(Beyond Pesticides, September 11, 2023) A future supported by the natural environment depends on our effective involvement in decisions in our homes, communities, states, and at the federal level to ensure that we are taking the steps necessary to protect against existential threats to health, biodiversity, and climate. The 40th National Forum Series is an important opportunity to hear from those working as scientists, advocates, land managers (from gardens, parks, and play fields to farms), and public decision makers about steps being taken and action needed to prevent catastrophic collapse of the natural systems that sustain life.

The goal of the Forum—to enable a collective strategy to address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate threats and chart a path for a livable and sustainable future. We come together to empower effective action.  

We are honored to begin this year with two international experts in their fields as they discuss steps that can and must be taken in our communities around the globe:

Internationally renowned researcher and author David Goulson, PhD, is able to draw together essential scientific research on the elements of nature that we must cherish, support, and enhance if we are to have a future. The data, as Dr. Goulson documents, describes the importance of nature in contributing to the web of life that sustains the rich diversity needed for a healthy planet. Dr. Goulson is a professor of biology at the University of Sussex in Great Britain, the founder of the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, a fellow of the Royal Entomological Society, a trustee of Pesticide Action Network UK, an ambassador for the UK Wildlife Trusts, and author of more than 300 scientific articles on ecology and conservation of insects. 

In his book, A Sting in the Tale (2013), Dr. Goulson writes, “We need worms to create soil; flies and beetles and fungi to break down dung; ladybirds and hoverflies to eat greenfly; bees and butterflies to pollinate plants to provide food, oxygen, fuel and medicines and hold the soil together; and bacteria to help plants fix nitrogen and to help cows to digest grass. . . [yet] we often choose to squander the irreplaceable, to discard those things that both keep us alive and make life worth living. Perhaps if we learn to save a bee today, we can save the world tomorrow?” He is also the author of the Sunday Times bestseller The Garden Jungle: or Gardening to Save the Planet (2019).

In his most recent book, Silent Earth: Averting the Insect Apocalypse (2021), he writes, “We have to learn to live in harmony with nature, seeing ourselves as part of it, not trying to rule and control it with an iron fist. Our survival depends on it, as does that of the glorious pageant of life with which we share our planet.” Furthermore, during an interview with The Guardian, Dr. Goulson offers a strategy for moving forward: “The UK has 22 million gardens, which collectively could be a fantastic refuge for wildlife, but not if they are overly tidy and sprayed with poisons. We just don’t need pesticides in our gardens. Many towns around the world are now pesticide-free. We should simply ban the use of these poisons in urban areas, following the example of France.” To that end, he supported a petition to ban urban pesticides in the UK. 

A leader in advancing organic agriculture, André Leu, DSc, is the international director of Regeneration International, with more than 370 partners in 70 countries, working with numerous agricultural systems—agroecology, organic permaculture, ecological agriculture, holistic grazing, biological agriculture, and organic agroforestry. The organization, founded in 2015, is cultivating an international movement united around a common goal: to reverse global warming and end world hunger by facilitating and accelerating the global transition to regenerative agriculture and land management. Its mission is to promote, facilitate, and accelerate the global transition to regenerative food, farming, and land management for the purpose of restoring climate stability, ending world hunger, and rebuilding deteriorated social, ecological, and economic systems. 

Dr. Leu previously served as president of IFOAM—Organics International, the international umbrella organization for the organic sector. IFOAM has about 850 member organizations in 127 countries. His most recent book, Growing Life: Regenerative Farming and Ranching, explores organic regenerative systems being adopted worldwide, which, he says, “require a shift in the mindset of the land manager and operator, away from being primarily reliant on external inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, and toward dependence on knowledge, measurement, and management. He is the author of two other books, Poisoning Our Children (2018) and The Myths of Safe Pesticides (2014). Dr. Leu and his wife, Julia, own and manage an organic tropical fruit farm in Daintree, Australia. 

Jeff Moyer, CEO emeritus of the Rodale Institute, describes Growing Life: “In his powerful and well-written new book, André Leu introduces us all to the concepts of regenerative organic agriculture, asks provocative questions, then shares answers only decades of experience could possibly hope to inspire, and then finally invites us on a journey to, as André says, ‘Become your own researcher.’ Every farmer needs to read, discover, and realign their priorities to focus on the power of basic biological principles to feed us all while regenerating the soil resources we need to survive as a species. André has captured the very essence of the word regenerative by clearly and simply explaining the basic building blocks of healthy soil, showcasing how the science of biology dictates that we can improve the resource we need while using it to grow food. The science of regenerative organic agriculture uncovers how the systems are complex, but the implementation isn’t complicated.” Dr. Leu speaks to the need for clearly defined and enforceable regenerative, organic land management systems that are critical to meet the challenges of our time, lest we fall victim to empty words and promises that do not advance the urgent changes required for a livable future. 

The time is now! Don’t miss this EPIC meeting of the minds as we kick off our 40th iteration of the National Forum Series on Zoom THIS THURSDAY and move forward in the quest to end petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use! You are part of the solution to these existential crises— be a part of the conversation!

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TODAY!

Registration is Complimentary: Donations are requested, but not required. Your registration includes access to all three seminars for the fall!

Reach, Influence, Support—Join the following organizations to sponsor Beyond Pesticides’ 40th National Forum Series as we bring together an important and powerful group of movers and shakers—scientists, policymakers, educators, practitioners, advocates, and activists—to elevate with greater clarity the threats associated with environmental decline and collapse and the urgency with which we need to adopt solutions that are within our grasp.

Tax Deductions: All donations on this site are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law and are processed in U.S. dollars. Beyond Pesticides is a U.S. nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization (tax identification number 521360541) under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 11, 2023) As environmental groups pursue a legal strategy to challenge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for its failure to protect a wildlife refuge from industrial aquaculture, they are also urging the public to hold Refuge officials accountable to the Refuge Improvement Act with a write-in campaign. (See Take Action campaign below.) Earlier this year, USFWS allowed the establishment of a commercial aquaculture operation that cultivates 34 acres of non-native Pacific oysters within a 50-acre tideland parcel leased  from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources within the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. The failure to fully evaluate the compatibility of this use with the purposes of the refuge raises concerns of compliance with the law governing National Wildlife Refuges throughout the country. Beyond Pesticides has said, “USFWS is willing to allow, for private profit, the industrialization of refuge lands for shellfish operations.” 

Refuges are critical habitat throughout the U.S. that protect critical ecosystems. According to the lawsuit, the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge shelters a bay rich in marine life. Eelgrass beds attract brant, shorebirds feed on the tideflats, and ducks find sanctuary in the calm waters. The Refuge is a preserve and breeding ground for more than 250 species of birds and 41 species of land animals. Dungeness Spit protects nutrient-rich tideflats for migrating shorebirds in spring and fall; a quiet bay with calm waters for wintering waterfowl; an isolated beach for harbor seals and their pups; and abundant eelgrass beds for young salmon and steelhead nurseries and some duck species, such as the Black Brant.

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland that the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge lease for industrial aquaculture must be rescinded.

In spite of demonstrated harm to birds, salmon, forage fish, and shellfish, and a recommendation by the National Marine Fisheries Service that “an alternative site be identified in a location that results in less potential impacts to wildlife that is more appropriate for aquaculture and meets the goals of the tribe,” USFWS approved a lease for an industrial oyster farm inside the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. This decision, which is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, must be reversed. 

In the words written within an October 2022 USFWS internal memorandum, “Forgoing a compatibility determination in order to facilitate incompatible commercial activities by any entity would be a subversion of the fundamental requirements in the [USFWS] Improvement Act.” 

We are targeting the most recent case of the USFWS’s permissiveness in one of the country’s most pristine nature lands, the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge in the small rural town of Sequim Washington, just below the Olympic National Park. In this case, the shellfish corporation raises shellfish on other sites. They do not need to operate in a national refuge and deny wildlife their feeding and breeding grounds. 

The Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge was created by Executive Order in 1915 by Woodrow Wilson, directing the area to be set aside as a “refuge, preserve and breeding ground for native birds and prohibits any disturbance of the birds within the reserve.” The front page of the Refuge website states: “Pets, bicycles, kite flying, Frisbees, ball-playing, camping, and fires are not permitted on the Refuge as they are a disturbance for the many migrating birds and other wildlife taking solitude on the Refuge.” With this level of concern, it is counterintuitive to allow destructive industrial aquaculture.  

Industrial shellfish aquaculture is known to reduce or eliminate eelgrass with the use of pesticides. Shellfish aquaculture also involves large-scale use of plastics—PVC tubes and plastic netting—that are hazardous to marine organisms and can trap and entangle wildlife. Commercial shellfish aquaculture is a major industry in Washington state that has significant impacts on the nearshore marine environments, which provide essential habitat for many species, including invertebrates, fish (including herring and salmon), and birds (migratory and shorebirds). 

Among the negative impacts of this project are: 50% reduction in bird primary feeding grounds;  plastic oyster bags that exclude the probing shorebird flocks from feeding deeply into the substrate, entrap fish and birds, add macro- and micro-plastic bits to the sediment throughout the refuge, and shift the benthic community composition; diminishing of the ecological benefits provided by eelgrass to threatened fish and birds, such as nourishment and cover from predators; and increased algal blooms that will leave a graveyard of dead oysters. These detrimental effects to the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge are NOT minimal. Decisionmakers should not place financial benefits to the corporation above the long-term and cumulative impacts to the refuge. Half of the world’s 10,000-odd bird species are in decline. One in eight faces the threat of extinction. 2.9 billion breeding adult birds have been lost from the United States and Canada in only 50 years. 

Let’s raise our national voice and try and stop this refuge destruction with public persuasion. This is a public space we pay to protect. For more information, check out the Daily News post from last August, “Groups Sue U.S. Interior Department to Protect the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge from Industrial Aquaculture.” 

This action follows a lawsuit filed by three environmental organizations against the U.S. Department of Interior for failing to protect the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge from industrial aquaculture. The groups, including Protect the Peninsula’s Future, Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and Beyond Pesticides, filed their complaint in the U.S. Western District Court of Washington State. The complaint states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of Interior, must “take action that is required by the Refuge Improvement Act and conduct a compatibility determination and require a special use permit for a proposed industrial aquaculture use” that will abut and impact the Refuge. The plaintiffs are represented by the Seattle, WA law firm of Bricklin and Newman LLP. 

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland that the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge lease for industrial aquaculture must be rescinded.

The targets for this Action are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Secretary of State.  

Thank you for your active participation and engagement!

Letter to Hugh Morrison, Regional Director for the Pacific Region USFWS, and U.S. Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland: 

As a citizen and taxpayer of the United States, I strongly oppose your support for allowing a for-profit shellfish operation in the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. It is upsetting to learn that USFWS would have operations known to be destructive of the wildlife refuge and refuse to abide by its own compatibility determination regulations. 

In spite of demonstrated harm to birds, salmon, forage fish, and shellfish, and a recommendation by the National Marine Fisheries Service that “an alternative site be identified in a location that results in less potential impacts to wildlife that is more appropriate for aquaculture and meets the goals of the tribe,” UFWS approved a lease for an industrial oyster farm inside the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. This decision, which is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, must be reversed. 

The Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge was created by Executive Order in 1915 by Woodrow Wilson, directing the area to be set aside as a “refuge, preserve and breeding ground for native birds and prohibits any disturbance of the birds within the reserve.” The front page of the Refuge website states: “Pets, bicycles, kite flying, Frisbees, ball-playing, camping, and fires are not permitted on the Refuge as they are a disturbance for the many migrating birds and other wildlife taking solitude on the Refuge.” With this level of concern, it is counterintuitive to allow destructive industrial aquaculture.  

Industrial shellfish aquaculture is known to reduce or eliminate eelgrass with the use of pesticides. Shellfish aquaculture also involves large-scale use of plastics—PVC tubes and plastic netting—that are hazardous to marine organisms and can trap and entangle wildlife. Commercial shellfish aquaculture is a major industry in Washington state that has significant impacts on the nearshore marine environments, which provide essential habitat for many species, including invertebrates, fish (including herring and salmon), and birds (migratory and shorebirds). 

Among the negative impacts of this project are: 50% reduction in bird primary feeding grounds;  plastic oyster bags that exclude the probing shorebird flocks from feeding deeply into the substrate, entrap fish and birds, add macro- and micro-plastic bits to the sediment throughout the refuge, and shift the benthic community composition; diminishing of the ecological benefits provided by eelgrass to threatened fish and birds, such as nourishment and cover from predators; and increased algal blooms that will leave a graveyard of dead oysters. These detrimental effects to the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge are NOT minimal. Decisionmakers should not place financial benefits to the corporation above the long-term and cumulative impacts to the refuge. 

Please let me know that you will write an honest compatibility determination. 

Thank you. 

(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2023) In a united effort, climate and environmental justice movements from around the world have come together to announce a global “end to fossil fuels,” including the end of pesticides.

The “March to End Fossil Fuels” is scheduled for September 17 and the Secretary General’s Summit in New York City on September 20. See the full map for other marches around the world.

At the Beyond Pesticides, 2022 National Forum session on climate (November, 2022), we discussed the science and the urgent need for a strategic response to the climate crisis as part of a constellation of crises that intersect. Whether we are talking about a health crisis borne out of chemical-induced diseases, the collapse of life-sustaining biodiversity, or the dramatic catastrophes caused by greenhouse gases and rising temperatures—the interconnectedness of the crises requires strategic solutions that are holistic and nurturing of our relationship with nature —a relationship we have minimized as a matter of policy and practice.

The data on climate calls on us to be audacious in our demand for urgent change in our households and communities, and from decision makers at all levels of government.

At Beyond Pesticides, our audacious goal is to ban petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers by 2032 and transition to a society and world committed to organic management practices. To do this requires a change in public understanding of what is possible. And, it will take a fair amount of public outrage that we are not moving fast enough to embrace this goal in all sectors.

Leveraging the science, we need to show with hands-on examples what change looks like. That process has begun, and today we will hear about some of what’s possible now. But the change will take people working together locally across the country and around the world. The audacious goal is achieved through on-the-ground work that becomes mainstream. If we buy or grow food, use a park or a playing field, buy consumer products, advocate for change, or hold elective office or advisory positions, we all play a critical role.

Our work at Beyond Pesticides offers daily insight into the destruction that is being wrought by holding on to practices and toxic chemical dependencies that are defined by piecemeal approaches, antithetical to holistic thinking. As a matter of policy, we are neither preventive nor precautionary. We too often accept the underlying premise of statutory and regulatory frameworks that have been created with this thinking –the thinking that has brought us to this moment of existential crises.

Many see the solution in building resilience— and apply a narrow definition of the word.  

In the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, they write: 

“Resilience in the literature has a wide range of meanings. Adaptation is often organized around resilience as bouncing back and returning to a previous state after a disturbance. More broadly, the term describes not just the ability to maintain essential function, identity and structure, but also the capacity for transformation.”

The IPCC continues:

“The drivers of transformation are multidimensional, involving social, cultural, economic, environmental, technical and political processes. The combination of these creates the potential for abrupt and systemic change . . . .”

In the U.S., the foundation of our agriculture and the management of our built environment is intricately tied to polluting practices, with disproportionate harm affecting segments of our society and world who are exploited, low income, in ill-health, and disproportionately people of color. We have a responsibility to find a different path and we can.

We do not have to be theoretical about this. We have organic systems in place, governed by a clear definition and requirements for compliance with standards. Under the Organic Foods Production Act (in the U.S. and similar statutes worldwide), those selling products as organic are required to adhere to a legal definition of soil management practices, a list of allowed and prohibited substances, a certification and inspection system that establishes compliance with defined organic standards, and a participatory public decision-making process for continuous improvement. This approach, whether in agriculture or in our parks and playing fields, eliminates the reliance on fossil fuel-based toxic chemicals that release greenhouse gases. It also employs the ability of healthy soil, rich in biodiversity, to draw down atmospheric carbon. To this end, Beyond Pesticides advances the continuous improvement of organic agriculture (see Keeping Organic Strong) and the development of Parks for a Sustainable Future. Both programs advance in real-time and with urgency the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. See how you can get involved and to make a difference along with thousands of others.

Our goal must be to adopt productive land management systems that do not use toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers—substances that we can no longer use, if we are to sustain life.

Despite a growing global consensus on the urgency of addressing the climate crisis, the Biden administration has sanctioned several major fossil fuel projects, ensuring the United States maintains its status as the world’s foremost oil and gas producer and exporter. In 2023 alone, the administration approved multiple liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities in Alaska and along the Gulf Coast, conducted a substantial oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico, and expedited the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Furthermore, more onshore and offshore oil and gas lease sales are slated for this year.

 Over 500 groups, including Beyond Pesticides, are calling on President Biden to:

1. STOP FEDERAL APPROVALS for new fossil fuel projects and REPEAL permits for climate bombs like the Willow Project and the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
2. PHASE OUT FOSSIL FUEL DRILLING  on our public lands and waters.
3. DECLARE A CLIMATE EMERGENCY to halt fossil fuel exports and investments abroad, and turbo-charge the build-out of more just, resilient distributed energy (like rooftop and community solar).
4. PROVIDE A JUST TRANSITION to a renewable energy future that generates millions of jobs while supporting workers’ and community rights, job security, and employment equity. Our renewable energy future must not repeat the violence of the extractive past. Justice must ground the transition off fossil fuels to redress the climate, colonialist, racist, socioeconomic, and ecological injustices of the fossil fuel era.

To learn more about the September 17th Climate March to stop fossil fuels, visit https://www.endfossilfuels.us/

The climate crisis is part of a broader set of interconnected crises, including health issues from pesticide-induced diseases, the loss of biodiversity, and catastrophic climate change events.  A study in the journal Nature finds, “The interaction between indices of historical climate warming and intensive agricultural land use is associated with reductions of almost 50% in the abundance and 27% in the number of species within insect assemblages relative to those in less-disturbed habitats with lower rates of historical climate warming.” A study in Environmental Health Perspectives finds the loss of pollinators, “3%–5% of fruit, vegetable, and nut production is lost due to inadequate pollination, leading to an estimated 427,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 86,000-691,000) excess deaths annually from lost healthy food consumption and associated diseases.” That study also finds the economic value of crops to be “12%–31% lower than if pollinators were abundant.”

To address these crises, we need holistic and nature-based solutions, as our relationship with the natural environment has often been overlooked in policy and practice. At Beyond Pesticides, our audacious goal is to eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers within a decade, transitioning to organic management practices. Like the transition off of fossil fuels, achieving this goal requires changing public perceptions of what’s possible and generating public outrage over the slow pace of change.

In this moment of international environmental momentum, we must work together locally and globally, whether it’s buying or growing food, advocating for change, or holding elective office. We must examine the destructive consequences of maintaining toxic chemical dependencies and piecemeal approaches that lack a preventive or precautionary stance.

We need to embrace holistic thinking, recognizing that resilience involves not just bouncing back but also transforming our systems. Organic systems offer a path forward, with clear standards and a focus on healthy soil and biodiversity, reducing reliance on toxic petrochemicals and contributing to carbon sequestration. Our ultimate goal is to sustain life without the use of harmful chemicals that threaten our planet.

For more information on the dangers ongoing pesticide use poses to our ability to combat climate change, see talks from Beyond Pesticides climate change webinar, featuring Rachel Bezner Kerr, PhD, Cornell University professor and co-author of the definitive United Nations (UN) report on climate and food production and Andrew Smith, PhD, chief operating officer of the Rodale Institute and coauthor of several landmark reports on soil biology and carbon sequestration in organic agricultural production. As reported in Beyond Pesticides Daily News in 2022, the longest-running — four-decade — investigation comparing organic and chemical-intensive grain-cropping approaches in North America yields impressive results for organic. In 2022, the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial — 40-Year Report reports on these outcomes: (1) organic systems achieve 3–6 times the profit of conventional production; (2) yields for the organic approach are competitive with those of conventional systems (after a five-year transition period); (3) organic yields during stressful drought periods are 40% higher than conventional yields; (4, 5, and 6) organic systems leach no toxic compounds into nearby waterways (unlike pesticide-intensive conventional farming), use 45% less energy than conventional, and emit 40% less carbon into the atmosphere. And, as the Rodale Institute reports, “Healthy soil holds carbon and keeps it out of the atmosphere.“ Beyond Pesticides reported in 2019 on similar results, from the institute’s 30-year project mark, which have been borne out by another three years of the trials.

Think global and act local: Join the global climate march on September 17th, 2023 and transition your local park to organic land management to end fossil fuels.

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

Source: March to End Fossil Fuels

(Beyond Pesticides, September 7, 2023) During Organic Month, the importance of organic practices is brought into sharp focus by a study published in July in Environmental Health Perspectives, which emphasizes the importance of an organic diet and location to residues of pesticides in the body. The study finds urinary levels of the weed killer glyphosate significantly decrease through an organic diet for pregnant individuals living further than 0.5km (~1640ft) from an agricultural field. However, the study finds that adopting an organic diet among pregnant individuals living closer than 0.5km to an agricultural area does not significantly decrease glyphosate levels, indicating alternative sources of contamination outside of diet. Although past studies prove time and time again that an organic diet can reduce the levels of pesticides in the body, far too few studies investigate how the intervention of the organic diet can alter glyphosate levels among pregnant individuals living near or far from agricultural fields on which the herbicide is used. Furthermore, pesticides’ presence in the body affects human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age.

The study raises the complexity of fully tracking multiple exposures to glyphosate and other pesticides and the need for a more holistic or systemic solution, as embraced by those transitioning to organic management practices and/or the need for regulatory decisions that eliminate the use of toxic chemicals based on the availability of nontoxic alternative practices and products.

Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. This study highlights the importance of where you live and the associated exposure patterns. In the study population, the primary source of chemical exposure appears to differ among vulnerable populations depending on rural-urban location. Suppose rural communities’ primary exposure source comes from agricultural uses, while urban communities mainly encounter glyphosate through diet. Or suppose that residential and urban populations get multiple glyphosate exposures from diet, landscaping, park and playing field use, and roadside or rights-of-way management. In these cases, as this study notes, “[I]t is necessary to understand sources of exposure in diverse populations to develop effective exposure-reduction recommendations.”

Conducted in Idaho, the researchers evaluated the urinary glyphosate concentrations of 39 pregnant individuals living near (0.5km or less; rural) and from (more than 0.5km; urban) agricultural fields routinely treated with pesticides. Randomly, participants receive a supply of organic or conventional (non-organic) groceries (grown with chemical-intensive practices) over two weeks to determine the glyphosate concentration in urine samples. The study compares the difference in urine sample glyphosate concentration between the organic and conventional grocery weeks, stratifying by proximity to agricultural fields. The results find urinary glyphosate levels among individuals furthest from agricultural fields (urban) are moderately lower than those of individuals living near agricultural fields (rural), with the concentrations decreasing when switching from a conventional to an organic diet. Thus, the study suggests that “diet is an important contributor to glyphosate exposure in people living >0:5 km from agricultural fields; for people living near crops, agriculture may be a dominant exposure source during the pesticide spray season.”

Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient in the U.S. and worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulations and readily contaminating soil, water, food, and other resources. As the active ingredient in the popular weed killer Roundup^TM, with use growing especially during the last few decades, extensive glyphosate use has put human, animal, and environmental health at risk. Four out of five U.S. individuals over six years have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies. Exposure to glyphosate has implications for the development of various health anomalies, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, developmental and birth disorders, and autism. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” stark evidence demonstrates links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. EPA’s classification perpetuates adverse impacts, especially among vulnerable individuals, like pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly. Glyphosate’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion, loss of services, and trophic cascades). Moreover, chemical use has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate.

Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health and ecological effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. It is commonly used on crops grown from genetically engineered (GE) companion seeds for various staple crops (e.g., soybeans, cotton, and corn). These GE seeds are glyphosate-tolerant, whose attribute has allowed growers to apply the herbicide and expect that it will kill weeds and not harm the crop. This calculation is changing, however, as weeds develop resistance to glyphosate, causing the industry to double down on its chemical solutions.

This study is one of the first “to examine the effect of an organic diet intervention on glyphosate among people living near and far from agricultural fields.” Most notably, this study is the first to investigate the impact of an organic diet mediation on glyphosate exposure during pregnancy. Pregnancy is a critical window of susceptibility for exposure to glyphosate and other environmental chemicals, as prenatal exposure has associations with adverse birth outcomes that can impact subsequent generations.

Previous studies demonstrate a significant reduction (up to 70 percent for glyphosate) in urinary pesticide metabolites (breakdown products from parent compounds) achieved by a dietary shift from consuming conventionally grown food to organically grown foods in as little as a week. This subject research furthers the investigation of the impacts of an organic diet on pesticide exposure. Like this article, the paper, Organic Diet Intervention Significantly Reduces Urinary Glyphosate Levels in U.S. Children and Adults, reports on the second phase of a two-part study evaluating the same set of urine samples. 

Although the results of this study and others suggest an organic diet effectively reduces exposure to pesticides for most of the general population, rural areas have difficulty avoiding glyphosate exposure because of its use on farms. Thus, sources of glyphosate exposure in rural areas are far beyond diet. Organic agriculture is not magically “free” of all chemicals, given the reality of pesticide drift and background levels in the environment. However, the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, overseen by the National Organic Standards Board and subject to public review and comment, establishes the prohibition of toxic pesticides in certified organic production under the USDA organic seal.

This September, celebrate National Organic Month to improve and sustain human, animal, and environmental health. Emissions from fossil-fuel-based synthetic pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers continue to threaten the ecosystem, fueling the climate crisis. A complete switch from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis by eliminating petrochemical, synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticide use. Furthermore, supporting the use of alternative practices such as polyculture rather than monoculture, mulching systems instead of herbicides for weed management, animal integration, and other organic practices assist in eliminating the need for pesticides and their movement through air (pesticide drift) and into waterways (runoff). 

As for glyphosate, Beyond Pesticides has challenged the registration of this chemical in court due to its impacts on soil, air, water, and our health. While legal battles press on, the agricultural system should eliminate the use of toxic synthetic herbicides to avoid the myriad of problems they cause. Instead, the main focus should be converting to regenerative-organic systems and using least-toxic pest control to mitigate harmful pesticide exposure, restore soil health, and reduce carbon emissions. Public policy must advance this shift, rather than allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides. Additionally, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and adverse health effects. Moreover, Beyond Pesticides provides tools, information, and support to take local action: check out our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup and our report, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed. Contact us for help with local efforts and stay informed of developments through our Daily News Blog and our journal, Pesticides and You. Additionally, check out Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption in glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum. Help to take glyphosate and other toxic pesticides and fertilizers out of your community by collaborating with Beyond Pesticides through our Parks for a Sustainable Future program.

As we forge ahead, converting local parks and playing fields to organic land management practices to make them safer for kids (and pets!) to play in via our Parks for a Sustainable Future program, Beyond Pesticides is also honored to partner with Natural Grocers for Organic Month! As part of their Organic Month Headquarters® campaign, Natural Grocers is donating $2 for every Ladybug Love pouch sold and $1 for every “Organic Month Headquarters” bag sold at all in-store locations to Beyond Pesticides! With your support, we can say YES to the livable future we are working to achieve! 

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

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, September 6, 2023) In late August, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report concluding that EPA “took a siloed approach” to the cumulative impacts of chemical exposures and the disproportionate nature of those exposures. This approach keeps different parts of the EPA from coordinating their efforts and hinders understanding of the breadth and depth of chemical exposures.

OIG reached this disturbing finding despite the issuance of several executive orders by President Biden requiring EPA to develop policies and actions to assess cumulative impacts of chemical exposures across departments, laws, and environmental media (air, water, bodies, food etc.) and to pay more attention to environmental justice.

Beyond Pesticides has stressed that the whole constellation of chemical exposures and effects should be considered when governments set public policies and regulations. Just last March, Daily News covered another OIG report castigating EPA for betraying its mission by failing to address the fact that very high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl compounds known as “forever chemicals” have been found in some common pesticides. OIG also berated EPA for succumbing to Donald Trump’s interference with setting toxicity values for the “forever chemical” perfluorobutane sulfonic acid. These failures, Beyond Pesticides reported, were owing to a “deeper problem afflicting EPA: industry influence on career staff, and an unwillingness from the EPA to address it.”

Although the new OIG study does not focus on pesticides, its findings also apply to populations exposed to pesticides. The report says that EPA has developed neither the procedural protocols for analyzing chemicals across different environmental media and exposure routes nor the proper scientific tests to study chemical mixtures. Among the laws that require cumulative risk assessments for chemicals with a common mechanism of toxicity is the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), an amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which specifically requires EPA to consider cumulative risk in setting tolerances for pesticides.

Pesticides are almost always mixtures of “active” and “inert” ingredients. A 2021 study by Robert Sprinkle, MD, PhD, and Devon Payne-Sturges, DrPH, in Environmental Health, took a comprehensive look at EPA’s practices regarding mixtures, which are a rat’s nest of convoluted reasoning. The authors write that in the original 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, mixtures were excluded from the agency’s definition of a “chemical substance.” What this means in practice is that “[a]n environmental mixture could not be, in TSCA terms, a ‘mixture’ if its components include chemical substances altered in the environment. Nor could the still toxic breakdown products of two different industrial substances constitute a mixture.” There is an exception: if EPA finds that if a mixture’s effects could not be predicted by each constituent’s effects, laboratory testing would be required. This means that the agency could view each component of a mixture as “acting in isolation both from nature and from each other.”

Encouraged by the pesticide industry, EPA only requires the “active” ingredient to be tested, and not the other elements of the mixture, because the latter supposedly has no effect. However, according to Drs. Sprinkle and Payne-Sturges, “In July 2016, an intensive search of applications for patents on pesticide formulations had reported that 96 of 140 (69 percent) had been described by their respective manufacturers as demonstrating ingredient synergies. These synergies, rather than going unmentioned out of fear that their documentation would increase regulatory scrutiny, were being presented to strengthen claims of novelty and, hence, patentability.” EPA could check patent records periodically to find honest industry information.

Tests used to justify the registration of pesticides are usually paid for and conducted by manufacturers or their subcontracted consultancies and laboratories. There is a fairly standard battery of animal tests in laboratories using regulatory toxicological protocols. But, Drs. Sprinkle and Payne-Sturges wrote that this approach “could not be expected to succeed at an integrative task, an environmental-ecological-epidemiological task. Yet laboratory toxicology remained the empirical arbiter of toxicant regulation.”

Moreover, EPA only considers the cumulative effects of groups of chemicals with the same mechanism of action, so any effects must be additive. It does not look for effects from combined chemicals and different mechanisms of action, even though there are many studies demonstrating this. As Patrick Masseo wrote in Environmental Health News, “[O]ur government still lacks a thorough and adequate process to conduct assessments of and to collect critical information about, the cumulative risk and impact of co-exposures such as vinyl chloride via air pollution and dioxins through groundwater contamination.”

Poor people of color often take the brunt of these co-exposures, and environmental justice is often ignored, even though the EPA has both legal obligations and executive instructions to support it. FQPA is a step forward in that it requires taking into account dietary and nondietary exposures, but it also has a huge loophole because it does not include occupational exposure. This omission has a disproportionate effect on people of color, particularly farmworkers and landscapers and their families.

EPA also ignores parts of the Superfund law, formally known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), which entails analyzing the effects of many chemicals at once because almost all Superfund sites contain multiple contaminants and nearby residents are exposed to them.

In its August report, OIG used EPA Region 4’s actions at the 35^th Avenue Superfund site in Birmingham, Alabama as a case in point. Although it has been partially remediated, there has been substantial industry interference with the process. Numerous industries, including two coal-fired coke plants, a cast iron pipe company, a paint and coatings company, an aluminum company, and several other industries are located there. These companies have emitted arsenic, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) benzo(a)pyrene, and other pollutants for more than 100 years. Three neighborhoods cluster around the Superfund site, and the EPA investigation found that soil from the largest coke plant had been used as yard fill on many home lots. The EPA has removed soil from about 650 homes in the three neighborhoods and spent about $46 million so far.

This area of North Birmingham was crucial to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Bethel Baptist Church in the Collegeville neighborhood was a gathering spot for participants in the Freedom Rides. The church was bombed three times during the era. This hard-fought history may be one reason why some residents want to stay in the neighborhood and see it thoroughly cleaned up rather than moving elsewhere.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, conducted a public health consultation with the 35^th Street community. The investigation covered only surface soil and garden produce exposures and only measured levels of arsenic, lead, and benzo(a)pyrene in residents’ blood, even though the pollution in the area contains many other substances. Nor did the ATSDR consider the cumulative impacts of these toxicants combined.

While ATSDR did not find blood lead levels above the EPA reference value of 5 µg/dL, the agency also noted that, even below that threshold, children are at risk of decreased academic achievement, lowered IQ, attention deficits, hearing problems, and delayed growth and puberty. Lead also crosses the placenta and can create a risk of miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, and damage to a fetus’s brain, kidney, and nervous system. Children who play in dirt and ingest it are at particular risk. In adults, lead contributes to kidney problems, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive dysfunction.

Notably, ATSDR’s “next steps” section of its consultation lists seven actions to be taken, five of them directed at parents, such as “prevent[ing] their children from intentionally or inadvertently eating soil, especially for those yards with elevated arsenic, lead, and PAH levels that have not yet been cleaned up and for those yards that have not yet been tested.” These recommendations shift the burden of public health once again to individuals.

The industry has brought further cleanup to a standstill. In 2018, a Birmingham attorney and a vice president of the coke plant responsible for most of the emissions, now owned by the Drummond Company, were convicted of bribing a state legislator to prevent EPA from adding the site to the National Priorities List.  A listing would have enabled long-term cleanup of the area. The EPA could send the bill to the company, and the State of Alabama would have to pay 10% of the cost, which it wanted to avoid. The state environmental director argued that “the site did not pose a health hazard to people living there,” according to AL.com. To keep the state out of the costs of cleanup, the lawyer and the executive bribed the legislator with a $375,000 contract to work against the listing. To date, the 35^th Street Superfund site has not been added to the NPL.

In its August report, OIG states EPA has not coordinated efforts across divisions responsible for enforcing various laws like the Clean Water Act, TSCA, the Clean Air Act, and FQPA because, preposterously, it did not think it had executive or legislative authority to do so. EPA is divided into sections based on these laws, and the sections do not have a history of talking to each other despite the clear legal obligations. This inertia contributes to delays in providing environmental justice to exposed communities and resolving the glaring issue of chemical mixtures.

There is one federal agency that seems to get it. In the mid-2000s, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) began addressing the mixtures problem and its implications for environmental justice. According to Drs. Sprinkle and Payne-Sturges, under the directorship of Linda Birnbaum, PhD, NIEHS began to support research into the “exposome,” meaning “the totality of an individual’s exposure before conception onwards through the lifespan, plus the microbiome plus the genetic and epigenetic diversity of human vulnerability.”

However, since 2016, the undertow of political interference has restricted its ability to achieve this goal. Its reach is also limited because the NIEHS is not a regulatory body and is without the requisite authority to make substantive policy changes. In the meantime, interference with regulatory actions at the EPA is likely to yo-yo again unless there is stability in the executive branch.

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

Source: The EPA Needs to Further Refine and Implement Guidance to Address Cumulative Impacts and Disproportionate Health Effects Across Environmental Programs, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 23-P-0029, Aug.22, 2023.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 5, 2023) Lincoln County, Oregon  community members are fighting a plan announced by a private landowner to aerially spray 473 acres of clear-cut forest over the Beaver Creek watershed with a pesticide mixture containing carcinogenic glyphosate (commonly found in Roundup). 

The aerial spraying is slated to take place approximately one mile from a water intake at Seal Rock Water District, which supplies water to 5,500 residents. Beyond the risks to human health, residents are concerned about the impacts on wildlife in the creek valley. Local advocates describe the area to include native wetland plants, birds, and fish, including the federally protected Coho Salmon and Marbled Murrelet, beaver, river otter, and roaming elk herds. Beavercreek is also a protected state natural area, where families paddle and walk along the state park marshlands. 

Neighbors of Beaver Creek and the surrounding community are organizing phone banking, public art displays, and a petition urging Governor Tina Kotek to put a moratorium on the spray operation. One of the efforts displays the message “legalized poisoning of 5,500 people” through lights projected onto a basalt rock formation at Seal Rock State Park. The community has gathered over 2,000 petition signatures and over 100 public comments to the Oregon Department of Forestry in opposition to the pesticide spraying. A group of residents from the Seal Rock Water District and the neighbors of Beaver Creek basin have also set up a Go-Fund-Me fundraising webpage for expenses and legal fees.

A press release by Stop the Spray, a coalition of community members in the Beaver Creek watershed, says, “The question is whether the people who live in Beaver Creek and downstream have a right to decide what goes into the water they drink… So many have been asking, ‘How is this even legal?’ The community response seems to be, We don’t know, but we’re about to change it.”

The Seal Rock Water District (SRWD) issued a press release in response to residents’ concerns about the anticipated aerial pesticide spraying. The statement said SRWD plans to develop a management plan to protect the water system including: 

1. Shutting the Beaver Creek intake pump station off during the application of herbicides,
2. Allowing the flow in the creek to “move through the stream beyond the POD” (point of diversion), 
3. Sample the raw water and “if results are non-detect, the district will resume operation”
4. If hazardous chemicals are detected the district will report results to the Department of Environmental Quality and Pesticide Educational Resource Collaborative (PERC). PERC is a collaboration between the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, the University of California Davis Division of Continuing and Professional Education, and Oregon State University.  

The statement says SRWD has a “5-day supply of water depending on the time of year.” At the time of this writing, the SRWD website displays a drought warning about low streamflow, high temperatures, and “drier-than-normal conditions” since August 2nd, 2023. 

Residents in Lincoln County have been battling aerial pesticide spraying and drift since the 1970s.  More than five years ago, in an effort to establish more protective pesticide regulations than those provided by the state, voters in Lincoln County approved a ballot measure to establish a county-wide ban on aerial spraying of pesticides.  

In 2017, the issue of whether the state of Oregon has the legal authority to stop a locality from adopting stronger restrictions than the state went to the courts. Landowners Rex Capri and Wakefield Farms, LLC, both of whom use aerial spraying on their properties, filed a legal challenge to the ordinance.

The issue of who has the authority to restrict “toxic trespass” came up in an interview with Ann Kneeland, an attorney for the case’s defendant, Lincoln County Community Rights. Attorney Kneeland said in the Oregon Constitution, all power is inherent in the people, who may reform or abolish the government. Proponents of the ban claim, that the power to self-govern is stated in the Oregon Constitution, which supersedes state laws that preempt (limit the authority of) local governments. 

In 2019, A Circuit Court judge in Lincoln County overturned the county ban on aerial spraying of pesticides, citing the preemption of state law over any local ordinance. Beyond Pesticides commented, “This is a very interesting story in American democracy. How did we get to this point in the history of the [U.S.] that we have taken away the local police powers of our local jurisdictions to protect the local public health of our people? This challenges a basic tenet that this country is based on — local governance.”

Now that the county ban on aerial spraying has been lifted, private landowner Sorn Nymark has received a permit to spray in early September and can be active for 90 days after the start date. In a letter to Mr. Nymark, the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners said, “Oregon law makes the decision to spray or not to spray yours. Your ownership of our precious natural resources also comes with a clear ethical, if not legal, obligation to protect them. We urge you to seek alternative means to control unwanted vegetation.”

To learn more about this local battle to protect residents, visit the “Stop the Spray” coalition website here.

Beyond Pesticides has highlighted and advocated against the poisoning and contamination caused by aerial pesticide spray drift since its inception in 1981, addressed in Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass. The organization’s monitoring of drift issues is ongoing and can be seen in its “Pesticide Drift” archives. The long history of nontarget exposure, contamination, and poisoning teaches that drift is a function of pesticide use, but not considered adequately by regulators who allow the marketing of poisons that are known to move through the environment uncontrolled.

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

Source: Oregon Coastal Community Braces for Pesticide Spray Over Watershed

(Beyond Pesticides, September 1, 2023) As we celebrate Labor Day—a day of acknowledging workers and the work of labor unions—it is essential to remember workers’ contributions to society and consider the challenges they face. Recent reports of Hollywood writer and actor strikes, and Starbucks and Amazon store union petitions have created a sense of a booming union movement. However, there is an ongoing decline in the percentage of the unionized workforce. Although public-sector unionization has experienced slight fluctuations (dropping from 36.7 percent to 33.1 percent between 1983 and 2022), the most significant decrease has occurred in the private sector, where rates dwindled from 16.8 to 6 percent.

While the decline of labor unions is a significant challenge, there is hope for the future if we work to enact meaningful reforms that empower workers and strengthen the labor movement. That’s why, this Labor Day, it is especially appropriate that we continue to express gratitude to all workers—healthcare workers, farmworkers, landscape workers, food processors, grocery workers, and others who put their lives on the line every day.

But our gratitude does not protect anyone’s health. Nobody should have to risk their health for a job. As we as a nation recognize that systemic change is needed to fight racial and economic injustice, we are faced with questions that go to the core of our society—the distribution of wealth, a livable wage, investment in and access to education and health care, protection of the right to vote, and a workplace and environment that sustains life.

The community must renew our commitment to eliminate the racial and economic inequities in our society that contribute to disproportionate risk to the health and well-being of workers, especially people of color who suffer elevated levels of harm. We can do this through the adoption of local, state, and national policies that eliminate toxic pesticide use, which disproportionately affects workers. This is a moment for building coalitions in our communities to advance policies that ensure all aspects of a healthful life and environment, supported by our social structures. In doing this, we recognize that we must join together to build the necessary power to effect meaningful and transformational change that confronts the existential public health (including worker health), climate, and ecological crises.

Beyond Pesticides’ work to advance systemic change will continue to seek changes in underlying policies that codify disproportionate harm, such as federal pesticide law that is built on a foundation that allows elevated and disproportionate risk to workers who are excluded from EPA’s cumulative risk assessment (under the Food Quality Protection Act, amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), which aggregates dietary and nondietary exposure, but explicitly does not include occupational exposure to pesticides, while including a mandate to protect children. With this, the law effectively requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow higher rates of harm for workers, particularly farmworkers, landscapers (workers who are disproportionately people of color), and others occupationally exposed to pesticides. As we rethink our approach to pesticide reform, we ask: Should a science-based, public health-oriented, occupational safety-focused, children-concerned, ecologically protective society allow the use of toxic pesticides that are unnecessary to achieve land management, quality of life, and food productivity goals? The answer, of course, is “no.”

Now is the time to eliminate worker and community hazards by adopting organic land management practices and policies in all our communities. We can eliminate petroleum-based, toxic pesticides and fertilizers, protect workers, and achieve beautiful landscapes and safe playing fields and parks. With increased momentum nationwide, in all parts of the country, all communities can make the transition, as we work with states and the federal government to eliminate our unnecessary dependence on toxic pesticides.

Labor Day is a time to reflect on the progress that has been made in the labor movement and to consider the challenges that workers face today. The holiday is an opportunity to reflect on the labor movement to come from and where it can go.

With this understanding, we must rethink our approach to pesticide reform, including a legislative proposal before Congress introduced earlier this year, that, while well-intentioned, reaffirms institutional biases that codify environmental racism by not embracing changes that question the need for pesticides in view of the availability of nontoxic and organic alternatives.

The time for systemic change is now. In our communities, let’s protect the workers, public health, and the environment. To discuss transitioning your community to organic land management, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future, and contact [email protected].

Source: Union Member Summary, Labor unions aren’t “booming.” They’re dying., History.com

(Beyond Pesticides, August 31, 2023) A study published in Environmental Research finds glyphosate levels in the body adversely affect neurological health. Specifically, oral intake (e.g., eating contaminated foods), inhalation, and dermal exposure to glyphosate lowered cognitive function scores, heightened likelihood of severe depressive symptoms, and impaired auditory (hearing) function. Thus, this study provides some of the first evidence linking glyphosate exposure to specific neurological health outcomes among the general U.S. population, indicating the need for further studies on mechanisms driving neurotoxicity and the medical significance over time. Although this study is among the first to highlight specific neurological effects from glyphosate exposure among the general population, this study is not the first to identify potential neurotoxicity from glyphosate exposure. (Previous research cited below.)

The ubiquity of glyphosate uses in agriculture—which leaves residues of the toxic chemical in food—and in public areas (e.g., parks, and walkways) may mean that exposures to it represent a significant risk factor for the disease. Glyphosate is already implicated or proven in developing numerous health anomalies, including cancer.

The neurological system, including the brain, spinal cord, and a vast network of nerves and neurons, is responsible for many bodily functions—from sensation to movement. However, pesticides play various roles in causing or exacerbating negative health outcomes like neurotoxic effects and chemical damage to the nervous system. The impacts of pesticides on neurological function are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Mounting evidence over the past years shows that chronic exposure to sublethal (low) levels of pesticides adversely affects the central nervous system (CNS) and neural receptors, such as connections between nerves, the brain, enzymes, and DNA. Specifically, researchers identify agricultural chemical exposure as a cause of many adverse CNS impacts and neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, it is essential to understand how toxic chemical exposure can potentially damage neurological function, ultimately leading to more severe health anomalies among future generations.

The study notes, “While the directionality and clinical significance of these associations require further investigation, our findings underscore the need for continued research on the potential neurological effects of glyphosate exposure in adults. Such research can inform public health policy and regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate use and ultimately contribute to the protection of human health.”

Although occupational studies find links between neurological impairment and glyphosate exposure, much less research focuses on general population exposure as the general public still encounters glyphosate exposure through various mediums (e.g., contaminated food and water, proximity to pesticide-treated areas). Using data from the 2013–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), glyphosate exposure (through urinary sample analysis) and cognitive function, depressive symptoms, disability, and neurological medical conditions among the U.S. population. The study examines 1523 individuals aged 18–80 years old. The study finds 80.4% of participants have detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine.  The analysis finds a significant association between urinary glyphosate levels and memory impairment as established by the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease Word List Memory Test (CERAD-WLT). Regardless of glyphosate levels, the presence of glyphosate in urine indicates an increased risk for severe depressive symptoms. Lately, this study finds serious hearing difficulties arose in individuals with higher urinary glyphosate concentrations.

Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulations and readily contaminates soil, water, food, and other resources. Decades of extensive glyphosate herbicide use (e.g., Roundup) have put human, animal, and environmental health at risk. Four out of five U.S. individuals over six years of age have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies. Exposure to glyphosate has implications for the development of various health anomalies, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, developmental and birth disorders, and autism. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” stark evidence demonstrates links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. EPA’s classification perpetuates adverse impacts, especially among vulnerable individuals, like pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly. Glyphosate’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion, loss of services, and trophic cascades). Moreover, chemical use has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate. Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health and ecological effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. Therefore, as glyphosate persists in the environment through continuous use, threats to human, animal, and environmental well-being will only grow.

Regarding other findings linking glyphosate to neurotoxic effects, a 2022 Arizona State University (ASU) study found that glyphosate successfully crosses the blood-brain barrier, accumulating in the brain in a dose-dependent manner. Glyphosate accumulation in brain matter has the potential to elevate the expression of TNFα and accumulation of soluble beta-amyloid (Aβ) proteins commonly present in immune, inflammatory, and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Thus, the ASU study provides a potential mechanism and medically significant outcomes associated glyphosate and neurological impairment that researchers can apply to the current study to determine how glyphosate induces neurotoxicity.

The detectable levels of glyphosate in over 80 percent of patients raises concerns over unaccounted exposure sources since the elimination half-life of glyphosate is between 5.5 and 10 hours. Additionally, this study highlights that aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), the metabolite of glyphosate, is commonly present in soil through degradation. However, AMPA is just as toxic as glyphosate and poses the same health risks. Therefore, transitioning pest management—in agriculture, land management, and household and personal care contexts—to nontoxic and organic approaches to eliminate ecosystem contamination is the critical step to take to protect the health and sustainability of all on Earth.

There is a lack of complete understanding of the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Pesticides’ impact on the nervous system, including the brain, are especially of concern for chronically exposed individuals or during critical windows of vulnerability and development. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and neurological disorders can help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that cause neurodegenerative diseases. Although occupational and environmental factors, like pesticide exposure, adversely affect human health, regulatory reviews are plagued by numerous limitations in defining real-world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) and Daily News Blog. The adverse health effects of pesticides, exposure, and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for a precautionary approach to the regulation of pesticides as more precise research is conducted on occupational and residential pesticide exposure—allowing more complete determinations. Existing information, including this study, supports the clear need for a strategic shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the effects of pesticide exposure on neurological health, see Beyond Pesticides’ PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders, including dementia-like diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, and other impacts on cognitive function. 

Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace regenerative, organic practices, consumers to purchase organic, and gardeners and municipalities to adopt organic land management practices. A complement to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do. 

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

Source: Environmental Research

(Beyond Pesticides, August 30, 2023) Invasive yellow-legged hornets have been spotted near Savannah, Georgia, causing concern among agriculture officials. These hornets are known for their ability to prey on honeybees and other pollinators, and their presence in the United States is a cause for alarm. This is the first time a live specimen of this species has been detected in the open United States, according to the Georgia Department of Agriculture.

The hornets, which are native to Southeast Asia, have been spotted in other parts of the world, including Europe, where they have caused significant damage to bee populations. They are considered “invasive,” which means the hornet is not native and officials expect their introduction to result in economic, environmental, or health-related damage to humans, animals, plants, or the environment. In response to the sighting in Georgia, officials are taking action to eradicate the hornets before they can cause any harm to US agriculture.

One of the methods being used to eradicate the hornets is the localized use of the highly toxic insecticide cypermethrin on nests. The pesticide has been registered for use in agriculture and residential pest control since the 1970s. It kills insects such as mosquitoes, flies, ticks, and agricultural pests like boll weevils and bollworms. The Incident Data System published over 1,400 reports of harm caused by pesticides containing cypermethrin. The chemical has been classified as a Class C possible human carcinogen, and there is evidence that it can cause a range of health problems in humans, including skin irritation, respiratory problems, and neurological effects.

Cypermethrin belongs to the class of pesticides known as pyrethroids, which is gaining popularity despite raising concerns. A preponderance of the evidence shows that pyrethroids, such as cypermethrin, pose several concerning risks to human health. A 2014 study conducted by the University of California, Davis, revealed that homes with detectable levels of pyrethroids in floor wipe tests were associated with elevated levels of pyrethroids in urine. This suggests that exposure to these chemicals occurs within the household environment and enters the human body. The study included both adults and children in California communities, with 63% of participants having detectable pyrethroid levels in their urine.

The presence of pyrethroids in the body has been linked to adverse health effects. A 2013 Canadian study found a correlation between the use of pesticides in or around homes and higher scores on emotional difficulties and conduct problems tests in children. This was further supported by a French study, which strengthened the connection between childhood behavioral disorders and pyrethroid pesticide exposure.

Another significant concern is the impact on early childhood development. A 2017 study demonstrated that higher urinary metabolite levels of cypermethrin, a specific pyrethroid, were associated with an earlier onset of puberty in boys. This suggests that pyrethroid exposure might disrupt normal hormonal development, potentially leading to developmental issues. Additionally, the use of pyrethroids has been associated with an increased risk of cancer. A 2013 study found that termite applications of pyrethroids within a year of pregnancy doubled the risk of a child developing a brain tumor.

The persistence of pyrethroids within the home environment contributes to the high frequency of detections in the general population. Since these chemicals break down slowly, even a single application can remain present for an extended period. A 2019 study applied a pyrethroid in a test home and measured the concentration at 89.6% of the original concentration after 112 days after the application of the pesticide. Subsequent applications contribute to the accumulation of pyrethroids in the household. This persistence is particularly concerning for young children, who are more susceptible to exposure due to activities such as crawling and hand-to-mouth behaviors.

Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman commented, “Removal of opportunist colonizers, like the yellow-legged hornet, may be necessary based on an ecological assessment and an evaluation of the options to ensure a long-term solution compatible with environmental health, but we quickly need to develop biological tools, utilize traps, and adopt cultural practices, rather than rely on the use of toxic chemicals like cypermethrin.”

The discovery of the yellow-legged hornets in Georgia is a reminder of the importance of understanding the toxic chemicals, like cypermethrin, that are used to control unwanted and invasive species. Agriculture officials are urging the public to report any sightings of the hornets to help prevent their spread. In Georgia, you can email [email protected] or submit this form. In Florida, you can email [email protected] or call the Florida hotline 1-888-397-1517.

For almost every pest issue faced today, there exist effective alternatives to synthetic insecticides such as pyrethroids. The ManageSafe tool by Beyond Pesticides offers a comprehensive, step-by-step manual to assist individuals in pest management, covering various pests ranging from cockroaches and bed bugs to head lice and ants. To learn more about the balance between managing invasive species and the risks of using toxic pesticides read Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge.

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

Source: An invasive hornet that hunts honeybees is spotted in the U.S. for the first time, Chemical Watch Factsheet: Cypermethrin, Meeting the “Invasive Species” Challenge

(Beyond Pesticides, August 29, 2023) A study published in Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology finds the widely used azole fungicide, tebuconazole, has damaging impacts on the redox homeostasis (the process of maintaining balance between oxidizing and reducing reactions) and fatty acid composition in honey bees’ brain via oxidative stress. Acute, field-realistic sublethal exposure to tebuconazole decreased the brain’s antioxidant capacity, key antioxidant defense systems, and oxidative degradation and alteration of lipids (fats) in the brain. Thus, this study adds to the scientific literature on the adverse effects of chemical exposure on pollinator health, especially in sublethal concentrations. Degenerating cognitive skills can threaten honey bee survivability, decreasing colony fitness and individual foraging success. Much research attributes the decline of insect pollinators (e.g., commercial and wild bees and monarch butterflies) over the last several decades to the interaction of multiple environmental stressors, from climate change to pesticide use, disease, habitat destruction, and other factors.

Pollinator declines directly affect the environment, society, and the economy. Without pollinators, many plant species, both agricultural and nonagricultural, will decline or cease to exist, as U.S. pollinator declines, particularly among native wild bees, depress crop yields. In turn, the economy will take a hit, since much of the economy (65%) depends upon the strength of the agricultural sector. As the science shows, pesticides are one of the most significant stressors for pollinators. Additionally, the devastating impacts of pesticides on bees and other pollinators and the larger context of what has been called by scientists as the “insect apocalypse.” In a world where habitat loss and fragmentation show no sign of abating, scientists have concluded that the globe cannot afford to continue to subject its critically important wild insects to these combined threats. Therefore, studies like these emphasize the need for improved assessment for environmentally relevant levels of chemical exposure to honey bees.

The study notes, “[R]edox imbalance and oxidative stress-related negative consequences may be factors of crucial importance in the background of neurotoxicity and cognitive impairment observed by the abovementioned research groups in tebuconazole-exposed bees. Therefore, it is vital to understand whether tebuconazole may have a negative impact on the redox homeostasis of honeybees, possibly contributing to the development of further pathological conditions.”

Using adult honey bees, the researchers exposed the bees to acute sublethal, field-realistic concentrations of tebuconazole in high, medium, and low doses. The researchers analyze the fatty acid composition and oxidative factors in the brain of honey bees, including total antioxidant capacity (TAC), state of the glutathione defense system, the activity of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and xanthine oxidase (XO), and the production of malondialdehyde (MDA).

The results show tebuconazole has a profound impact on oxidation in the brain. It decreases antioxidant capacity, reducing the ratio of oxidized glutathione for preventing damage to important cellular components and disrupting antioxidant enzymatic defense systems, inducing lipid (fat) peroxidation (oxidative degeneration of fats) through elevated malondialdehyde levels.  This alters the fatty acid profile in honey bee brains.

The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of adverse environmental effects, especially on wildlife, biodiversity, and human health. Most notably, pesticides are immensely harmful to pollinators. Over the last decade and a half, increasing scientific evidence shows a clear connection between the role of pesticides in the decline of honey bees and wild pollinators (e.g., wild bees, butterflies, beetles, birds, bats, etc.). Pollinators’ decline directly affects the environment, society, and the economy Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. Hence, pesticide use fails to support sustainability goals, decreasing agricultural and economic productivity and social (human/animal) and environmental well-being.

The study emphasizes oxidative stress’ role in pesticide toxicity among nontarget species. An alteration in redox homeostasis has an association with many diseases and neurodegenerative disorders and may be a significant factor in regulating cell growth, senescence, and aging. Tebuconazole is a (tri)azole compound that can directly impact cellular metabolic processes like antioxidation. The chemical also has a history of affecting bee behavior, foraging effectiveness, pollination, learning, and colony development, indicating impact on the brain. Behavioral changes and an overall decrease in cognitive function have a strong correlation with triazole-induced oxidative stress.

Although literature on oxidative stress, neurodegenerative disorders and honey bees is lacking, this study provides evidence that future studies must assess how pesticides impact cognitive function among invaluable insects. Additionally, triazole fungicides can work synergistically with other bee-toxic pesticides, like neonicotinoids (insecticide), amplifying adverse effects on health. In fact, systemic neonicotinoid insecticides put 89% or more of U.S. endangered species at risk. The study attributed pesticide toxicity to the ongoing pollinator crisis, highlighting that more extensive research on triazole-mediated health effects is essential for the conservation of honey bees and endangered pollinators. The researchers say, “[T]he negative impact of tebuconazole on honeybees and contributes to the understanding of potential consequences related to azole exposure on pollinator insects’ health, such as the occurrence of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).”

Pollinator protection policies need improvements to safeguard all pollinators and the crops they pollinate. Beyond Pesticides holds that we must move beyond pesticide reduction to organic transition and commit to toxic pesticide elimination in our agricultural system to prevent the crop loss presented in this study. Pesticide elimination can alleviate the effect of these toxic chemicals on humans and wildlife. With EPA failing to take the most basic steps to protect declining pollinators, it is up to concerned residents to engage in state and community action and demand change. Moreover, the government should pass policies that eliminate a broad range of pesticides by promoting organic land management. Habitat in and of itself may assist, but it must be free of pesticides to protect wild pollinator populations.

To protect wild bees and other pollinators, check out what you can do by using pollinator-friendly landscapes and pollinator-friendly seeds, engaging in organic gardening and landscaping, and supporting organic agriculture through purchasing decisions. Learn more about the science and resources behind the adverse effects of pesticides on pollinators and take action against the use of pesticides. Buying, growing, and supporting organic will help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management and regenerative organic agriculture eliminate the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. For more information on the organic choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpages, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture, Lawns and Landscapes, and Parks for a Sustainable Future. 

Learn more by registering for the virtual 40th National Forum Series, Forging a Future with Nature: The existential challenge to end petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use, starting on September 14, 2023. Visit our to Forum website.

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

Source: Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2023) As the need to eliminate petrochemical fertilizers looms large in the context of existing existential crises relating to health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency, the leadership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under increasing public scrutiny. One program that is being closely watched is the agency’s Safer Choice product labeling program which could, according to advocates, be strategic in differentiating in the marketplace those products that are not contributing to the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and dramatic health effects.

Beyond Pesticides is advocating, in response to a request for public comment from EPA (due September 11, 2023), that EPA (under its Safer Choice program) evaluate fertilizers for compatibility with natural systems, protection of soil organisms, waterways, human health, and helping to mitigate the climate and biodiversity crises. With the Safer Choice label, consumers—from farmers, landscapers, to gardeners—could determine at the point of sale which fertilizer products are not contributing to the floods, fires, and loss of life associated with the climate crisis.

Beyond Pesticides previously initiated an action urging that EPA’s Safer Choice program be more holistic and in sync with natural systems, not just a product substitution program. This week, Beyond Pesticides is taking action (see below) on a specific request to EPA that it labels certain fertilizers as Safer Choice for meeting standards that support the sustainability of life in agriculture, landscaping, and gardening as opposed to introducing (i) petrochemical fertilizers that contribute to the climate emergency, biodiversity collapse, and the destruction of biological systems, or (ii) biosolids that disperse hazardous contaminants. Written comments are due by September 11, 2023 (instructions below). 

EPA is considering expanding its Safer Choice program (not to be confused with Beyond Pesticides’ pre-existing Safer Choice program). EPA’s Safer Choice is a non-regulatory program that identifies alternative chemicals for a number of uses that meet expanded safety criteria. (For pesticidal uses, the program is called Design for the Environment (DfE), which has so far been limited to disinfectants.)  

Tell EPA to add fertilizer products to Safer Choice. | Comment text at the bottom of the page.

For problems requiring a chemical solution—for example, laundry detergents—EPA’s Safer Choice is a valuable resource, and consumers would be wise to look for the Safer Choice label, which requires that EPA review all chemical ingredients, that must meet safety criteria for both human health and the environment, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, toxicity to aquatic life, and persistence in the environment. While EPA’s Safer Choice/DfE program does an admirable job of performing alternative analyses on chemicals and identifying chemicals that are less hazardous, it stops short of identifying systems that make chemical inputs unnecessary. Substituting a less toxic pesticide, for example, is not the same as switching to available organic methods. 

However, sometimes the choice of material drives the choice of system—as is the case for fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers—those granular, powdered, or liquid products identified by NPK (the percentages of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium)—consist of highly-soluble chemical salts that feed plants directly, but poison soil microorganisms. The choice of such fertilizers rules out an organic system in which fertility inputs feed organisms in the soil, which release substances that feed plants. Chemical fertilizers also contribute to climate change because they are produced with fossil fuels and limit the ability of soil to draw down (sequester) atmospheric carbon, thus undermining efforts to mitigate the climate emergency and the horrific fire and flooding events that destroy life. Chemical fertilizers, in addition, produce weak growth that invites insects to feed on the plants. Aphids, for example, have long been known to increase on plants fertilized with soluble nitrogen fertilizer. 

EPA encourages the land application of biosolids (sewage sludge), noting benefits to soil fertility and structure and other “economic and waste management benefits (e.g., conservation of landfill space; reduced demand on nonrenewable resources like phosphorus; and a reduced demand for synthetic fertilizers).” However, as summarized by the Guardian, “Now the practice is behind a growing number of public health problems. Spreading pollutant-filled biosolids on farmland is making people sick, contaminating drinking water and filling crops, livestock, and humans with everything from pharmaceuticals to PFAS.” Biosolids used as fertilizer also contribute plastic to the soil. Unfortunately, many products derived from biosolids are sold as “organic” fertilizers. 

The wise gardener or farmer chooses soil amendments that are not toxic to the soil, environment, or consumers. One way to ensure freedom from chemical fertilizers or biosolids is to look for the OMRI (Organic Materials Review Institute) seal. Organic standards specifically prohibit the use of sewage sludge (aka biosolids), but the home gardener may not always be able to discern the materials from which “organic” fertilizers are made. In addition, “organic” fertilizers sourced from composted manure generally come from nonorganic confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and may also contain undesirable contaminants, such as antibiotics, antibiotic resistance genes, pesticide degradants, or heavy metals. Since these contaminants are not regulated, Safer Choice could offer an additional indicator of safety for gardeners and farmers. 

Dates:

•  Virtual Listening Session: August 29, 2023, 2:00–3:00 p.m. EST. To receive the webcast meeting link and audio teleconference information before the meeting, you must register by 5 p.m. EST on August 28, 2023. 
• Special Accommodations: To allow EPA time to process your request for special accommodations, please submit the request on or before August 22, 2023. 
• Written Comments: Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2023. 

Tell EPA to add fertilizer products to Safer Choice. | Comment text at the bottom of the page.

This action uses Regulation.gov to submit comments to EPA’s docket. Comments must be submitted by September 11, 2023. Beyond Pesticides urges the public to consider submitting comments (copying and pasting the following is an option).

Comments to EPA

As EPA considers expanding the Safer Choice program, I request that it add the category of fertilizers or soil amendments.  

For problems requiring a chemical solution—for example, laundry detergents—EPA’s Safer Choice is a valuable resource, and consumers would be wise to look for the Safer Choice label, which requires that EPA review all chemical ingredients, that must meet safety criteria for both human health and the environment, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, toxicity to aquatic life, and persistence in the environment. While EPA’s Safer Choice/DfE program does an admirable job of performing alternative analyses on chemicals and identifying chemicals that are less hazardous, it stops short of identifying systems that make chemical inputs unnecessary. Substituting a less toxic pesticide, for example, is not the same as switching to available organic methods. 

However, sometimes the choice of material drives the choice of system—as is the case for soil amendments. Chemical fertilizers—those granular, powdered, or liquid products identified by NPK (the percentages of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium)—consist of highly-soluble chemical salts that feed plants directly, but poison soil microorganisms. The choice of such fertilizers rules out an organic system in which fertility inputs feed organisms in the soil, which release substances that feed plants. Chemical fertilizers also contribute to climate change because they are produced with fossil fuels and limit the ability of soil to draw down (sequester) atmospheric carbon, thus undermining efforts to mitigate the climate emergency and the horrific fire and flooding events that destroy life. Chemical fertilizers, in addition, produce weak growth that invites insects to feed on the plants. Aphids, for example, have long been known to increase on plants fertilized with soluble nitrogen fertilizer. 

EPA encourages the land application of biosolids (sewage sludge), noting benefits to soil fertility and structure and other “economic and waste management benefits (e.g., conservation of landfill space; reduced demand on nonrenewable resources like phosphorus; and a reduced demand for synthetic fertilizers).” However, as summarized by the Guardian, “Now the practice is behind a growing number of public health problems. Spreading pollutant-filled biosolids on farmland is making people sick, contaminating drinking water and filling crops, livestock, and humans with everything from pharmaceuticals to PFAS.” Biosolids used as fertilizer also contribute plastic to the soil. Unfortunately, many products derived from biosolids are sold as “organic” fertilizers. 

The wise gardener or farmer chooses soil amendments that are not toxic to the soil, environment, or consumers. One way to ensure freedom from chemical fertilizers or biosolids is to look for the OMRI (Organic Materials Review Institute) seal. Organic standards specifically prohibit the use of sewage sludge (aka biosolids), but the home gardener may not always be able to discern the materials from which “organic” fertilizers are made. In addition, “organic” fertilizers sourced from composted manure generally come from nonorganic confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and may also contain undesirable contaminants such as antibiotics, antibiotic resistance genes, pesticide degradants, or heavy metals. Since these contaminants are not regulated, Safer Choice could offer an additional indicator of safety for gardeners and farmers. 

Please add the category of fertilizers or soil amendments to Safer Choice. 

Thank you. 

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2023) A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and National Park Service collaborative survey report finds a harmful mixture of pollutants, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, caffeine, methylparaben, algal toxins, and fecal and parasitic bacteria, in Pipestone Creek at Pipestone National Monument in Minnesota, U.S.— adding to evidence of widespread pesticide contamination in waterways across the U.S. Pesticide contamination in waterways is historically commonplace. A 1998 USGS analysis revealed pesticides are commonly found in all U.S. waterways, with at least one pesticide detectable. Thousands of tons of pesticides enter rivers and streams around the US from agricultural and nonagricultural sources, which contaminate essential drinking water sources, such as surface water and groundwater. As the number of pesticides in waterways increases, it has detrimental impacts on aquatic ecosystem health, especially as some pesticides work synergistically with others to increase the severity of the effect. Reports like these are significant tools for determining appropriate regulatory action to protect human, animal, and environmental health. 

The survey collected water samples from Pipestone Creek, the pipestone quarries, and Winnewissa Falls, all of which are on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of impaired waters for turbidity (reduced water clarity) and fecal coliform bacteria (E. coli). Turbidity and fecal coliform levels are high enough to suggest a probable health hazard.

With 21 water-quality samples from eight creek sites and three quarries, the researchers analyzed the samples for over 250 water-quality parameters and contaminants. All sample concentrations for nitrate, total nitrogen in Pipestone Creek, and some sample concentrations of total phosphorus in quarries exceed Minnesota standards and EPA nutrient criteria. Measurable concentrations of pollutants are present in samples, including 13 pesticides, five pharmaceuticals, two other types of micropollutants (caffeine and methylparaben), two algal toxins (cyanotoxins), three fecal indicator bacteria, and parasitic bacterium. The pesticides atrazine, deethylatrazine, metolachlor ethanesulfonic acid, and total coliform bacteria (fecal coliform and Escherichia coli [E. coli]) are detectable in all 21 samples. Although none of the pollutant concentrations exceed any Minnesota standards or EPA aquatic life benchmarks, except the acute toxicity benchmark for atrazine in nonvascular plants, federal regulation fails to consider the potential synergistic and additive threats of these chemicals and pathogens to ecosystems and organisms.

Pesticide contamination of surface waterways and groundwater raises an issue of deficient waterway monitoring and regulations that allow pesticides to accumulate in waterways. While EPA is responsible for protecting human and environmental health from pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and point source pollution in waterways as controlled by the Clean Water Act, EPA’s waterway regulations have been criticized as highly deficient. Critics say that they do little to protect aquatic ecosystem health, which marine and terrestrial species, including humans, depend on. Previously, USGS-NAWQA criticized EPA for not establishing sufficient water quality benchmarks for pesticides. According to NAWQA, “Current standards and guidelines do not completely eliminate risks posed by pesticides in waterways because: (1) values are not established for many pesticides, (2) mixtures and breakdown products are not considered, (3) the effects of seasonal exposure to high concentrations have not been evaluated, and (4) some types of potential effects, such as endocrine disruption and unique responses of sensitive individuals, have not yet been assessed.”

Previous USGS reports demonstrate that pesticides are ubiquitous in the aquatic environment and a pervasive contaminant of freshwater ecosystems. Many of the most commonly used pesticides in the U.S. are detectable in both surface and groundwater, which serve as drinking water sources for half of the U.S. population. However, Pipestone Creek reinforces an all too familiar pattern of pesticide contamination in waterways, not only across the U.S. but the globe. Pesticide-contaminated rivers and streams can discharge polluted water into oceans and lagoons like the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), where a mixture of over 20 different pesticides are present in 99.8% of GBR samples. Additionally, water quality surveys usually detect the presence of more than one pesticide compound in waterways and the possible toxicity on marine organisms. 

Pesticides can adversely affect terrestrial organism health (e.g., endocrine disruption, reproductive defects, neurotoxicity, cancer, etc.), exacerbating infectious disease prevalence, especially in these aquatic environments. For instance, pesticide pollution, attributed to runoff from agricultural farms, indirectly increased the rate of the tropical disease schistosomiasis in Kenya, infecting over 280 million people (2018). Schistosomiasis (snail fever), or bilharzia, is a tropical disease caused by parasitic flatworms (trematodes) in the genus Schistosoma and transmitted via freshwater snail (genus Biomphalaria) to its definitive human host. While the snail could withstand pesticide contamination, the chemical killed off predators of the freshwater snail, resulting in an unabated increase in freshwater snails as an intermediate host for the parasitic flatworms. Additionally, pesticides like glyphosate have antimicrobial properties that indiscriminately kill bacteria, most often living behind resilient, pathogenic bacteria like E. coli and Salmonella. These glyphosate-resistant strains alter gene function to enhance the outflow of glyphosate from the bacterial cell. Thus, this resistance mechanism can encourage cross-resistance against antibiotics for pathogenic bacterial species like E. coli and Salmonella.

Pesticide use can also create bacteria-dominant ecosystems as these chemicals cause “vacant ecological niches, so rare organisms become abundant and vice versa.” The bacteria outcompete beneficial fungi, improving soil productivity and increasing carbon sequestration capacity. The resulting soil ecosystem is unhealthy and imbalanced, with a reduction in the natural cycling of nutrients and resilience. Thus, like humans, plants grown in such conditions are more vulnerable to parasites and pathogens. 

Water is the most abundant and important chemical compound on earth, essential to survival and the main component of all living things. Less than three percent of that water is freshwater, and only a fraction of that freshwater is groundwater (30.1%) or surface water (0.3%) readily available for consumption. However, ubiquitous pesticide use threatens to reduce the amount of available freshwater as pesticide runoff, recharge, and improper disposal tend to contaminate adjacent waterways, like rivers, streams, lakes, or underground watersheds. With rivers and streams only accounting for 2% of surface waters, protecting these vulnerable ecosystems from further degradation, including aquatic biodiversity loss and a decrease in water quality/drinkability, is essential.

To protect the nation’s and world’s waterways and reduce the number of pesticides that make their way into your drinking water, reliance on pesticides must cease. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for protective federal regulation that considers potential synergistic and additive threats to ecosystems and organisms from admixtures of pesticides — whether in formulated products or “de facto” in the environment. Unfortunately, current administration regulations fail to consider the environment holistically, thus creating limitations in the ability to enact widespread change that improves ecosystem health. However, advocating for local and state pesticide reform policies can protect you and your family from pesticide-contaminated water. Furthermore, organic/regenerative systems conserve water, nurture fertility, reduce surface runoff and erosion, reduce the need for nutrient input, and critically eliminate the toxic chemicals that threaten many aspects of human and ecosystem life, including water resources.

For more information about pesticide contamination in water, see the Threatened Waters program page and Beyond Pesticides’ article Pesticides in My Drinking Water? Individual Precautionary Measures and Community Action. Tell the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to “turn off the tap” on forever chemicals and persistent toxic pesticides must be considered to pose an “unreasonable risk to the environment under FIFRA, resulting in the cancellation of their registrations.

Source: USGS

(Beyond Pesticides, August 23, 2023) Researchers are investigating a cutting-edge method to identify the impact of pesticides on reproductive health—shrinking the wait time from months to weeks. Scientists at the University of California, Davis, are developing a method for identifying harmful chemicals in pesticides with the help of glowing fish. This scientific breakthrough could revolutionize pesticide research and help prevent long-term health problems caused by exposure to these chemicals. 

Pesticide exposure can cause acute and long-term health problems for the human endocrine system, the hormone system that regulates many biological processes from reproduction to blood sugar, growth, and more. Beyond Pesticides has written about the connections between EPA-registered pesticides and involuntary abortions, reproductive cancers, pregnancy loss, early-onset puberty, and more.  

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has expressed concern over the limited or missing data regarding the health effects of pesticides and food additives on infants and children, who are more vulnerable to chemical exposures. AAP has identified several compounds as being of particular concern, including bisphenols, which are commonly used in the lining of metal cans; phthalates, which are used in adhesives and plasticizers; nonpersistent pesticides, which have been addressed in a previous AAP policy statement; perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs), which are used in grease-proof paper and paperboard food packaging; perchlorate, an antistatic agent used for packaging in contact with dry foods with surfaces that do not contain free fat or oil; nitrates and nitrites; and artificial food coloring. In 2012, AAP issued a statement on childhood exposures to pesticides concluding that reducing pesticide exposures in foods may be significant for children. AAP also noted that choosing organic food, which has significantly lower toxic pesticide residues, is also beneficial to larger environmental issues, as well as human health impacts like pollution and global climate change. 

These risks to reproductive health and multigenerational impacts is where the red- and green-glowing zebrafish come in. Sean Burgess, PhD and Bruce Draper, PhD are developing a new approach with a genetically modified strain of zebrafish called Danio rerio. The modified or “transgenic” strains of fish have been developed through a process of altering the fishes’ DNA by combining it with DNA from other organisms or inserting foreign DNA. Fluorescent genes can be added to aid in tracking proteins, cells, and organs (like gonads and ovaries). The new strain of zebrafish, Danio rerio, displays their sex through color coding, with green fluorescent protein produced by Sertoli cells found only in the male gonad and red fluorescent protein produced by oocytes found only in the female gonad. By exposing a few dozen zebrafish larvae to a chemical and waiting several weeks to see if their sex ratio is skewed toward males, scientists can quickly determine if the chemical is harmful. 

The new method, developed by Dr. Burgess and Dr. Draper, is much faster than traditional methods, which require waiting until 90 days post-fertilization to distinguish sexually-mature male and female zebrafish visually. The UC Davis researchers claim that the fishes’ color-coded gonads should allow scientists to determine the sex of the genetically modified zebrafish within 10-20 days post-fertilization.  

Dr. Burgess, a professor in the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, studies the reproductive toxicity that can result in infertility, repeated miscarriages, or children with increased risk for Down syndrome and other chromosome disorders. Dr. Burgess said, “[The new method is] way more efficient than anything else out there right now. We have high expectations that this is going to work.” 

Traditional testing methods for pesticide impact on reproduction are often time-consuming and costly, as they rely on dissecting mice to find the chemical effects on reproductive tissues. To avoid this process, Zebrafish are freshwater fish native to South Asia and they are frequently used to study the early stages of human development. Dr. Draper said, “Seventy percent of the genes in zebrafish have human counterparts, called orthologs.” 

The researchers hope to begin using their “GloNad” assay for toxicity screening in a pilot experiment to screen nine of the most commonly used pesticides in California for reproductive effects. This initial test could eventually pave the way for broader use of the GloNad assay. Critics of transgenic strains, like the Danio rerio, have voiced moral, environmental, and public health concerns about genetic modification. However, Dr. Burgess and Dr. Draper are not planning to release the fish into the natural environment or sell them for consumption, rather they are being used for pesticide research alone.  

Ninety pesticides are currently known to the state of California to cause birth defects or reproductive harm and require cancer warnings under Prop65. But these toxicities could potentially be linked to a broader range of pesticides and other chemicals, such as the aforementioned bisphenols, which are used in manufacturing some plastics. 

The method developed by Dr. Burgess and Dr. Draper could benefit millions of people in California’s Central Valley, who are at elevated risk for exposure to pesticides because they live or work near agricultural production sites. With the help of red- and green-glowing zebrafish, scientists may be able to identify harmful chemicals far more quickly and prevent the long-term health impacts of pesticides. Read more about the connection between reproductive health and pesticides in Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News archives here.  

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

Source: Using Glowing Fish to Detect Harmful Pesticides 

(Beyond Pesticides, August 23, 2023) The use of pesticides on pets for fleas and ticks (parasiticides) has been traced to environmental contamination in a study that confirms earlier work both by the authors and internationally, according to researchers Rosemary Perkins, a veterinary surgeon, and David Goulson, PhD at the University of Sussex. The results are published in their recent study, “To flea or not to flea: survey of UK companion animal ectoparasiticide usage and activities affecting pathways to the environment,” which concludes that, “[T]he potential cumulative impact of parasiticide emissions [into the environment] from many millions of pets treated multiple times each year is of serious concern.”

The UK provides an opportunity to pinpoint water contamination from pet use for ectoparasites (e.g., fleas and ticks) of hazardous pesticides since, unlike in the U.S., the country has banned outdoor use of those chemicals commonly detected—the insecticides fipronil and imidacloprid (the same neonicotinoid bug killer tied to devastating losses of bees and other organisms). These findings confirm the historical peer reviewed scientific literature and defy the assumption of regulators that home or veterinary use of pesticides do not reach levels of concern for environmental contamination, either through exposure from down-the-drain (DTD) contamination or direct environmental transfer.

As the authors point out:

“Both fipronil and imidacloprid have been restricted for agricultural use in the UK due to concerns regarding their impact on non-target invertebrates. Fipronil’s approval for use as a plant protection product ended in 2017 (European Commission, 2019a) and the outdoor use of imidacloprid was banned in 2018 (European Food Safety Authority, 2018a). At present no plant protection products containing fipronil or imidacloprid are registered for use in the UK (Health and Safety Executive, 2022).” 

In 2016, a study of eight San Francisco Bay (San Francisco, CA, USA) wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) reached a dramatic conclusion: “This first regional study on fiprole and imidacloprid occurrences in raw and treated California sewage revealed ubiquity and marked persistence to conventional treatment of both phenylpyrazole and neonicotinoid compounds. Flea and tick control agents for pets are identified as potential sources of pesticides in sewage meriting further investigation and inclusion in chemical-specific risk assessments.” In 2020, a team of researchers, including Dr. Goulson, found widespread contamination of English waterways with imidacloprid and fipronil, which they attributed to veterinary use, given the fact, in part, that the chemicals had by that time been banned for outdoor uses in the UK.

In the study, the authors identify numerous environmental exposure routes from ectoparasiticide (to treat insects on the body’s surface) pet use through: down the drain and waste water treatment plants, swimming and bathing after application, urine and stool after systemic absorption of the chemicals, washing of treated animals’ bedding and other contacted textiles, owners’ washing of hands, and shedding hair and skin. The data cited in the literature identifies significant environmental exposure that is overlooked or simply assumed to be low by regulators. As the authors note: “Further studies are required to quantify the load entering the environment through various pathways for the different parasiticides—including studies providing reliable emissions fractions for the routes and activities described above, and studies investigating the frequency of emitting activities. This study aims to shed light on the frequency of activities that are likely to lead to transfer of ectoparasiticides from pets to the environment, with a focus on DTD and direct pathways to waterways, including bathing of dogs (Teerlink, Hernandez & Budd, 2017), washing of their bedding (Jacobs et al., 2001) and swimming (Diepens et al., 2023).”

In the U.S., the cumulative environmental exposure pathway associated with pet use of pesticides raises issues of elevated exposure to aquatic system and adverse impact on the aquatic food web. As disclosed in the Beyond Pesticides piece Poisoned Waterways, alarms began to go off when the EPA found in its 2017 risk assessment for the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, that, “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.” (USEPA. 2017. Preliminary Aquatic Risk Assessment to Support the Registration Review of Imidacloprid. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Washington DC.) The agency evaluated an expanded universe of adverse effects data and finds that acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) toxicity endpoints are lower (adverse effects beginning at 0.65 µg/L (micrograms per liter)-acute and 0.01 µg/L-chronic effects) than previously established aquatic life benchmarks (adverse effects from 34.5 µg/L-acute and 1.05µg/L-chronic effects). In its 2017 risk assessment, EPA finds risks from imidacloprid exposure to ecologically important organisms not previously evaluated as part of its regulatory review. Despite its acknowledgement that current benchmarks are not adequately protective, EPA describes its review process as requiring studies of the most sensitive organisms and a range of publicly available environmental laboratory and field studies. The addition of the veterinary use exposure pathway raises serious concerns in an environment that is already at or beyond the threshold of concern for aquatic life.

The pet study sets up a framework for quantifying the pathways of contamination as a result of veterinary use of parasiticides. The study authors generated 1,009 complete questionnaire responses on ectoparasiticide use data, looking at both use of oral medications (more popular among dog owners) and spot-on treatments (more popular among cat owners). This followed a pilot survey of 155 respondents (sample size of 385 people/household) from June to July, 2020. Participants were recruited from social media, over 18 years old, and included a mix of cat and dog owners. Over 81% of pet owners report that they were advised by veterinarians to use prophylactic flea/tick treatment throughout the year. Over 7% were advised to only use the chemicals during the warmer months. The study documents frequency of bathing and swimming of treated pets, and bed washing. The authors estimate the volume of use of the pesticides, with 9.4 million doses of imidacloprid (the most popular ectoparasiticide), with over one-third treated pets swimming at least once a month and over half being bathed once a month.

The study is indicative of exposure pathways of ectoparasiticides that, if not considered in the regulatory review of these chemicals, are missed as critical issues of environmental impact by regulators.

For information on caring for pets without toxic chemical exposure, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pets and Pesticides: Keeping Our Campanions Safe webpage. And always check out Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticides Hazards and Safe Pest Management when using specific pesticide products to find out the toxicological and environmental information on pesticides, as well as alternatives to their use.

You have an exciting and unique opportunity to meet Dr. Goulson live at Beyond Pesticides 40^th National Forum, Forging a Future with Nature, September 14, 2023, 1:00-3:30pm(Eastern-US). You can register here.

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

Source: To flea or not to flea: survey of UK companion animal ectoparasiticide usage and activities affecting pathways to the environment

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2023) A recently completed study (available in preprint before peer review) identifies the development of what the authors term “Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance” (TILT), the constellation of symptoms associated with chemical exposures. The authors describe a two-part process. First, during initiation, a person is exposed at an acute level or repeated low-level doses to a toxicant, such as an organophosphate pesticide or a natural substance like mold, that triggers immune reactions from mast cells, which are crucial immune system regulators. Stage 2, or triggering, is when exposure to previously tolerated substances causes the mast cells to degranulate, or release many inflammatory molecules such as histamines and cytokines into the cellular environment. The work is spearheaded by Claudia B. Miller, M.D., immunology professor emeritus at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, along with Nicholas Ashford, PhD, professor of technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and other researchers. Dr. Miller’s talk on the subject is found at Beyond Pesticides 2022 National Forum site (go to 7:50 time stamp).

Western medicine, for all its spectacular successes, has tended to view the human body as separate from its environment. Further, it divides the body into various systems and zones, which, though understood to be interrelated, have their own sets of symptoms, derangements, and diseases. In addition, the discipline of toxicology—especially regulatory toxicology—until very recently has been unable to account for exposure to multiple toxicants—pesticides, building materials, medical equipment, antibiotics, and molds—simultaneously or in series.

The last couple of decades, however, have begun to shed light on the consequences of exposure to many different chemicals that may affect different body systems and result in constellations of symptoms and disorders previously unconnected in the medical mind. Now people with what has been called Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) or Chemical Intolerance (CI) have a framework that begins to explain their problems. Some 15 percent to 36 percent of U.S. adults have reported symptoms of these disorders. Medical practitioners do not currently agree on the causes, development, or treatment of MCS/CI.

Dr. Miller finds that clinicians’ “failure to ask patients about possible initiating events has caused confusion concerning the origins of other comorbid conditions such as ADHD, autism, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, migraine headaches, depression, anxiety, brain fog, and other cognitive and mood difficulties.” Moreover, Dr. Miller and colleagues note that in concurrent exposures to different toxicants, many symptoms are common to more than one, resulting in a “masking” effect. Once someone develops TILT, intolerances to structurally different chemicals may arise, ranging from pesticides and paints to anesthetics and hairdressing chemicals. Notably, women develop TILT more than men, possibly because women are more likely to use fragranced cosmetics, soaps, sprays, fragranced cleaning, and laundry products, usually in confined spaces. However, men are formally diagnosed with MCS more often, possibly reflecting medical gender bias.

In 2021 Beyond Pesticides reported on a study in which the researchers investigated initiating events by studying eight groups with chemical intolerance who had known exposures to different toxicants: EPA workers in offices where new carpet was installed; Gulf War veterans; casino workers exposed to organophosphate pesticides; pilots and cabin crews breathing aircraft oil fumes; World Trade Center first responders and others in close proximity to the buildings; breast and other implant recipients; people exposed to mold at home; and tunnel workers breathing benzene. Among these groups, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which were present in nearly all the toxicants studied, were the most common initiators.

Some of the most egregious exposures were suffered by military members during the Gulf War, who were required to swallow pyridostigmine bromide to help defend against possible chemical weapons. This compound’s effects resemble those of organophosphate pesticides. Some 100,000 soldiers were directly exposed to sarin and cyclosarin when the U.S. blew up an Iraqi weapons depot. In addition, soldiers’ uniforms were saturated with lindane, an organophosphate pesticide and member of the Stockholm Dirty Dozen now banned for U.S. agricultural use but still allowed as a second-line treatment for lice and scabies. Permethrin, a pyrethroid insecticide, was also used on uniforms, and in combination with the insect-repellent DEET (also given to soldiers), it has neurotoxic effects.

In this previous study, the authors noted that the post-World War Two expansion of petrochemicals into pesticides, solvents, dyes, and fragrances mushroomed, and in the 1970s building construction became more airtight even as Americans spent more and more of their time indoors—the latter proportion now at 90 percent. This has resulted in more people being exposed to a staggering array of synthetic chemicals (defined by the authors as compounds not found in nature) and molds, which release naturally-occurring VOCs.

The authors of the current study also take the medical profession and research scientists to task for two things. Many clinicians dismiss chemical sensitivities as “Medically Unexplained Symptoms” or psychosomatic issues, sometimes labeled “idiopathic environmental intolerance.” Dr. Miller and colleagues are pushing to replace these terms with TILT. They provide two questionnaires, available on the University of Texas website, that individuals can complete and present the results to their medical caregivers. The advantage of TILT, they say, is that it provides both a suggested mechanism by which sensitivity is started and an explanation for how exposures to different toxicants result in common symptoms stemming from the activity of mast cells, which have broad influence over immune responses to many different challenges.

Scientific tunnel vision has affected the way medicine defines and diagnoses chemical intolerances. “Allergy and toxicology as currently practiced appear to have overlooked the two steps of TILT and the fact that toxic exposures can sensitize mast cells,” according to the current study. Mast cells are part of the innate immune system, which responds to acute or persistent infections or injuries. They signal other immune cells using the inflammatory biomarkers cytokines and chemokines. Dr. Miller and colleagues note that mast cells are present in large numbers in the gut, also home to trillions of microbes that are disrupted by antibiotics and pesticides. They add, “Future research should explore the mechanism by which exposures and/or alterations in the gut microbiome may compromise our ancient mast cells and innate cell-mediated tolerance.”

The study was based on 10,981 responses to a 2020 Survey Monkey questionnaire that used the same questions as those available on the University of Texas Health Science Center website. These ask participants about medical diagnoses, exposures to chemicals, antibiotic use, and the timing of the onset of their condition. The survey also asked the participant to identify what they believed was the condition’s cause.

More than half of the respondents were women, most of them under 60. Two-thirds of respondents were unable to identify an initiating event. For respondents reporting more than one initial exposure, each additional event tripled the chance they would have TILT.

Overall, a fifth of respondents met the study criteria for TILT. The most frequent initiating exposure was reported as mold, with pesticides second, and in decreasing order, new construction or remodeling materials, medical procedures, fires, and implants. Antibiotics used for long periods to treat infections in several organs were also associated with the onset of TILT.

The researchers stressed that we need “policies and practices that reduce initiating exposures as well as ubiquitous and often unavoidable triggers such as fragranced personal care, cleaning, and laundry products in multi-occupant housing, workplaces, medical settings, schools, places of worship, and all public buildings—literally anywhere air is shared.”

The current study does have limitations. Although it does have a large number of participants, it is based on individual self-reporting and not a direct measurement of the physiological processes associated with TILT. The participants were not randomly selected, and there was no control group. Also, only around half of the participants could attribute their initial symptoms to a specific event. Despite these constraints, the cumulative evidence Dr. Miller has produced finds that people in large numbers are suffering the consequences of the “exponential increase in exposures to toxicants derived from fossil fuels and biological sources, coupled with reduced fresh air in buildings” and the authors conclude that “TILT has become epidemic.” [Emphasis in original.]

Finally, Dr. Miller and colleagues emphasize that fossil fuels “are assaulting humans and other animal species both from within via mast cell sensitization and from without via climate change.” [Emphasis in original.] A low-carbon civilization, relying on ecosystem-level biochemistry rather than a single protein, an insidious and harmful source of energy and materials, might both survive climate catastrophe and enjoy a drastic improvement in human health.

For more information:

• Take the questionnaires used in the studies
• See a video from Beyond Pesticides’ 2022 Virtual Seminar featuring a talk with Dr. Miller and Kaipo Kekona, an indigenous Hawaiian working to restore traditional farming techniques
• Read a transcript of a talk given by Doris Rapp, MD published in our Pesticides and You newsletter
• Visit the University of Texas, San Antonio website for the Hoffman TILT program
• View a presentation by Dr. Miller at the Hoffman TILT program

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

Source: What Initiates Chemical Intolerance? Findings from a Large Population-Based Survey of U.S. Adults

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2023) As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Safer Choice program asks for public input into the expansion of its work to label green chemicals, the need to recognize the importance of holistic management systems in sync with nature looms large. Will simple chemical substitution ignore the value of natural processes that require nurturing for sustainable future? EPA’s Safer Choice is a non-regulatory program that identifies alternative chemicals for a number of uses that meet expanded safety criteria.

Tell EPA and Congress that substituting chemicals alone is not the Safer Choice. Use Safer Choice to eliminate harmful practices and emissions by compelling a transition to practices that build a climate- and sustainability-focused economy.

For problems requiring a chemical solution—for example, laundry detergents—EPA’s Safer Choice is a valuable resource, and consumers can look for products with the Safer Choice label, which requires that EPA review all chemical ingredients that must meet safety criteria for both human health and the environment, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, toxicity to aquatic life, and persistence in the environment. While EPA’s Safer Choice/Design for the Environment (DfE) program performs alternatives analyses on chemicals and identifies chemicals that are less hazardous, it stops short of identifying systems that make chemical inputs unnecessary. Substituting a less toxic pesticide, for example, is not the same as switching to available organic methods. [For pesticidal uses, the program is called Design for the Environment (DfE), which has so far been limited to disinfectants.]

Like Safer Choice, the National Organic Program (NOP) established by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), is a label-centered program. Relying on consumer demand for food without pesticides or other chemical additives, produced in a way that benefits health, ecology, and biodiversity, NOP establishes standards for producers to use the organic label. OFPA does not require organic producers to use safer inputs. Rather, it requires them to adopt a system consistent with organic principles—building soil, increasing biodiversity, and producing healthy food—using only inputs that are natural (nonsynthetic) or are approved for a specific use by the National Organic Standards Board and placed into regulations on the National List. The growth of organic food sales in the U.S.—exceeding $60 billion in 2022—is based on consumer recognition of the value of organic food.

The organic program could have a larger impact if EPA, in its pesticide registration program, recognized that pesticide uses are unreasonable if the goals of the use could be met by available organic methods.

Similarly, Safer Choice would have a larger impact if expanded and incorporated into regulatory programs, as part of a system. The heart of the Clean Water Act (CWA) program, for example, is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. EPA has largely ignored the elimination part of this program. Instead, EPA says, “An NPDES permit will generally specify an acceptable level of a pollutant or pollutant parameter in a discharge.” There are two ways that the Safer Choice program could improve CWA implementation. First, the chemical and toxicological analyses required by Safer Choice could identify priorities for elimination. Second, the Safer Choice alternatives analyses could identify alternative processes that could eliminate those substances and create a list of substances for which NPDES permits might be allowed for specified uses—analogous to the National List in NOP.

In the arena of pesticide regulation, EPA could determine that the registration of a toxic substance is unreasonable in light of the availability of alternative practices and products identified by the Safe Choice program.

These applications are consistent with policies of EPA and the Biden administration. EPA characterizes Safer Choice as being part of the agency’s pollution prevention (P2) program, which EPA defines as “any practice that reduces, eliminates, or prevents pollution at its source prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal.” EPA says, ““Pollution prevention approaches can be applied to all potential and actual pollution-generating activities, including those found in the energy, agriculture, federal, consumer and industrial sectors. Prevention practices are essential for preserving wetlands, groundwater sources and other critical ecosystems – areas in which we especially want to stop pollution before it begins.” P2, in concert with President Biden’s Executive Order 14057 on catalyzing American clean energy industries and jobs through Federal sustainability and accompanying Federal Sustainability Plan, establishes a framework for applying Safer Choice to eliminate harmful practices and emissions by compelling a transition to practices that build a climate- and sustainability-focused economy.

Note: Beyond Pesticides will continue the discussion on Safer Choice in future postings, both in the context of suggesting an expansion of the program, as well as in the context of what is needed to meet the challenges of severe health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency—systemic change in the way synthetic chemicals are regulated.

Tell EPA and Congress that substituting chemicals alone is not the Safer Choice. Use Safer Choice to eliminate harmful practices and emissions by compelling a transition to practices that build a climate- and sustainability-focused economy.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:
EPA is considering expanding its Safer Choice program—a non-regulatory program that identifies alternative chemicals that meet expanded safety criteria for specified uses. Substituting chemicals alone is not the safer choice. Safer Choice should be expanded and used to eliminate harmful practices and emissions by compelling a transition to practices that build a climate- and sustainability-focused economy.

For problems requiring a chemical solution—for example, laundry detergents—EPA’s Safer Choice is a valuable resource, and consumers would be wise to look for the Safer Choice label, which requires that EPA review all chemical ingredients, which must meet safety criteria for both human health and the environment, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, toxicity to aquatic life, and persistence in the environment. While EPA’s Safer Choice program does an admirable job of performing alternatives analyses on chemicals and identifying chemicals that are less hazardous, it stops short of identifying systems that make chemical inputs unnecessary. Substituting a less toxic pesticide, for example, is not the same as switching to available organic methods.

Like Safer Choice, the National Organic Program (NOP) established by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) is a label-centered program. Relying on consumer demand for food without pesticides or other chemical additives, produced in a way that benefits health, ecology, and biodiversity, NOP establishes standards for producers to use the organic label. OFPA does not require organic producers to use safer inputs. Rather, it requires them to adopt a system consistent with organic principles—building soil, increasing biodiversity, and producing healthy food—using only inputs that are natural or are approved for a specific use by the National Organic Standards Board and placed into regulations on the National List. The growth of organic food sales in the U.S.—exceeding $60 billion in 2022—is based on consumer recognition of the value of organic food.

The organic program could have a larger impact if EPA, in its pesticide registration program, recognized that pesticide uses are unreasonable if the goals of the use could be met by organic methods.

Similarly, Safer Choice would have a larger impact if expanded and incorporated into regulatory programs, as part of a system. The heart of the Clean Water Act (CWA) program, for example, is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. EPA has largely ignored the elimination part of this program. Instead, EPA says, “An NPDES permit will generally specify an acceptable level of a pollutant or pollutant parameter in a discharge.” The Safer Choice program could improve CWA implementation by identifying priorities for elimination and identifying alternative processes that could eliminate those substances. Analogous to the National List in NOP, a list of allowable discharges could be created.

In the arena of pesticide regulation, EPA could determine that the registration of a toxic substance is unreasonable in light of the availability of alternative practices and products identified by the Safe Choice program.

These applications are consistent with current policies. EPA characterizes Safer Choice as being part of the agency’s pollution prevention (P2) program. EPA says, “Pollution prevention approaches can be applied to all potential and actual pollution-generating activities, including those found in the energy, agriculture, federal, consumer and industrial sectors.”

Please encourage EPA to use P2, in concert with President Biden’s Executive Order 14057 and Federal Sustainability Plan, to apply Safer Choice to eliminate harmful practices and emissions by compelling a transition to practices that build a climate- and sustainability-focused economy.

Thank you.

Suggested comment for EPA, which can be submitted at Regulation.gov through EPA’s docket: Please consider copying and pasting the following into your comment here:

For problems requiring a chemical solution—for example, laundry detergents—EPA’s Safer Choice is a valuable resource, and consumers would be wise to look for the Safer Choice label, which requires that EPA review all chemical ingredients, which must meet safety criteria for both human health and the environment, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, toxicity to aquatic life, and persistence in the environment. While EPA’s Safer Choice/DfE program does an admirable job of performing alternatives analyses on chemicals and identifying chemicals that are less hazardous, it stops short of identifying systems that make chemical inputs unnecessary. Substituting a less toxic pesticide, for example, is not the same as switching to organic methods.

Like Safer Choice, the National Organic Program (NOP) established by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) is a label-centered program. Relying on consumer demand for food without pesticides or other chemical additives, produced in a way that benefits health, ecology, and biodiversity, NOP establishes standards for producers to use the organic label. OFPA does not require organic producers to use safer inputs. Rather, it requires them to adopt a system consistent with organic principles—building soil, increasing biodiversity, and producing healthy food—using only inputs that are natural (nonsynthetic) or are approved for a specific use by the National Organic Standards Board and placed into regulations on the National List. The growth of organic food sales in the U.S.—exceeding $60 billion in 2022—is based on consumer recognition of the value of organic food.

The organic program could have a larger impact if EPA, in its pesticide registration program, recognized that pesticide uses are unreasonable if the goals of the use could be met by organic methods.

Similarly, Safer Choice would have a larger impact if expanded and incorporated into regulatory programs, as part of a system. The heart of the Clean Water Act (CWA) program, for example, is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. EPA has largely ignored the elimination part of this program. Instead, EPA says, “An NPDES permit will generally specify an acceptable level of a pollutant or pollutant parameter in a discharge.” There are two ways that the Safer Choice program could improve CWA implementation. First, the chemical and toxicological analyses required by Safer Choice could identify priorities for elimination. Second, the Safer Choice alternatives analyses could identify alternative processes that could eliminate those substances and create a list of substances for which NPDES permits might be allowed for specified uses—analogous to the National List in NOP.

In the arena of pesticide regulation, EPA could determine that the registration of a toxic substance is unreasonable in light of the availability of alternative practices and products identified by the Safe Choice program.

These applications are consistent with policies of EPA and the Biden administration. EPA characterizes Safer Choice as being part of the agency’s pollution prevention (P2) program, which EPA defines as “any practice that reduces, eliminates, or prevents pollution at its source prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal.” EPA says, ““Pollution prevention approaches can be applied to all potential and actual pollution-generating activities, including those found in the energy, agriculture, federal, consumer and industrial sectors. Prevention practices are essential for preserving wetlands, groundwater sources and other critical ecosystems – areas in which we especially want to stop pollution before it begins.” P2, in concert with President Biden’s Executive Order 14057 on catalyzing American clean energy industries and jobs through Federal sustainability and accompanying Federal Sustainability Plan, establishes a framework for applying Safer Choice to eliminate harmful practices and emissions by compelling a transition to practices that build a climate- and sustainability-focused economy.

Please expand Safer Choice and use it to eliminate harmful practices and emissions by compelling a transition to practices that build a climate- and sustainability-focused economy.

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

Note: Beyond Pesticides began its Safer Choice program prior to EPA’s.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2023) Yesterday, three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Interior for failing to protect the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge from industrial aquaculture. The groups, including Protect the Peninsula’s Future, Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, and Beyond Pesticides, filed their complaint in the U.S. Western District Court of Washington State. The complaint states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of Interior, must “take action that is required by the Refuge Improvement Act and conduct a compatibility determination and require a special use permit for a proposed industrial aquaculture use” that will abut and impact the Refuge. The plaintiffs are represented by the Seattle, WA law firm of Bricklin and Newman LLP.

The shellfish operation leases 50 acres of Washington State bottomlands; 34 acres to be covered with up to 80,000 plastic bags of non-native shellfish and staked into the bottomlands, potentially killing all benthic life underneath and snaring wildlife in the netting. This operation would shift the natural year-round-sediment movement, directing the sediment into the eelgrass beds – beds protected for rearing salmon for whales and nourishing particular migratory ducks. Additionally, the plastic bags will cover primary feeding grounds for residential and migratory birds.

“Despite knowing the gravity this portends, unfortunately, the USFWS has side-stepped its authority to consider the compatibility of the industrial shellfish operation with the Refuge and residual harm to the wildlife and their habitat,” said Laura Hendricks, executive director of Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat.

“Migratory birds suffer much on their lengthy journeys each fall and winter – air pollution, water pollution, toxic fumes. Now they face starvation as their reliable feeding grounds will be taken. This cannot be allowed,” said Darlene Schanfald with Protect the Peninsula’s Future.

“The USFWS is supposed to protect the species and habitats, not enable their peril. We are asking the court to tell the agency to do its job,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of the Washington, D.C. organization Beyond Pesticides. “This is also troubling because it will set a precedent for all other national refuges to allow industrial shellfish operations,” Mr. Feldman said.

The Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge was created by Executive Order in 1915 by Woodrow Wilson, directing the area to be set aside as a “refuge, preserve and breeding ground for native birds and prohibits any disturbance of the birds within the reserve.” The Refuge provides habitat, a preserve, and breeding grounds for more than 250 species of birds and 41 species of land animals.

The front page of the Refuge website states: “Pets, bicycles, kite flying, Frisbees, ball-playing, camping, and fires are not permitted on the Refuge as they are a disturbance for the many migrating birds and other wildlife taking solitude on the Refuge.” With this level of concern, it is counterintuitive to allow destructive industrial aquaculture.

Contact: Darlene Schanfald, Protect the Peninsula’s Future, 360-681-7565, [email protected]
Laura Hendricks, Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, 253-509-4987
Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides, 202-255-4296, [email protected]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 17, 2023) Governor Josh Green of Hawai’i declares the recent Maui wildfires as the largest natural disaster in the state’s history, yet advocates say the tragedy is anything but “natural.” As of Wednesday, the death toll has risen to over 100 lives lost and more than 2,200 structures in Lāhainā — the original capital of the Hawaiian Kingdom have burned to ash. With so much loss, many people are asking who is responsible and how another disaster can be prevented.

The answer to who is to blame is not simple. The initial reports of the fire repeated a trope that Lāhainā is a dry area on Maui and is prone to wildfire, yet in recent days, the news stories have shifted to reveal the area’s ecological history as a wetland. Lāhainā was historically known for its aquatic landscape, with common images of boats around Waiola Church, and the Hawaiian fish pond systems.

People in Hawai’i lament Lahaina’s devastation, mourning the loss of its Native Hawaiian history and culture, while also bracing for the lasting impact this tragedy might have on their communities. Kaniela Ing, the national director of the Green New Deal Network, shared his perspective in a recent interview. Mr. Ing emphasizes the historical significance of Lāhainā before colonization, the overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the U.S., and statehood, portraying it as a cultural heartland brimming with indigenous and ecological wisdom that stretches beyond Hawai’i’s borders.

In this fleeting moment where the world’s eyes are focused on Maui, and it is important to underscore the legacy of Maui’s colonial past. In the 18th century, the sugar barons diverted water to irrigate their seized lands. At the same time, colonists introduced invasive grasses, which now blanket 26 percent of Hawai’i’s expanse, serving as explosive fuel for wildfires.

The history of these colonial powers reverberates to the present day. Mr. Ing underscores that descendants of those barons, families like Alexander and Baldwin who descended from the original oligarchs and began the development of vast sugarcane plantations, are the prominent landowners on Maui, furthering a cycle of power and influence.

The legacy of colonization’s diversion of water, coupled with the climate crisis and biodiversity collapse has led to a less resilient ecosystem. As conversations shift toward reconstruction, community members who demonstrate a long-term mindset are seeking to form the leadership for a sustainable future while valuing the Hawai’ian traditions. Beyond Pesticides organizer and one of the founders of the Maui Food Hub, Autumn Ness, says “This is going to be a really long road of need, and the folks that have been displaced are going to need support, especially with shelter in the long term.” (Check out a recent update via Instagram here). 

Kaipo Kekona, indigenous farmer on Maui and president of the Lāhainā Chapter of the Hawai’i Farmers Union United (HFUU), spoke at Beyond Pesticides 2022 National Forum, exemplifies a future that is routed in traditional agriculture. Mr. Kekona is working in Hawai’i to regenerate and sustain traditional farming production on former sugarcane land. He  manages a 12.5 acre-farm site for the Ku’ia Agricultural Education Center in the ahupua’a of Ku’ia on Legacy Lands of Keli’i Kulani (foothills of the West Maui Mountains). Critical to the mission for the site is to not only reclaim space as a native historical food property, but also introduce to the community the practices that encourage a healthier food system and the soil health that forms the foundation of productive land management. Mr. Kepona brings the teachings from indigenous practices that have proven to be resilient, healthy, and respectful of life. He serves as the educational coordinator and project director at the Center. This is a critical time to listen to Mr. Kekona for a vision of a future Maui that nurtures resilience to meet the social, economic, and environmental needs of Hawaiians. Please view Mr. Kekona’s talk on critical issues facing Maui.

The importance of ongoing support for disaster survivors, extending beyond the immediate aftermath, cannot be overstated. The Maui wildfires, touted as Hawai’i’s worst “natural” disaster, reveal connections between historical threads of colonization, climate change, biodiversity loss, and current challenges, urging a united effort to not only rebuild but also reclaim the agency of the affected communities. Click here to support the Maui Food Hub.

HFUU’s Maui Response Fund has been established to support our immediate emergency relief, market restoration, mental health support, and land access initiatives. Maui’s resilience is unwavering, but the need for support is paramount. See HFUU’s Resources for Affected Farmers. 

Please donate here, “Maui Response Fund” in the note section, to help us support Maui’s ʻOhana.

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

Source: Lahaina used to be a wetland

(Beyond Pesticides, August 16, 2023) A study published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research further supports the indication that exposure to organophosphate insecticides (OPs) increases the risk of asthma among the U.S. general population. According to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, “The burden of asthma in the United States falls disproportionately on people with low-income, senior adults, and Black, Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native people,” making these groups more susceptible to developing this chronic lung disease upon OP exposure.  

Organophosphorus pesticides have a wide range of biological uses—from insecticides to flame retardants—that make these chemicals ubiquitous, significantly contributing to ecosystem contamination. Furthermore, while organophosphates have less bioaccumulation potential, residues are consistently present in human and animal blood, urine, tissues, and milk. Although research demonstrates that OPs are highly toxic, there remains an inadequate understanding of how OP exposure impacts body systems like the repository system.

The respiratory system is essential to human survival, regulating gas exchange (oxygen-carbon dioxide) in the body to balance acid and base tissue cells for normal function. However, damage to the respiratory system can cause several issues—from asthma and bronchitis to oxidative stress that triggers the development of extra-respiratory manifestations like rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease. Therefore, the rise in respiratory illnesses and organophosphate use over the last three decades is highly concerning, especially as research fails to identify an exact cause for the increase in respiratory disease cases.

Focusing on non-institutionalized U.S. adults, researchers gathered representative information on health and nutritional well-being from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). In total, 6,009 adults aged from 20 to 85 years old represented the 313.5 million adults in the non-institutionalized U.S. population. The study detected OP exposure using the urinary concentrations of six metabolites of dialkyl phosphates (DAPs), an indicator of OP concentration in the body. A survey-multivariable logistic regression (SMLR), a generalized weighted quantile sum (WQS) regression, and Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR) evaluated the link between OPs and asthma.

The study finds that of the 6,009 participants, 842 participants have asthma. Upon examining urine samples of the 842 patients, four out of the six DAPs were present—dimethyl phosphate (DMP), diethyl phosphate (DEP), dimethyl thiophosphate (DMTP), and dimethyl dithiophosphate (DMDTP)—demonstrating a positive association with asthma in adults. The strongest associations between asthma and OPs occur more strongly among females, non-Hispanic White populations, and individuals lacking physical activity. Thus, OP exposure can elevate asthma risk in the general population.

Working in close contact with pesticides throughout one’s lifetime increases the risk of asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and other respiratory issues. Thus, the connection between pesticides and associated respiratory risks is nothing new, as many studies link pesticide use and residue to various respiratory illnesses. Studies find pesticide exposure can trigger asthma attacks and also causes asthma, as exposure to insecticides before the age of five can increase the risk of asthma diagnosis, with toddlers twice as likely to become asthmatic. Furthermore, Significant disparities in asthma morbidity and mortality disproportionately impact low-income populations, people of color, and children living in inner cities.

Chronic inhalation of agriculture-related dust (e.g., particulates from grains, feed, soils, and biological aerosols from plant and animal matter that may harbor synthetic pesticide and fertilizer residues) can increase airway inflammatory diseases, including asthma, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. The particulates in dust play a part in disease development, but so, too, do the various microbiota that may be part of a dusty agricultural environment. A disruption of the homeostasis of the human microbiome (known as dysbiosis) can increase the risk of asthma and other respiratory diseases. In addition, pesticide exposures can alter the gut microbiome, which mediates a significant portion of the human immune response.

Many researchers, including those in this study, suggest an increase in environmental pollutants like pesticides may be responsible for the influx of respiratory diseases. Regarding this study, OPs have a significant influence on respiratory pathology. This chemical class has a similar mode of action as cholinesterase inhibitors, which means they bind to receptor sites for the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, or AChE, essential to normal nerve impulse transmission. In binding to these receptor sites, cholinesterase inhibitors inactivate AChE and prevent the clearing of acetylcholine. The buildup of acetylcholine can lead to acute impacts, such as uncontrolled, rapid twitching of some muscles, paralyzed breathing, convulsions, and, in extreme cases, death. The compromise of neural transmission can have broad systemic impacts on the function of multiple body systems, including the respiratory system.

This study also adds to the growing body of research demonstrating disproportionate risk to certain population groups from chemical exposure. The stronger association between asthma, OPs, and women highlights sex-specific disparities characterized by chemical metabolization (breakdown) and elimination in the body. OPs exhibit endocrine-disrupting properties that may alter estrogen or testosterone activity and receptors, resulting in differences in the clearance rate and toxicity of OPs. For instance, a 2018 study finds female rats manifest airway hyperactivity—a characteristic asthma symptom—at lower OP doses than males. Additionally, CDC data establishes women as having a higher prevalence of asthma incidence compared to men. Low-income populations, people of color, and children living in inner cities also experience disproportionately high morbidity and mortality due to asthma. For instance, African Americans are at least three times more likely than whites to die from asthma. Therefore, any time policies allow regulators to permit the use of pesticides with known asthma effects, a disproportionate impact is felt among these communities. 

Despite the difference in methods, the study emphasizes that the data results remain consistent. “Though with different study designs, objectives, and populations, our study found plenty of evidence that is consistent with previous similar studies which explore the complicated associations of OPI metabolites with asthma.” The study concludes, “Our findings suggest that more urinary OPIs exposure may be associated with an increased risk of asthma in the general US adults. Meanwhile, further prospective studies are needed to confirm the causality between OPIs exposure and asthma and explore the potential harm of low-dose but chronic exposure to OPIs in the development of asthma.”

In the U.S., over 25 million people live with asthma. The increasing rate of respiratory pathology since the 1980s demonstrates a need for better environmental policies and protocols surrounding contaminants like pesticides. Considering respiratory diseases represent a significant health issue for agricultural workers—who often experience pesticide exposure at higher rates due to occupation—it is essential to understand the association between pesticide exposure and respiratory pathology or the study of causes and effects of respiratory diseases. Furthermore, with a new report finding an association between air pollution and higher death rates (9%) related to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), global leaders must eliminate excessive pesticide use to mitigate respiratory diseases’ impacts on human health. Policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticides, see PIDD pages on asthma/respiratory effects and other diseases. Learn more about how inadequate pesticide use regulations, including organophosphates, can adversely affect human and environmental health; see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. Removing pesticides from parks that disproportionately affect people of color in the community and as landscapers. Help convert your parks, playing fields, and schoolyards to organic land management through Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program. 

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

Source: Environmental Science and Pollution Research

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2023) Marijuana regulators in the state of Washington issued administrative holds on 18 licenses due to pesticide-contaminated marijuana, forcing producers and processors to cease operations until now. This shutdown of legal marijuana businesses serves as a window into a broader historical backdrop of pesticide issues within the marijuana industry. Within Washington, pesticide concerns have been growing since a study in 2018 of legal marijuana farms in the state had 84.6% (of 26 samples) with significant quantities of pesticides including insecticides, fungicides, miticides, and herbicides. Last year, a national study identified a list of contaminants in 36 states and the District of Columbia and found 551 pesticides within cannabis products. For over a decade, Beyond Pesticides has sounded the alarm about the highly-concentrated levels of pesticides in marijuana products, calling on state officials to require organic marijuana, especially in the context of medical marijuana.

The absence of federal regulations for pesticides in cannabis production has raised significant concerns about exposure risks for recreational and medicinal use, exposure risks to workers, and potential environmental contamination impacting wildlife. Since marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act, the EPA does not regulate pesticides in cannabis. Despite this federal policy gap, states have taken various state laws and regulations to restrict pesticides in marijuana.

During the years following the scientific breakthroughs catalyzed by chemical warfare in World War II, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was extensively used to combat mosquitoes and insects harmful to crops, particularly fruits. Unfortunately, this pesticide had unintended consequences, leading to significant bird and insect mortality. Rachel Carson’s influential book, “Silent Spring,” published in 1962, exposed the devastating impact of DDT on the environment, effectively catalyzing the environmental movement. As a result of this awakening, a nationwide prohibition on the agricultural use of DDT was implemented in 1972. Today, the legacy of DDT extends beyond the four-decade-old ban. Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), is a remnant chemical when DDT breaks down in the soil. The EPA classifies DDE in Group B2 probable human carcinogen, the same category as glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp.

Earlier this year, a chemist from the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board detected elevated levels of DDE in 59 samples of marijuana products. After the board requested recalls for the toxic levels of the pesticide, Okanogan Gold, Bodie Mine, Kibble Junction, and Walden Cannabis issued recalls. Unfortunately, many of the impacted products had already been sold by the time of the recall.

This story may sound familiar, as it has been told many times in Colorado, Oregon, California, and Washington. The Colorado Department of Revenue, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, emphasized that the use of unapproved pesticides in marijuana cultivation poses a threat to public health and safety. Beyond Pesticides maintains that even low levels of pesticide residues in marijuana raise serious issues because they are not subject to regulatory review, taking into account multiple chemical exposures, aggregate and synergistic hazards, and health outcomes, such as endocrine disruption, that are not evaluated by state regulators. This is particularly problematic with marijuana, grown with chemical-intensive rather than organic practices, given the crops’ multiple routes of chemical exposure through injection, inhalation, and dermal absorption. Beyond Pesticides has said that, since pesticides in the U.S. are not registered for use in marijuana production, states must not allow their use and default to organic is the only allowable production system.

A similar concern arose in California when the state implemented rigorous cannabis testing protocols. Sequoia Analytical Labs, a cannabis testing facility in Sacramento, faced allegations that its lab director falsified analysis reports for hundreds of cannabis batches sent to retailers. The alleged fraud went undetected for some time, leading to the Bureau of Cannabis Control’s unannounced inspection, during which the lab director admitted to the falsifications. Sequoia subsequently surrendered its 2018 cannabis testing license, hoping to regain it for 2019.

Advocates say these incidents demonstrate a need for comprehensive regulation within the rapidly evolving legal cannabis landscape. The federal classification of marijuana as a Class I illegal substance creates a complex legal environment, with states striving to establish effective legislation and regulation in the face of this federal challenge resulting from a lack of regulatory oversight.

To address these concerns, several states, including Colorado, Washington State, and Oregon, have taken steps to list “allowable” pesticides for marijuana cultivation. In California, comprehensive testing requirements for cannabis have been put in place, covering various pesticides and contaminants. The dynamic nature of the regulatory framework in these states, coupled with events such as the recent Washington recalls, may necessitate further adjustments.

A genuinely precautionary approach to the cannabis industry should extend beyond detecting prohibited contaminants. Given the absence of federal testing for pesticide effects on cannabis consumers, producers, and the environment, states should establish rules for sustainable production practices that safeguard public health and the environment. Beyond Pesticides recommends a systems-level approach to cannabis production, mandating compliance with national organic standards. Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides says, “The only safe path forward to pesticide-free marijuana products must require organic certification.” An organic approach would be prudent, precautionary, and a positive step forward for the cannabis industry. For more information on Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of cannabis and pesticides, visit the Daily News archival page on the topic.

For more information on safety issues and sustainable solutions to using toxic pesticides on cannabis, see Beyond Pesticides’ report.

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

Source: Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options, Washington shutters pot businesses due to old pesticide, Washington legal cannabis farms get back to work after pesticide concerns halted operations

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14 2023) The Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act of 2023 (PACTPA), introduced on July 28, 2023 in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 5085) and previously introduced on February 2, 2023 in the U.S. Senate (S.269), seeks to improve federal pesticide law. Many advocates, while endorsing the Congressional effort, maintain that the law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—FIFRA) is structurally flawed in not requiring restrictions and the elimination of pesticides for which there are safer alternative practices and products. A key provision in the legislation includes language that affirms local authority to restrict pesticides.

Both the House and Senate bills retain the basic structure of FIFRA, while strengthening various aspects of the current risk assessment-based approach to pesticide restrictions. Risk assessment in the current policy context assumes that pesticides are necessary and sets allowable levels of harm based on inadequate information on chemical effects—and margins of safety that allow for numerous uncertainties and disproportionate effects to vulnerable population groups. Importantly, the legislation does include a provision that grants communities local authority to restrict pesticides on all property, public and private, within their jurisdiction, allowing towns, cities, and counties to move society away from pesticide dependency and transition to organic practices. At the same time, the chemical industry and its allies in Congress are backing legislation, the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R.4288), which institutionalizes federal preemption of state and local authority, enshrining weak pesticide law against the will of local efforts to protect the health and environment of their communities.

As more and more communities across the country outlaw pesticides on their public land, parks, and playing fields, most states prohibit (or preempt) localities from restricting hazardous use on private property. As a result, pesticides used on landscapes—uses that can be replaced by organic management practices—result in chemical drift and runoff, putting the community in harm’s way and people involuntarily exposed. While the U.S. Supreme Court (in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier) in 1991 found that FIFRA does not preempt local governments’ authority to restrict pesticide use in their town, cities, or counties, state governments have taken that authority away in 44 states at the behest of the pesticide lobby.

Urge your U.S. Representative and Senators to cosponsor PACTPA and reforms to the toxic core of FIFRA, including upholding the right of local governments to restrict pesticides. Or, thank current cosponsors.

A guarantee of local authority is necessary because FIFRA is more protective of the pesticide industry than human and ecological health. The toxic core of FIFRA permits the unnecessary dispersal of toxic chemicals in the environment. If passed, PACTPA will “fix” some major problems, which are symptoms of this toxic core. PACTPA:

* Bans some of the most damaging pesticides scientifically known to cause significant harm to people and the environment:
– Organophosphate insecticides, which are designed to target the neurological system and have been linked to neurodevelopmental damage in children;
– Neonicotinoid insecticides, which have contributed to pollinator collapse around the world (the European Union and Canada have significantly restricted or banned their use to protect pollinators and other wildlife) and have recently been shown to cause developmental defects, heart deformations, and muscle tremors in unborn children;
– Paraquat, which is one of the most acutely toxic herbicides in the world —according to the EPA, just “one sip can kill.” Science has shown that chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by 200% to 600%. It is already banned in 32 countries, including the European Union.

* Removes dangerous pesticides from the market by:
– Creating a petition process to enable individual citizens to petition the EPA to identify dangerous pesticides so that the EPA would no longer be able to indefinitely allow dangerous pesticides to remain on the market;
– Closing dangerous loopholes that have allowed the EPA to issue emergency exemptions and conditional registrations to use pesticides before they have gone through full health and safety review by the agency;
– Enabling local communities to enact protective legislation and other policies without being vetoed or preempted by state law;
– Suspending the use of pesticides deemed unsafe by the E.U. or Canada until they are thoroughly reviewed by the EPA.

* Provides protections for frontline communities that bear the burden of pesticide exposure by:
– Requiring employers of farmworkers to report all pesticide-caused injuries to the EPA, with strong penalties for failure to report injuries or retaliating against workers;
– Directing the EPA to review pesticide injury reports and work with the pesticide manufacturers to develop btter labeling to prevent future injury;
– Requiring that all pesticide label instructions be written in Spanish and in any language spoken by more than 500 pesticide applicators.

Despite this impressive list of reforms, PACTPA does not touch the toxic core of FIFRA, which permits the unnecessary dispersal of toxic chemicals in the environment, regardless of the availability of regenerative organic management practices and products. To eliminate this toxic core, Congress must pass legislation to:

* Prohibit the registration and use of pesticides that do not meet these criteria:
– Necessary to prevent harm to humans and the environment based on an analysis of all alternatives;
– Cause no harm to humans and the environment; and
– Protect against the existential crises of biodiversity collapse, runaway climate change, and chronic and acute health threats.

* Require all supporting data to be submitted and examined by the public before registration (including the elimination of conditional registration).
* Deny and cancel all pesticide registrations not supported by studies demonstrating a lack of endocrine-disrupting effects.
* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to life in the soil—and hence threatening the climate.
* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to any endangered species.

Urge your U.S. Representative and Senators to cosponsor PACTPA and reforms to the toxic core of FIFRA, including upholding the right of local governments to restrict pesticides. Or, thank current cosponsors.

And, If  You Have Not Already. . . .Help stop the pesticide lobby from enshrining in federal law a prohibition on local authority to restrict pesticides. See Parts I and II below:

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

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

Letter to Members of  Congress who are not yet cosponsors:

I am writing to ask you to cosponsor the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act of 2023 (PACTPA—S. 269). PACTPA provides urgently-needed fixes of serious problems with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Crucially, it protects the right of local governments to protect citizens when EPA fails to act.

If passed, PACTPA will “fix” some major problems, which are symptoms of underlying problems in FIFRA. PACTPA:

* Bans some of the most damaging pesticides scientifically known to cause significant harm to people and the environment:
– Organophosphate insecticides, which are designed to target the neurological system and have been linked to neurodevelopmental damage in children;
– Neonicotinoid insecticides, which have contributed to pollinator collapse around the world (the European Union and Canada have significantly restricted or banned their use to protect pollinators and other wildlife) and have recently been shown to cause developmental defects, heart deformations, and muscle tremors in unborn children;
– Paraquat, which is one of the most acutely toxic herbicides in the world —according to the EPA, just “one sip can kill.” Science has shown that chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by 200% to 600%. It is already banned in 32 countries, including the European Union.

* Removes dangerous pesticides from the market by:
– Creating a petition process to enable individual citizens to petition the EPA to identify dangerous pesticides so that the EPA would no longer be able to indefinitely allow dangerous pesticides to remain on the market;
– Closing dangerous loopholes that have allowed the EPA to issue emergency exemptions and conditional registrations to use pesticides before they have gone through full health and safety review by the agency;
– Enabling local communities to enact protective legislation and other policies without being vetoed or preempted by state law;
– Suspending the use of pesticides deemed unsafe by the E.U. or Canada until they are thoroughly reviewed by the EPA.

* Provides protections for frontline communities that bear the burden of pesticide exposure by:
– Requiring employers of farmworkers to report all pesticide-caused injuries to the EPA, with strong penalties for failure to report injuries or retaliating against workers;
– Directing the EPA to review pesticide injury reports and work with the pesticide manufacturers to develop better labeling to prevent future injury;
– Requiring that all pesticide label instructions be written in Spanish and in any language spoken by more than 500 pesticide applicators.

Despite this impressive list of reforms, PACTPA does not touch the toxic core of FIFRA, which permits the unnecessary dispersal of toxic chemicals in the environment, regardless of the availability of regenerative organic management practices. To eliminate this toxic core, I ask you to introduce legislation to:

* Prohibit the registration and use of pesticides that do not meet these criteria:
– Necessary to prevent harm to humans and the environment based on an analysis of all alternatives;
– Cause no harm to humans and the environment; and
– Protect against the existential crises of biodiversity collapse, runaway climate change, and chronic and acute health threats.

* Require all supporting data to be submitted and examined by the public before registration (including the elimination of conditional registration).
* Deny and cancel all pesticide registrations not supported by studies demonstrating a lack of endocrine-disrupting effects.
* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to life in the soil—and hence threatening the climate.
* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to any endangered species.

Thank you.

Letter to Congressional cosponsors of PACTPA:

Thank you for sponsoring the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act of 2023 (PACTPA). PACTPA provides urgently-needed fixes of serious problems with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Crucially, it protects the right of local governments to protect citizens when EPA fails to act.

If passed, PACTPA will “fix” some major problems, which are symptoms of underlying problems in FIFRA. PACTPA:

* Bans some of the most damaging pesticides scientifically known to cause significant harm to people and the environment:
– Organophosphate insecticides, which are designed to target the neurological system and have been linked to neurodevelopmental damage in children;
– Neonicotinoid insecticides, which have contributed to pollinator collapse around the world (the European Union and Canada have significantly restricted or banned their use to protect pollinators and other wildlife) and have recently been shown to cause developmental defects, heart deformations, and muscle tremors in unborn children;
– Paraquat, which is one of the most acutely toxic herbicides in the world —according to the EPA, just “one sip can kill.” Science has shown that chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by 200% to 600%. It is already banned in 32 countries, including the European Union.

* Removes dangerous pesticides from the market by:|
– Creating a petition process to enable individual citizens to petition the EPA to identify dangerous pesticides so that the EPA would no longer be able to indefinitely allow dangerous pesticides to remain on the market;
– Closing dangerous loopholes that have allowed the EPA to issue emergency exemptions and conditional registrations to use pesticides before they have gone through full health and safety review by the agency;
– Enabling local communities to enact protective legislation and other policies without being vetoed or preempted by state law;
– Suspending the use of pesticides deemed unsafe by the E.U. or Canada until they are thoroughly reviewed by the EPA.

* Provides protections for frontline communities that bear the burden of pesticide exposure by:
– Requiring employers of farmworkers to report all pesticide-caused injuries to the EPA, with strong penalties for failure to report injuries or retaliating against workers;|– Directing the EPA to review pesticide injury reports and work with the pesticide manufacturers to develop btter label|
– Requiring that all pesticide label instructions be written in Spanish and in any language spoken by more than 500 pesticide applicators.

Despite this impressive list of reforms, PACTPA does not touch the toxic core of FIFRA, which permits the unnecessary dispersal of toxic chemicals in the environment, regardless of the availability of regenerative organic management practices and products. To eliminate this toxic core, I ask you to introduce legislation to:

* Prohibit the registration and use of pesticides that do not meet these criteria:
– Necessary to prevent harm to humans and the environment based on an analysis of all alternatives;
– Cause no harm to humans and the environment; and
– Protect against the existential crises of biodiversity collapse, runaway climate change, and chronic and acute health threats.

* Require all supporting data to be submitted and examined by the public before registration (including the elimination of conditional registration).
* Deny and cancel all pesticide registrations not supported by studies demonstrating a lack of endocrine-disrupting effects.
* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to life in the soil—and hence threatening the climate.
* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to any endangered species.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 11, 2023) Reinforcing earlier findings, a systematic review published in Chemosphere finds the popular herbicide glyphosate and its formulations (glyphosate-based formulations-GBF) exhibit five out of the ten key characteristics (KC) of carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals). Specifically, glyphosate exhibits strong evidence of genotoxicity, epigenetic alterations (heritable changes in gene expression), oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, endocrine disruption, and disturbs gut microbiota implicated in lymphomagenesis (growth and development of lymphoma). Although organizations like the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designate glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, and scientific literature supports the findings on these adverse effects purported by glyphosate, the chemical remains on the U.S. market in various formulations.

Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, not just Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup®. The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate over two decades ago. The toxic herbicide readily contaminates the ecosystem with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, literature proves time and time again that glyphosate has an association with cancer development, as well as human, biotic, and ecosystem harm. Therefore, advocates point to the need for national policies to reassess hazards associated with disease development and diagnosis resulting from or exacerbated by exposure to chemical pollutants. The study highlights, “Our findings strengthen the mechanistic evidence that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and provide biological plausibility for previously reported cancer associations in humans, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Using in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro human and mammalian mechanistic studies, researchers compare exposure to glyphosate/GBF with little to no exposure counterparts for evidence of the ten KCs of carcinogens. All known human carcinogens have one or more of the ten KCs, and these mechanisms cause cancer through,

1. Electrophilic (an affinity towards electrons) or metabolic activation (KC1),
2. Genotoxicity (KC2),
3. Alterations in DNA repair, causing genome instability (KC3),
4. Inducing epigenetic changes (KC4),
5. Inducing oxidative stress (KC5),
6. Inducing chronic inflammation (KC6),
7. Immunosuppression (KC7),
8. Reducing receptor-mediated effects/endocrine disruption (KC8),
9. Immortalizing cancer cells (KC9),
10. Alterations in cell proliferation, death, or nutrient supply (KC10).

Researchers screened all in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro studies of glyphosate/GBF exposure in humans/mammals, reporting any KC-related outcome available in PubMed before August 2021. The researchers used the selected studies to construct a matrix, analyzing the matrix in program R to determine the strength of evidence and quality assessments. Although only 175 of the 2,537 articles met inclusion criteria, the researchers extracted over 50,000 data points related to the aforementioned KC outcomes.

The results of the analysis find strong evidence for KC2, KC4, KC5, KC6, and KC8, limited evidence for KC1 and KC3, and inadequate evidence for KC7, KC9, and KC10. Specifically, genotoxicity (KC2) and endocrine disruption (KC8) from GBF have the strongest association with carcinogenicity. The reviewed studies demonstrate that the evidence of genotoxicity is stronger among humans than in animal studies, with GBF having a greater impact on both study groups than just glyphosate alone. Additionally, the review indicates glyphosate can alter hormone (endocrine) levels and receptor activity, with the estrogen receptors being most sensitive to glyphosate and GBFs.

Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) use has put human, animal, and environmental health at risk. The chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion and loss of services). Exposure to GBHs has implications for specific alterations in microbial gut composition and trophic cascades. Similar to this paper, past studies find a strong association between glyphosate exposure and the development of various health anomalies, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and autism. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” stark evidence demonstrates links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Thus, EPA’s classification perpetuates environmental injustice among individuals disproportionately exposed to chemicals like farmworkers, especially in marginalized communities. Chemical companies knowingly fail and continue to fail to warn farmers adequately about the dangers of glyphosate. Additionally, the manufacturer’s (Bayer/Monsanto) discredited chemical review conclusions challenge the European Union research.

The territory for research on pesticides’ potential carcinogenicity and other impacts on human health is exceedingly complicated. Yet there is some convergence across research that exposure to certain pesticides increases the risk of developing some cancers. The association that has been in the blinding spotlight for the past few years is between exposures to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides and the risk of developing cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). Beyond Pesticides has covered the mounting evidence of the dangers of glyphosate, including a meta-study that suggests a compelling link between exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides and increased risk of NHL.

In addition, Beyond Pesticides has traced the developments in the science and regulatory arena, including:

• the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2015 landmark designation of glyphosate as potentially carcinogenic
• Evidence that EPA colluded with Monsanto (maker of Roundup, the most widely used glyphosate-based herbicide) to advantage industry and that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that countered scientific conclusions on the cancer associations of the compound,
• and California’s 2017 listing of glyphosate under Proposition 65 as a probable carcinogen and a 2018 Appellate Court affirmation of its ability to do so.

Glyphosate has been the subject of public advocacy, regulatory attention, and the target of thousands of lawsuits. (Beyond Pesticides has covered the glyphosate tragedy extensively; see its litigation archives for multiple articles on glyphosate lawsuits.) In June 2020, facing approximately 125,000 suits for Roundup’s role in cancer outcomes, Bayer announced a $10 billion settlement to resolve roughly 75% of current and potential future litigation. However, roughly 30,000 complainants ultimately did not sign on to the settlement, so the queue of potential lawsuits is still potentially enormous. Although Bayer tried for a second settlement (~ $2 billion) to handle future claims, a U.S. District Court judge for the Northern District of California rejected Bayer’s 2021 settlement proposal. The judge stated that the settlement was inadequate for future victims diagnosed with cancer after using the herbicide. Bayer has never acknowledged any harm caused by glyphosate, maintaining the chemical is safe for use. However, in July 2021, Bayer announced its plan to end sales of its glyphosate-based herbicides (including its flagship product, Roundup) in the domestic U.S. residential lawn and garden market in 2023. Under the plan, uses in food production will continue.

The results of the systemic review highlight an all too familiar issue. Despite these concerning data, evidence of widespread exposure to a carcinogen has failed to sway regulators at EPA, necessitating meaningful change by elected officials to reform pesticide law. Scientists highlight epidemiological evidence associating glyphosate with blood cancers like non-Hodgkin lymphoma and strong evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory animal research brought on by genotoxicity (DNA damage) and oxidative stress. In 2015, the IARC Working Group demonstrated glyphosate has strong evidence of genotoxicity (KC2) and oxidative stress (KC5). However, recent studies providing additional data supports evidence of KC2 and KC5, as well as epigenetic changes (KC4), chronic inflammation (KC6), and endocrine disruption (KC8) regarding glyphosate and GBF. Thus, glyphosate presents evidence of all five KCs of carcinogens. Although there is limited or inadequate evidence for the remaining KCs, the review encourages further examination of the effects of glyphosate and other chemicals through all ten KCs and its relation to lymphoid cancers. 

The study concludes, “Overall, the mechanistic evidence for glyphosate and GBFs possessing multiple key characteristics of carcinogens has become stronger since IARC’s evaluation in 2015 and implicates several pathways by which these substances could induce cancer, such as lymphoma, in humans. […][O]ur understanding of glyphosate’s effects using the KCs paves the way for exploring the intricate mechanisms underlying its potential pathway to lymphoma.”

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with over eight million people succumbing to the disease every year. Notably, IARC predicts an increase in new cancer cases from 19.3 million to 30.2 million per year by 2040. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and cancer will aid in understanding the underlying mechanisms that cause the disease. Beyond Pesticides challenges the registration of chemicals like glyphosate in court due to their impacts on soil, air, water, and our health. While legal battles press on, government officials must eliminate the use of toxic synthetic herbicides to avoid the adverse effects of chemical exposure and contamination. Instead, emphasis on converting to regenerative-organic systems, using least-toxic pest control to mitigate harmful pesticide use, restore soil health, reduce carbon emissions, and increase carbon sequestration should be the main focus. Public policy must advance a shift to organic, rather than allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides. Considering glyphosate levels in the human body decrease by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and resulting adverse health effects.

It is essential to understand the health implications of pesticide use and exposure for humans, especially when pesticides increase chronic disease risk. Beyond Pesticides tracks news and studies related to pesticides through the Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on the adverse effects of pesticides on human health, see PIDD pages on cancer (including lymphoma) and other diseases. Moreover, Beyond Pesticides provides tools, information, and support to take local action: check out our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup and our report, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed. Contact us for help with local efforts and stay informed of developments through our Daily News Blog and our journal, Pesticides and You. Additionally, check out Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption on glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum. Help convert your town to organic land management through Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program.

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

Source: Chemosphere

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2023) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Safer Choice program, a voluntary labeling program, has announced an opportunity for public comment on new areas of work—opening up a public discussion of priorities for identifying less toxic products in the marketplace. EPA describes the labeling program as a part of its Pollution Prevention (P2) program, which, according to the agency, “includes practices that reduce, eliminate, or prevent pollution at its source, such as using safer ingredients in products.” A July 17 Federal Registration Notice, Stakeholder Engagement Opportunity for the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) Programs’ Potential Expansion Into New Product Categories, announces a public listening session August 28, and a public comment deadline of September 11, 2023

In the face of existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises, advocates say that the question before EPA is whether strict systemic measures will be adopted to meet the urgency of the crises. This will require the quick phase out of hazardous substances that are contributing to the existential crises (including petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers). While the Safer Choice program can identify practices and products that are not harmful to health, biodiversity, and climate, it is a labeling rather than a regulatory program that can mandate an elimination of known hazards. As a labeling program, the Safer Choice program is not typically incorporated into the regulatory review process, although it could be. Under the “unreasonable adverse effects” standard of the federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA]), regulators could determine that the registration of a toxic substance is unreasonable in light of the availability of alternative practices and products identified by the Safe Choice program.

Safer Choice bills itself as a pollution prevention program. The program is a part of the agency’s pollution prevention program that describes itself as including the elements of eliminating hazardous materials and preventive practices that stop the uses of known toxic substances. According to the program, “Pollution prevention (P2), also known as source reduction, is any practice that reduces, eliminates, or prevents pollution at its source prior to recycling, treatment or disposal.”

In its Master Criteria for Safer Ingredients, the Safer Choice program spells out the purpose of the criteria:

“The Safer Choice Master Criteria for Safer Ingredients (Master Criteria) are comprehensive, science-based criteria designed to ensure that the safest possible ingredients are used in Safer Choice products. Safer Choice evaluates every ingredient in a formulation within its functional class context and based on its key, distinguishing human health and environmental characteristics. In this way, potential product ingredients can be viewed as part of a continuum of improved or safer ingredient choices. These criteria also enhance the transparency of the Safer Choice Program.

The Master Criteria make it possible to draw a line demarcating the greener or “low-concern” end of the continuum of chemical safety. To define low concern, Safer Choice uses toxicological thresholds established by highly respected health and environmental protection authorities, including the United Nation’s Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for the Classification and Labeling of Hazard Substances and the U.S. EPA’s New Chemicals Program. For functional classes where no low-concern ingredients currently exist, Safer Choice works with its stakeholders to carefully modify the Master Criteria in a way that allows for ingredient choices while ensuring the safest possible ingredients in that functional class. These criteria were designed for use in distinguishing safer chemicals for the Safer Choice Program.

Safer Choice product review is chemistry and toxicology intensive, calling on the extensive expertise of the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. The Office’s depth of expertise helps ensure that chemicals are fully and accurately characterized based on the best available information. Information for the review is drawn from peer-reviewed literature, primary source materials, hazardous chemical lists, Agency databases, and predictive tools which estimate potential human health and environmental concerns based on a chemical’s structural and/or biological similarity to known chemicals of concern. EPA will consider all sources of developing information, such as the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program or enhancements to estimation models such as EPI Suite™ that occur over time.”

EPA’s pollution prevention program explains its approaches as follows:

“Pollution prevention approaches can be applied to all potential and actual pollution-generating activities, including those found in the energy, agriculture, federal, consumer and industrial sectors. Prevention practices are essential for preserving wetlands, groundwater sources and other critical ecosystems – areas in which we especially want to stop pollution before it begins.”

In the energy sector, pollution prevention can reduce environmental damages from extraction, processing, transport and combustion of fuels. Pollution prevention approaches include:

• increasing efficiency in energy use;
• use of environmentally benign fuel sources.

In the agricultural sector, pollution prevention approaches include:

• Reducing the use of water and chemical inputs;
• Adoption of less environmentally harmful pesticides or cultivation of crop strains with natural resistance to pests; and
• Protection of sensitive areas.

In the industrial sector, examples of P2 practices include:

• Modifying a production process to produce less waste
• Using non-toxic or less toxic chemicals as cleaners, degreasers and other maintenance chemicals
• Implementing water and energy conservation practices
• Reusing materials such as drums and pallets rather than disposing of them as waste

In homes and schools examples of P2 practices include:

• Using reusable water bottles instead of throw-aways
• Automatically turning off lights when not in use
• Repairing leaky faucets and hoses
• Switching to “green” cleaners

The Safer Choice program, which was launched as a label under the Design for the Environment in the early 1990s, intersects with the Federal Sustainability Plan announced in President Biden’s Executive Order 14057. While focused on clean jobs in response to the climate crisis, the plan sets goals for the federal government:

• 100% Carbon Pollution-Free Electricity by 2030, including 50% on a 24/7 basis
• 100% Zero-Emission Vehicle Acquisitions by 2035, including 100% light-duty acquisitions by 2027
• Net-Zero Emissions Buildings by 2045, including a 50% reduction by 2032
• Net-Zero Emissions Procurement by 2050
• Net-Zero Emissions Operations by 2050, including a 65% reduction by 2030
• Climate Resilient Infrastructure and Operations
• Develop a Climate- and Sustainability-Focused Workforce
• Advance Environmental Justice and Equity-Focused Operations
• Accelerate Progress through Domestic and International Partnerships

Labeling is a beginning to help move markets. As a purchaser of products, the federal government can elevate products that meet clear sustainability standards. However, with U.S. and global pollution, including pollution from pesticides and fertilizers, exceeding safe limits for humanity, labeling and federal purchasing does not meet the challenge, according to advocates. And, beyond product purchasing, meeting the current challenge requires that the federal government dramatically alter its approach to the management of all federal lands (from the National Park Service to the National Forest Service, National Wildlife Refuges, and Bureau of Land Management) to regenerative organic practices that meet certified organic standards under the National Organic Program.

With the public comment period open for the Safer Choice program, the public can advise, for example, that the program evaluate fertilizers and educate the public on the harm caused by synthetic petrochemical fertilizer production and use on farms, gardens, lawns, and landscapes.

Public advocacy is needed to integrate the findings of Safer Choice into the regulatory decision-making process across agencies that currently allow the use of hazardous materials and practices that can be replaced by organic-compatible practices and products.

Market-driven labeling has effected changes in the availability of products. Organic labeling helped the organic market grow to a $68 billion market under the Organic Food Production Act and the guidance of the National Organic Standards Board. However, the public interest goal is not to continue as a voluntary program in the market but to incorporate the findings of alternative products and practices into regulatory decision making, which currently defaults to the assumption that toxic practices are necessary to achieve productivity and profitability goals, when that has been proven –as a result of the voluntary organic certification program—to be untrue. The petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers have been proven to be unnecessary.

At the same time that the public pushes to expand and tighten the Safer Choice program, it must serve as the basis for findings that harmful chemicals and practices should be ended as a matter of law, not voluntary action. In some cases, EPA may be able to incorporate Safer Choice criteria into preexisting regulatory standards. For example, EPA could modify its regulations under FIFRA to state that any pesticide that does not meet Safer Choice criteria poses an unreasonable risk. In other cases, it may require Congressional action.

Beyond Pesticides maintains a database of organic-compatible practices that are practical and cost-effective. See ManageSafe for Least-Toxic Control f Pesticides in the Home and Garden. Help convert all your community public spaces, parks, playing fields, and schoolyards to organic land management by working with Parks for a Sustainable Future.

Plan to comment by September 11, 2023 during the Safer Choice comment period. 

Virtual Listening Session: You must register by 5 p.m. EST on August 28, 2023 at https://abtassociates.webex.com/​weblink/​register/​r3055e675f25be841c60ff1a37c70118d to receive the webcast meeting link and audio teleconference information before the meeting, [Virtual Listening Session date: August 29, 2023, 2:00–3:00 p.m. EST.]

Special Accommodations: To request accommodation for a disability, please contact the

Taylor Dunivin, Safer Choice Program (7409M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566–0580; email address: [email protected].

Written Comments: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0311, through https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/​dockets.

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

 Source: Stakeholder Engagement Opportunity for the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) Programs’ Potential Expansion Into New Product Categories