between two proteins that function as calcium channels is impaired, causing skeletal and cardiac muscle failure. Dr. Pessah recently spoke about the health effects of triclosan at Beyond Pesticides 31^st National Pesticide Forum. His speech can be viewed in part at this link.

In January of this year, a study from the University of Minnesota (UMN) revealed triclosan, along with several of its toxic breakdown products such as dioxin, to be present In freshwater lakes across Minnesota, including Lake Superior. Previous research by the team and UMN revealed triclosan’s ability to disrupt aquatic ecosystems by inhibiting photosynthesis in algae and killing beneficial bacteria.

In light of inaction at the federal level, this information spurred Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton to order state agencies to stop purchasing triclosan-containing products. “There are alternatives, and they are at the same price,” said Cathy Moeger, sustainability manager for the Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency. “If it has an environmental benefit, why not do it?”

As Allison Aiello, Ph.D, professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health (who also spoke at Beyond Pesticide 30^th National Pesticide Forum), astutely notes, “To me it looks like the risks outweigh any benefit associated with these products right now. At this point, it’s just looking like a superfluous chemical.”

Beyond Pesticides urges concerned consumers to join the ban triclosan campaign and sign the pledge   to stop using triclosan today. Read the label of personal care products in order to avoid those containing triclosan. Encourage your local schools, government agencies, and local businesses to use their buying power to go triclosan-free. Urge your municipality, school, or company to adopt the model resolution that commits to not procuring or using products containing triclosan.

To learn more about triclosan please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Antibacterial page.

Source: Associated Press

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

(Beyond Pesticides May 6, 2013) On Wednesday April 24, Senator Barbra Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Peter Defazio (D-OR) introduced companion legislation that would require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “clearly label” all genetically engineered (GE) whole and processed foods, including fish and other seafood. The bills, the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act,  H.R. 1699 and S. 809, have 22 cosponsors in the House and 10 in the Senate. This national effort builds on the multiple ongoing campaigns to label GE foods at the state level.

“Americans have the right to know what is in the food they eat so they can make the best choices for their families,” Senator Boxer said in a press release. “This legislation is supported by a broad coalition of consumer groups, businesses, farmers, fishermen and parents who all agree that consumers deserve more — not less — information about the food they buy.”

Representative Jared Polis (D-CO), one of the bills co-sponsors, said of the labeling act, “Empowering consumers: consumers can choose to eat or not eat GMOs, or to pay more or less for GMOs.” He said he believes consumers have a right to know what they are eating.   I believe consumers have a right to know what they are eating so they can make their own informed food choices. I am proud to be working toward more informative food labels.”

Before this national legislative effort, state labeling campaigns were launched in California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oregon, Maryland, Missouri, Vermont, and Washington. The precursor to these state efforts was the Proposition 37 campaign in California. Prop 37 was a statewide ballot initiative voted on by Californians during the 2012 elections. Even though national polls indicated 91 percent of Americans supported GE labeling, a campaign ad launched by the agrichemical industry, which public interest groups cited as misleading,  is credited with helping to defeat the bill by a 6.2 percent margin. Polls indicated that a majority of Californians supported Prop 37 into October, right before the November election. However, industry opponents poured over $46 million into the ad campaign and were easily able to outspend supporters, who only raised $9 million. Supporters of Prop 37 are regrouping, focusing on the 4.2 million Californians that voted yes and building a grassroots movement with 10,000 volunteers.

Prop 37 also helped bring the discussion of GE food into the public spotlight. Popular food writers such as Mark Bittman, Michael Pollan, and Marion Nestle wrote actively about the issues of GE labeling during the Prop 37 campaign, giving a greater voice to the growing food movement. Mother Jones’ writer Tom Philpott  believed that the defeat of Prop 37 was not the defeat of the push to label GE crops: “Given the formidability and deep pockets of the opposition, I think it’s overblown to treat Prop 37 as a pass-fail test of the food movement’s political viability.”

GE legislative labeling efforts are important because, as Sec. 2 (b)(3) of HR 1699 states, “Individuals in the United States have a right to know if their food was produced with genetic engineering for a variety of reasons, including health, economic, environmental, religious, and ethical.” Study after study has shown GE crops and GE products to be dangerous to human and environmental health. Studies have observed that GE foods may cause some common toxic effects, such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive issues and may alter hematological, biochemical parameters. World renowned geneticist and biophysicist, and co-founder of the International Science Panel on Genetic Modification, Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D., has cited numerous observations on the adverse impacts of GE foods, including severe inflammation of the lungs in mice, liver and kidney toxicity, damage to the organ system of young rats fed GE potatoes, and severely stunted pups.

The growth of GE crops also has negative effects on the environment. A recent study by researcher Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. shows that GE crops have significantly increased pesticide use and weed resistance, contrary to industry claims that the technology would reduce herbicide applications. As weed resistance increases growers have started to look towards other chemically intense methods to fight weeds. The explosion of GE crops has also been linked to a decline in pollinator populations.

For more information on GE crops, please visit Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering page.

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

Source: Food Safety News

(Beyond Pesticides, May 3, 2013) Despite the groundbreaking decision in Europe earlier this week to protect honey bees by suspending the neonicotinoid pesticides shown to be highly toxic, the  U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report yesterday which fails to address the overwhelming scientific evidence of neonicotinoid-related bee death and decline. The report presents no long-term, sustainable solutions to address the current bee crisis. Instead, the report recommends further research on the role of pesticides in honey bee health, further highlighting the stymied pace of U.S. regulatory efforts.

The report follows on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health, which was led by federal researchers and managers and Pennsylvania State University in October 2012. Stakeholders at the conference included industry, federal officials, scientists, beekeepers, and activists who discussed several factors pertaining to adverse pollinator heath. Parasites, disease, genetics, poor nutrition, and pesticide exposure were highlighted at the meeting as synergistic factors in the observable nationwide honey bee decline.

The report recommends further research on the impacts of pesticides on bees at the colony level in the field, but does not capture the science connecting pesticides to adverse effects or the need for protective action. Instead, the report merely summarizes stakeholder comments at the meeting and highlights the uncertainties, rather than the bounty of evidence and on-the-ground beekeeper testimony. The report states, “It is clear, based on chemical analysis of bees and bee products, that exposure of bees to a gamut of pesticides is common place, but the level of exposure to any particular pesticide is generally not enough to immediately or acutely kill bees.”   However, acute testing for lethality does not include sublethal and chronic effects from prolonged exposure to multiple pesticides that occur in the field and cause demonstrable harm to bees, including immune suppression, navigational disruption, and decreased learning behavior.

Jim Jones, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator, made some important admissions during the conference call announcing the release of  the report, particularly that original EPA risk assessments and registration data requirements did not adequately consider sublethal effects to bee health. Recently published  studies conclude that the systemic neonicotinoid insecticides, imidacloprid and clothianidin, cause cognitive damage in bees. While the bees are still alive, the lobes of the brain fail to communicate with each other with obvious implications for their survival. EPA’s  failure to adequately assess sublethal effects in bees prior to the registration of these pesticides, and others, highlights the regulatory failure that continues to plague the agency.

Some of the other discussion points included in the report are: the importance of the Varroa mite and its resistance to controls; the need for increased genetic diversity in honey bee colonies to improve resistance to mites and diseases; the role of poor nutrition and need for federal and state agencies to promote land management practices that improve and expand natural areas where bees can forage in pesticide-free zones; and the need for timely bee kill reporting, monitoring, and enforcement.

Unlike recent action in Europe, which placed a two-year ban on three neonicotinoid pesticides””imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam”” due to their toxicity to bees, EPA has yet to implement immediate, strong, and protective measures for pollinator health. Instead, EPA is focusing on short-term risk mitigation measures, such as reducing contaminated field dust, which aligns with the pesticide industry’s focus. “EPA is working on advancing new equipment, releasing new formulations, and label standards,” said Mr. Jones, “New planting technology”¦should be widely available next year.” The agency continues to dismiss scientific evidence of the acute and chronic toxicity of neonicotinoids and other pesticides on bees and other pollinators, and instead focuses on technological stopgap measures. Beekeepers and environmentalists have said that EPA has yet to uphold the “unreasonable adverse effect on the environment” standard, which it is required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

In lieu of immediate, strong, and precautionary measures, the report recommends improving “best management practices,” which do not question either the use of pesticides or recognize the availability and success of organic management practices. The new restrictions across Europe suggest that EPA consider moving beyond writing meeting reports on honey bee health and adopt actual restrictions of pesticides that peer-reviewed science has tied to pollinator decline nationwide.

For the most recent action being taken to protect honey bees, see the Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective website.

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2013) A committee of the National Academy of Sciences’ Research Council (NRC) issued a new report that outlines steps to improve regulatory problems associated with pesticides that harm endangered and threatened species. The report, Evaluating Risks That Pesticides Pose to Endangered, Threatened Species — New Report  suggests the need to overhaul  EPA’s deeply flawed pesticide approval process.

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), before a pesticide can be sold, distributed, or used in the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to determine  that the pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. However,  in the case of species  listed as endangered or threatened under  the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), all federal agencies, including  EPA,  are required to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species by diminishing the species’ numbers and  reproduction. To do this, in its pesticide registration process,  EPA is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when a federal action may adversely  affect a listed species or its habitat. Over the last decade, questions have been raised regarding the best approaches or methods for determining the risks pesticides pose to listed species and their habitats. EPA, FWS, and NMFS have developed different approaches to evaluating environmental risks because their legal mandates, responsibilities, institutional cultures, and expertise vary. As a result, the National Research Council was asked to examine the scientific and technical issues related to determining risks posed to listed species by pesticides.

The NRC report says that the agencies should use a risk assessment approach that addresses problem formulation, exposure analysis, effects analysis, and risk characterization when determining whether a pesticide is likely to pose a threat to endangered or threatened species. The committee examined several components of the risk assessment process it believes better coordination and agreement would facilitate an integrated approach to examining risks to listed species and their habitats. These include evaluating methods for identifying the best scientific data available, assessing approaches for developing modeling assumptions, identifying geospatial information that might be used in the risk assessment, reviewing approaches for characterizing effects, analyzing the scientific information available for estimating effects of mixtures and other, or  “inert,” ingredients, and examining the use of uncertainty factors to account for gaps in data. The findings imply that without a significant revamping of its review process, the operative agencies can not meet their statutory obligations.

Currently under ESA, EPA is required to determine how a pesticide will affect endangered species when that chemical is registered or has its registration reevaluated, and consult with FWS and NMFS for any necessary additional information and analysis. However, NRC concluded that EPA, NMFS, and FWS have not worked effectively in the consultation process and  the development of biological opinions. One reason for this problem is the difference in legal authorities and interpretation of law. EPA registers pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which authorizes a risk-based process that cost/benefit analyses in the agency’s determination of  allowable levels of harm. NMFS and FWS, under ESA, is more precautionary in its approach and has no cost/benefit directive.

According to NRC, if FWS and NMFS could build on EPA’s analysis of whether a pesticide is likely to adversely affect a listed species, rather than conduct a completely new analysis, the assessment would likely be more effective and scientifically credible. Furthermore, agreement among the agencies has been impeded by a lack of communication and coordination throughout the process. Therefore, the committee emphasized the need for coordination, which it views as necessary to ensure a complete and representative assessment of risk and that each agency’s technical needs are met.

However, EPA’s risk assessment process does not function to protect the most vulnerable in biological systems, but institutes restrictions intended to mitigate risks. The mandated consultations with FWS and NMFS could present the opportunity to evaluate alternative practices that would avoid harm to endangered species, but is largely limited to the risk management framework that has so long dominated EPA’s approach to regulating pesticides.

Background

Prior to 2004, EPA believed the extensive environmental risk assessments required in the registration process also would include impacts on endangered species. However, represented by the public interest law group Earthjustice, several stakeholder organizations including the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), filed suit in January 2001 to force EPA to fulfill the distinct ESA requirements. Specifically, the lawsuit challenged EPA’s decision to register 54 pesticides without first consulting with federal fish biologists regarding the potential impact on protected salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest. The judge, in a lawsuit initiated in 2002, called EPA’s “wholesale non-compliance” with its ESA obligations “patently unlawful” and ordered the agency to consult with NMFS regarding adverse impacts on the Northwest runs. More recently, EPA’s failure to consult with FWS on the impacts of hundreds of pesticides known to be harmful to more than 200 endangered and threatened species prompted a 2011 lawsuit.

Sources: National Academy of Sciences

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2013) Last week, U.S. Senator Kay Hagan, (D-NC), and Larry Wooten, president of the North Carolina Farm Bureau, announced new legislation that will be introduced to eliminate Clean Water Act permits required for certain applications of pesticides on or near waterways. The bill to be introduced by Sens. Hagan and Mike Crapo (R-ID) is called “The Sensible Environmental Protection Act (SEPA).” This is the latest in a string of attacks lobbied by industry to remove Clean Water Act protections for streams receiving pesticide discharges.

Take Action: Urge your Senators Not to Support This Bill

The bill, The Sensible Environmental Protection Act (S-EPA), announced last Monday by Senators Hagan and Crapo is said to be a bipartisan effort to remove so-called “redundant, unnecessary and costly regulation” on farmers and local governments.  According to Senator Hagan, the Clean Water Act does not provide any additional health benefits.  S-EPA, not to be confused with the School Environment Protection Act  (a real effort to protect children from pesticides),  will clarify that Clean Water Act permits are not required for pesticide applications in or near water. The bill also asks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report back to Congress on whether the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which regulates pesticides, can be improved to better protect human health and the environment from pesticide applications.

Under the Clean Water Act, in order to discharge applied pesticides in or adjacent to  the waters of the U.S., one must have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which follows a 2009 federal appeals court ruling in National Cotton Council v. EPA. The ruling found that EPA’s pesticide regulations were not sufficient to protect the nation’s waterways from pesticide contamination and ordered the agency to develop new permits. Sen. Hagan and her colleagues cite the NPDES permits as being too burdensome on farmers as they spend too many resources filling out paperwork to acquire the permit and monitor their pesticide discharges, which is all they are required to do. The Senators also believe that the permits are unneeded regulations that only stifle an already struggling economy, even though fees can be as low as $25 for the permit, and states that oversee the permitting program stand to collect this revenue. Read Clearing up the Confusion Surrounding the New NPDES General Permit.

However, the potentially high cost of public health problems, environmental clean-up efforts, and irreversible ecological damage that can result from unchecked, indiscriminate pollution of waterways is not being considered by Congress. The reality is that this permitting process encourages pesticide users to seek alternative approaches to pest management if their current methods are going to contaminate nearby sources of water. And, given the vast knowledge that we have on organic, integrated pest management (IPM) and non-chemical solutions, this bill will be a disastrous step backwards. Additionally, according to the National Water Resources Association (NWRA) EPA has not reported difficulties with the new permit program.

S-EPA is supported by 150 farming and forestry groups and state regulators from across the country, including the  American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Agriculture Retailers Association, National Cotton Council, National Alliance of Forest Owners, United Fresh Produce Association and the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants.

S-EPA of 2013 is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators, including: Carper (D-DE), Coons (D-DE), Risch (R-ID), Heitkamp (D-ND), Vitter (R-LA), McCaskill (D-MO), Inhofe (R-OK), and Donnelly (D-IN).

Industry lobby groups, like those mentioned above, have been very busy around the country persuading state and federal elected officials to support legislation that weakens the authority   of the Clean Water Act. Since the inaction of the NPDES permit requirement in 2011, several pieces of legislation have been introduced In Congress to strip the Clean Water Act of jurisdiction of direct pesticide discharge into waterways, as well as other legislation to impact EPA and other federal agencies tasked with environmental oversight. Additionally, the White House Council on Environmental Quality estimates that the recent sequester could reduce federal funding for state environmental programs by $154 million, which could dramatically affect the safety of U.S. waterways.

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

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

Take Action: Urge your Senators Not to Support This Bill

Source: Office of Sen. Hagan

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2013) A landmark decision by the European Commission on Monday means that bee-killing, neonicotinoid pesticides will experience a continent-wide ban in Europe for two years. A  15 Member States majority  supported the ban, with eight against, and four abstaining.

European Health and Consumer Commissioner Tony Borg explains, “Since our proposal is based on a number of risks to bee health identified by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the Commission will go ahead with its text in the coming weeks. I pledge to do my utmost to ensure that our bees, which are so vital to our ecosystem and contribute over €22 billion annually to European agriculture, are protected.”

The ban comes several months after the EFSA released a report identifying “high acute risk” to honey bees from uses of certain neonicotinoid chemicals. The moratorium will begin no later than December 1 this year.

“We’re happy to see the EU take a leadership role to remove from the market these chemicals associated with colony collapse disorder and hazards to bee health. We’ll continue to push the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through legal and advocacy means to follow-up with urgent actions needed to protect bees,” says Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides.

In the United States, the silence from executive regulatory agencies is deafening. Beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups have continuously engaged the EPA on this issue, first filing an emergency legal petition to ban the pesticide clothianidin back in March 2012. After being told to effectively “buzz off” by regulators, Beyond Pesticides joined with beekeepers, environmental and consumer groups in a lawsuit challenging the agency’s oversight of these systemic pesticides, as well as their practice of “conditionally” registering pesticides without adequate data.

The EU vote represents a major setback to industry giants Syngenta and Bayer, which spent millions of dollars lobbying European states to not support a ban on their products, and casted calls for a ban on the unfounded accusations of “bee-hobbyists.” According to the Guardian UK, “One Syngenta executive, mentioning in passing his recent lunch with Barack Obama, claimed that ”˜a small group of activists and hobby bee-keepers’ were behind that campaign for a ban.” Industry continues to argue that a ban would be catastrophic to agriculture, but similar bans in Italy, Slovenia and Germany enacted a couple years ago did not hinder the agricultural community.

In light of these new restrictions across Europe, EPA must also move to restrict these chemicals in the US to protect bee and other pollinator health.

For more information on what you can do to protect pollinators in your backyard, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective campaign page.

Source: European Commission Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 29, 2013) Dow AgroSciences, one of the nation’s largest pesticide makers, along with various food companies, have persuaded several members of Congress to endorse a bill that directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reverse a proposed phase out of sulfuryl fluoride, a highly toxic food fumigant and potent greenhouse gas. If passed, the bill would make the U.S. one of only two western nations to allow sulfuryl fluoride on food, increase the number of American children ingesting unsafe levels of fluoride, and create a food poisoning risk for consumers who  purchase food that contains permissible levels of the fumigant.

The  Pest Free Food Supply Act, H.R. 1496, sponsored by Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) and 14 others, seeks to prevent the proposed  phase out  of sulfuryl fluoride from taking effect. The phase out, which EPA proposed in January 2011, was prompted by a  joint petition from the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Beyond Pesticides.

In seeking to prevent the phase out from taking effect, the bill’s sponsors have adopted Dow’s widely discredited talking points on the safety and necessity of sulfuryl fluoride fumigation. The public should know:

”¢ Of the few western nations that allow food facilities to be fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride only the U.S. and Australia allow fumigation to occur  while food is still on the premises.

”¢ EPA based the proposed phase out on its finding that many children are currently being overexposed to fluoride, and that  there is no safe room for additional fluoride exposures.  Under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the EPA cannot approve a pesticide if people are currently receiving too much of the pesticide chemical  (in this case, fluoride) from  other sources.

”¢ Despite claims that sulfuryl fluoride produces a “tiny” increase in fluoride exposure, the maximum  permissible levels in some fumigated foods are high enough to produce  acute toxic reactions, such as nausea, vomiting, and headache. A child eating a single portion of pancakes made with flour fumigated at the maximum permissible level (125 ppm F) would ingest enough fluoride to be at risk for flu-like symptoms. The risk is worse for powdered eggs, which are permitted to contain  toothpaste-strength levels  (900 ppm F). The FDA mandates that fluoride toothpastes warn users to immediately contact a poison control center if they accidentally swallow the paste. Unlike toothpaste, dried eggs are meant to be swallowed.

”¢  Fluoride is  neurotoxic.  Over 30 published studies have reported an association between fluoride and  reduced IQ  in children, Dow’s own animal studies show that the brain is the main target for sulfuryl fluoride’s effects, and fumigation workers who use sulfuryl fluoride have been found to suffer impaired cognitive function.

”¢  Sulfuryl fluoride is a  potent greenhouse gas. Because of this, the Sierra Club, Center for Environmental Health, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Biological Diversity oppose Dow’s efforts to expand sulfuryl fluoride production.

Jay Feldman, director of Beyond Pesticides,  says, “Before the agricultural processing industry uses its muscles to retain the use of sulfuryl fluoride, it should carefully research what other industrialized societies are using to protect food in processing and storage facilities. Some like Canada only allow the treatment of empty facilities before the introduction of food products; others use non-toxic methods like heat, refrigeration and carbon dioxide. In the U.S., some of these treatments would require the upgrading of old leaky storage facilities. This would be a far more sensible approach not only to protect our food supply but also to protect our children from unnecessary exposure to yet another toxic substance in their early lives.”

According to  Sonya Lunder, Senior Analyst with EWG, “There is a growing consensus that American children are exposed to too  much fluoride, in part because of the use of sulfuryl fluoride. To prevent  the adverse health effects of overexposure to fluoride, EPA should finalize  its proposal to phase out this pesticide and tackle the issue of fluoride  in drinking water.”

Paul Connett, PhD,  director of FAN, notes that “fluoride is too neurotoxic to be allowed on children’s food and EPA’s pesticide division deserves credit for taking the correct course of action in protecting the health of infants and children, rather than the profits of Dow AgroSciences.”

Sulfuryl fluoride was initially registered in 1959 to kill termites and other wood-boring pests. It gained further attention as a potential alternative to methyl bromide as broad spectrum insect fumigant in post-harvest commodity storage and food processing facilities. Alternatives for methyl bromide were needed because under the Montreal Protocol methyl bromide use was to be gradually reduced because it was a greenhouse gas. Methyl bromide was to be phased out in 2005. However, due to the “critical use exemption” (CUE) stipulation of the laws, which allows the chemical to continue to be used when there are no feasible alternatives, application rates have remained persistently high. Some environmental groups have opposed sulfurly fluoride’s phase out. The Natural Resources Defense Council submitted a letter to EPA in 2011 opposing the disallowance of any sulfuryl fluoride uses that it believes will lead to prolonged or increased methyl bromide use. Beyond Pesticides and others maintain, however, that without compliance with the law and phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride, there  will be no incentive for grain storage facilities to upgrade to adopt modern practices that do not rely on this hazardous chemical, practices that are regularly used in the organic industry. See Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News on this issue.

Beyond Pesticides has never considered sulfuryl fluoride necessary for the safe storage and handling of our food supply and does not support an extension of the currently mandated phase out. There are many viable alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide fumigation, including temperature manipulation (heating and cooling), atmospheric controls (low oxygen and fumigation with carbon dioxide), biological controls (pheromones, viruses and nematodes), and less toxic chemical controls (diatomaceous earth). Neither fumigant is permitted in organic food production and handling.

FAN, Beyond Pesticides and EWG will vigorously oppose efforts to overturn EPA’s proposed phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride on food, and will fight to uphold the FQPA.

Source: Press release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: IATP Press Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Science Daily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: SWAMP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Minnesota Public Radio  

Photo Courtesy Ben Alkire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences

Photo Source: Great Lakes Echo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Sofia Globe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Guardian

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