(Beyond Pesticides, August 9, 2023) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have agreed to assess the harms of applying pesticides in waterways to threatened and endangered wildlife under a legal agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Under the Clean Water Act, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit is needed when pollutants are discharged from a point source (an identifiable source) into the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), but federal authorities, in their general permitting process, have long failed to assess effects to threatened and endangered species.

According to the terms of the settlement agreement, FWS must complete consultations required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to prevent harm to protected species such as bull trout, pallid sturgeon, Oregon spotted frogs, and other threatened aquatic organisms. 

The agreement is a step in implementing the 1973 ESA, a law that is saving numerous species from extinction, facilitating the recovery of hundreds more, and enabling the preservation of habitats. The humpback whale, bald eagle, and snail darter are among the species that have been saved thanks to the ESA. For years, Beyond Pesticides has reported on decades of neglecting to fully implement and fund the ESA. 

In 2021, CBD filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the 2021 Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for Discharges from the Application of Pesticides. The lawsuit challenged EPA’s failure to complete a required endangered species consultation with FWS prior to issuing a 2021 pesticide general PGP permit. PGP is a permit process within the NPDES permit process. The NPDES program is designed to control and manage the discharge of pollutants, such as pesticides, into U.S. waters and protect water quality and aquatic life. The lawsuit also challenged the permit process for failing to comply with monitoring and recordkeeping obligations under the Clean Water Act.

PGP targets biological and chemical pesticides that leave a residue in water bodies for the following uses: (1) flying insect pest control, including mosquito control; (2) aquatic weed and algae control; (3) aquatic nuisance animal control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. Biological pesticides are derived from living organisms and are used for pest control. Examples include certain bacteria, fungi, and viruses that target specific pests. Chemical pesticides, on the other hand, are synthetic substances designed to kill or control pests.

PGP sets out regulations and requirements for entities, such as industries or agricultural operations, that apply directly to water for the aforementioned uses. Overall, the NPDES general permit for pesticides plays a crucial role in safeguarding water resources and protecting aquatic species from the potential adverse effects of pesticide discharges. However, the program falls short of protecting 56 percent of streams that are sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey, and contain one or more pesticides that exceed water quality standards. 

The PGP permit is issued by EPA every five years. It establishes the requirements for pesticide applications directly to water for purposes such as aquatic weed control, mosquito spraying, and forest canopy pest control. In the 2021 lawsuit, CBD alleges that FWS failed to complete endangered species consultations, even when requested by the EPA. Under the new agreement, FWS will complete consultations prior to the finalization of the next permit (no later than 2025).

The agreement also requires that EPA take additional actions to improve pollution monitoring and other permit compliance requirements under the Clean Water Act to protect freshwater species against harm from these pesticide applications between now and 2025.

In finalizing the permit, EPA did complete consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service. As a result, the permit already includes protections for oceangoing species like Pacific salmon and steelhead. Consultation with FWS under this legal agreement will expand these protections to dozens of freshwater species.

“This agreement is important progress for improving the health of our rivers and streams and the incredible critters that rely on them,” said Hannah Connor, an attorney at CBD. “My hope is that it will be a wake-up call for the Fish and Wildlife Service to fully embrace its critical role in preventing harm from pesticides to protected species.”

In a related issue, President Joe Biden vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have narrowed the definition of waterways under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES process. The U.S. House of Representatives’ Republican majority voted on March 9 and the Senate voted on March 29 to overturn a Biden administration rule that expands the definition of and protections for the “waters of the United States.” The rule, Revised Definition of Waters of the United States, clarifies that thousands of wetlands, smaller streams, and other kinds of waterways are included under the Clean Water Act’s protection provisions. The attempted Congressional rollback in March would have put at greater risk the nation’s waterways from all sorts of pollution, including the more than 90% of the nation’s rivers and streams that are contaminated with five or more pesticides, according to Beyond Pesticides 2020 coverage. See Daily News on legislation.

Two ways that you can combat the negative impacts of pesticides on wildlife are to (1) implement organic practices for your own lawn and garden, and (2) support organic agriculture, rather than conventional agriculture, which relies on pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and reducing wildlife’s hazardous chemical exposures. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture — from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift — views organic as the solution to these serious environmental threats. You can transition your communities’ public spaces to organic land management by becoming a parks advocate. Sign up today to learn how to protect children, pets, and pollinators in your local parks, playing fields, and other public spaces. 

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

Source: Legal Agreement Will Help Protect Endangered Wildlife From Pesticides Applied to Waterways

(Beyond Pesticides, August 8, 2023) A study published in PLOS ONE finds a pointed, positive association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) of unknown origins (CKDu) and the use of indoor pesticides. Longer exposure times have an especially detrimental impact on kidney function, even among individuals without underlying diseases like diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The innovation of this study’s purpose highlights the lack of exposure-related studies on kidney health outcomes associated with indoor pesticide use.

Although CKD risk increases with age and is associated with other health factors like smoking, heart disease, and diabetes, cases without clear causes are increasingly common, indicating that environmental factors are likely playing a role. Over six million people in the U.S. have kidney disease (i.e., nephritis [kidney inflammation], nephrotic syndrome [improper protein filtration], and nephrosis). Although many studies find an association between exposure to outdoor environmental contaminants like pesticides and CKD, the association between CKDu and indoor pesticides—whose uses are more commonly concentrated in homes— remains unclear. Therefore, studies like this highlight the need for comprehensive information regarding co-occurring exposure patterns and disease prevalence that can have global implications. 

The study notes, “Previous research has highlighted the potential harm of pesticides on kidney function, particularly in outdoor uses. Our findings raise concerns about the impact of indoor pesticide use on kidney function in individuals without common risk factors for CKD. Further, longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the effects of indoor pesticide use on kidney health outcomes and to determine safe dosage levels for these substances.”

The growing epidemic of CKDu globally, especially among residents of agricultural communities, has scientists questioning the cause of CKDu and if pesticide use plays a role in disease prognosis.  Using a population-based study, the Prospective Epidemiological Research Studies in Iran, the researchers tested individuals to estimate a glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 to indicate CKDu. Researchers obtained data on indoor pesticide use and duration of exposure through a questionnaire. After excluding subjects with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 60-89 ml/min/1.73 m2, and unavailable creatinine measurement, 1079 subjects remained in the study.

The results find that the prevalence of CKD in females was 2.6 times higher than in male subjects. The duration of exposure to indoor use of pesticides is significantly higher in subjects in the CKDu group than those in the non-CKDu group (50.3% and 40.8%, respectively). Additionally, single women participating in low physical activity, with triglyceride (TG) levels of more than 150 mg/dl, a body mass index (BMI) of more than 25 kg/m2, a non-smoker, and high pesticide exposure time for indoor pesticide use have a greater association with CKDu. The most significant factors in the multivariable analysis are age, sex, TG levels of more than 150 mg/dl, pesticide use, and high pesticide exposure time.

Many studies document pesticides’ impacts on kidney function, finding a range of chemicals linked to kidney damage. Even among the 40 most commonly used lawn care pesticides, 80 percent have associations with kidney or liver damage. These chemicals include widely used herbicides like glyphosate and organophosphate insecticides like malathion. Glyphosate was initially created as a chelating agent (bonding ions and molecules to metal ions) to form strong chemical bonds with metals.

In 2013, the Center for Public Integrity highlighted that glyphosate bonds with toxic heavy metals in the environment, such as cadmium and arsenic, forming stable compounds. These compounds are present in food and water for consumption and do not break down until they reach the kidneys. Thus, farmworkers exposed to glyphosate are likely to have these toxic metals in their kidneys. In 2019, researchers Sararath Guanatilake, MD, and Channa Jayasumana, Ph.D., were awarded the Freedom and Responsibility Award from the American Association of the Advancement of Science for their work uncovering the link between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease.

Another pesticide, malathion, has recently been cited for its close link to kidney damage. Individuals may encounter malathion through consuming food produced in chemical-dependent agriculture or drinking water or as a result of drift from pesticide application and public use. A study published in October 2021 found significant associations with malathion exposure, low kidney function, and increased risk of CKD. A 2022 study found that 68 percent of well water sampled in Sri Lanka (south-east Asian) contains at least one pesticide above the global drinking water guidelines, including the organophosphate insecticide diazinon. Individuals reporting drinking well water during their lifetime have significantly (6.7 times) lower kidney health on average than those who never drank well water. With researchers now finding evidence that pesticide-contaminated well water may be a source of kidney dysfunction, it is evident that pesticide mitigation measures must protect those in intensive agricultural areas from pesticide exposure. While there is a desire to neatly separate bad from good actors in environmental ‘mysteries,’ including chronic kidney disease and the ongoing decline of pollinators, it is evident that in a world awash in chemicals, it is a combination of these factors that is likely at play. Therefore, protection from pesticide exposure is critical for those working and living in chemical-intensive agricultural areas.

The study finds longer exposure to indoor pesticides is more frequent among patients with CKDu, with a history of indoor pesticide use having 1.36 times higher odds of CKDu. Although previous studies report the prevalence of CKDu is 1.7 times higher among women than men, this study highlights a greater prevalence of CKDu (2.6 times higher) among female patients, demonstrating a possible uptick in CKDu odds. In fact, the study used multivariable models, including indoor use of pesticides (model 1) and duration of exposure to indoor pesticides (model 2), to determine the odds of having CKDu, with the disease odds increasing 7.5 and 8.6 times among the respective models. The study suggests the disproportionate risk of CKDu to women may be because women spend more time at home in pesticide-treated areas, increasing the risk of pesticide exposure. Moreover, patients who experience the highest quartile of pesticide exposure duration in the study have a 1.64 times higher risk of developing CKDu compared to individuals who never used indoor pesticides.

Thus, the study concludes, “This finding emphasizes the role of cumulative exposure dose at a specific time on kidney function. Although we cannot comment on safe threshold dose of house use of pesticides, as this was not in our study scope, but finding the safe use threshold of these materials could be of great interest that could be evaluated in longitudinal studies.”

The kidneys are one of the most important organs for filtering waste out of the  human body. However, kidneys are often the main target of pesticide toxicity mediated through oxidative stress. Therefore, we must protect human and ecological health by shifting to organic/regenerative systems to limit exposure to these toxic chemicals. Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, eliminating the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Considering pesticide levels in the human body can decrease by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which eliminates toxic pesticide use—limits overall exposure (toxic body burden) and resulting adverse health effects. Learn about pesticides’ impacts on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ pages on kidney/renal cancer and disease, oxidative stress, and other diseases in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and farmers, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: PLOS ONE

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2023) Why is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowing the use of pesticides under the “unreasonable adverse effects” to health or the environment standard of the federal pesticide law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA]) if the pesticides quickly lose their efficacy? Pest resistance to pesticides is a well-known biological mechanism that becomes problematic when farmers are faced with crop failure and economic loss. It becomes especially threatening when the goal is to manage insects that are a disease vector and when the regulatory process ignores nonchemical management strategies that are efficacious and sustainable.

Tell EPA, Governors, and Congress that given the certainty of pesticide resistance, ecologically-based mosquito management must replace a reliance on pesticides.

Insect resistance to insecticides has been an issue since the introduction of DDT in the 1940s. Although most countries currently ban DDT use, several currently used insecticides pose the same threat. In fact, resistance is predicted by elementary population genetics, and the speed of its evolution is directly related to the toxicity—that is, strength of selection pressure—and inversely related to the generation length of the organism. When that target organism of the pesticide is a disease vector, like West Nile Virus, the consequences of EPA’s failed regulatory review process to calculate target organism (e.g., mosquito) resistance are not merely economic—they pose a threat to public health. The threat is effectively caused by the reliance on chemical-intensive management strategies by virtue of the registration of the toxic chemicals instead of focusing public attention on sustainable nonchemical management practices that focus of preventing breeding and underlying conditions that contributes to the unwanted organism(s).

Areawide, indiscriminate spraying of insecticides causes resistance to develop among many organisms. Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to synthetic pyrethroids, in addition to other classes of insecticides, such as carbamates and organophosphates. For example, a study published in Pest Management Science finds resistance to insecticides like pyrethroids is jeopardizing attempts to control the mosquito Aedes aegypti, the primary vector of dengue fever. Prevention of disease outbreaks is threatened by reliance on chemical biocides—whether to antibiotics, antimicrobials, or pesticides—to which pathogens and their vectors develop resistance.

Resistance is an entirely normal, widely known, and expected phenomenon. Organisms evolve under the strong selection pressure of constant pesticide use, exploiting beneficial genetic mutations that give them a survival advantage. Another component of resistance is learned behavior, which allows mosquitoes to escape pesticides. As resistance grows in all areas in which biocides are used, including agriculture and medicine, it often leads to an increase in pesticide use, with implications for human health—including cancer, endocrine (hormone) disruption, reproductive dysfunction, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage—and the ecosystem.

Thus, resistance demonstrates the need for sustainable and effective strategies to combat the growing disease burdens. These strategies must start with an understanding of the ecological and social conditions leading to the spread of the diseases and their vectors. They must abandon the doomed pesticidal approach, which take resources from successful ecological approaches, poison humans, and disrupt healthy ecosystems that keep mosquito populations in balance with predators.

In view of the impacts of relying on pesticides for managing insect transmission of disease vectors, their use constitutes unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, which should result in the cancellation of their registrations.

Tell EPA, Governors, and Congress that given the certainty of pesticide resistance, ecologically-based mosquito management must replace a reliance on pesticides.

Letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

All harms resulting from pesticides are unreasonable if no benefits ensue from their use. So, why is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowing the use of pesticides under the “unreasonable adverse effects” to health or the environment standard of the federal pesticide law, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), if the pesticides over short periods of time lose their efficacy on the target organism because of the well-known biological mechanism of chemical resistance? This is particularly problematic when the goal is to manage insects that are a disease vector and we are ignoring nonchemical management strategies that are efficacious and sustainable.

Insect resistance to insecticides has been an issue since the introduction of DDT in the 1940s. Although most countries currently ban DDT use, several currently used insecticides pose the same threat. In fact, resistance is predicted by elementary population genetics, and the speed of its evolution is directly related to the toxicity—that is, strength of selection pressure—and inversely related to the generation length of the organism. When that target organism of the pesticide is a disease vector, like West Nile Virus, the consequences of EPA’s failed regulatory review process to calculate target organism (e.g., mosquito) resistance are not merely economic—they pose a threat to public health. The threat is effectively caused by the reliance on chemical-intensive management strategies by virtue of the registration of the toxic chemicals instead of focusing public attention on sustainable nonchemical management practices that focus of preventing breeding and underlying conditions that contributes to the unwanted organism(s).

Areawide, indiscriminate spraying of insecticides causes resistance to develop among many organisms. Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to synthetic pyrethroids, in addition to other classes of insecticides, such as carbamates and organophosphates. For example, a study published in Pest Management Science finds resistance to insecticides like pyrethroids is jeopardizing attempts to control the mosquito Aedes aegypti, the primary vector of dengue fever. Prevention of disease outbreaks is threatened by reliance on chemical biocides—whether to antibiotics, antimicrobials, or pesticides—to which pathogens and their vectors develop resistance.

Resistance is an entirely normal, widely known, and expected phenomenon. Organisms evolve under the strong selection pressure of constant pesticide use, exploiting beneficial genetic mutations that give them a survival advantage. Another component of resistance is learned behavior, which allows mosquitoes to escape pesticides. As resistance grows in all areas in which biocides are used, including agriculture and medicine, it often leads to an increase in pesticide use, with implications for human health—including cancer, endocrine (hormone) disruption, reproductive dysfunction, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage—and the ecosystem. 

Thus, resistance demonstrates the need for sustainable and effective strategies to combat the growing disease burdens. These strategies must start with an understanding of the ecological and social conditions leading to the spread of the diseases and their vectors. They must abandon the doomed pesticidal approach, which take resources from successful ecological approaches, poison humans, and disrupt healthy ecosystems that keep mosquito populations in balance with predators. 

In view of the impacts of relying on pesticides for vector control, their use constitutes unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, which should result in the cancellation of their registrations.

Thank you.

Letter to Governor:

All harms resulting from pesticides are unreasonable if no benefits ensue from their use. So, why are we allowing the spraying of toxic pesticides if over short periods of time they lose their efficacy on the target organism because of the well-known biological mechanism of chemical resistance? This is particularly problematic when the goal is to manage insects that are a disease vector and we are ignoring nonchemical management strategies that are efficacious and sustainable.

Insect resistance to insecticides has been an issue since the introduction of DDT in the 1940s. Although most countries currently ban DDT use, several currently used insecticides pose the same threat. In fact, resistance is predicted by elementary population genetics, and the speed of its evolution is directly related to the toxicity—that is, strength of selection pressure—and inversely related to the generation length of the organism. When that target organism of the pesticide is a disease vector, like West Nile Virus, the consequences of EPA’s failed regulatory review process to calculate target organism (e.g., mosquito) resistance are not merely economic—they pose a threat to public health. The threat is effectively caused by the reliance on chemical-intensive management strategies by virtue of the registration of the toxic chemicals instead of focusing public attention on sustainable nonchemical management practices that focus of preventing breeding and underlying conditions that contributes to the unwanted organism(s).

Areawide, indiscriminate spraying of insecticides causes resistance to develop among many pests. Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to synthetic pyrethroids, in addition to other classes of insecticides, such as carbamates and organophosphates. For example, a study published in Pest Management Science finds resistance to insecticides like pyrethroids is jeopardizing attempts to control the mosquito Aedes aegypti, the primary vector of dengue fever. Prevention of disease outbreaks is threatened by reliance on chemical biocides—whether to antibiotics, antimicrobials, or pesticides—to which pathogens and their vectors develop resistance.

Resistance is an entirely normal, expected phenomenon. Organisms evolve under the strong selection pressure of constant pesticide use, exploiting beneficial genetic mutations that give them a survival advantage. Another component of resistance is learned behavior, which allows mosquitoes to escape pesticides. As resistance grows in all areas in which biocides are used, including agriculture and medicine, it often leads to an increase in pesticide use, with implications for human health—including cancer, endocrine (hormone) disruption, reproductive dysfunction, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage—and the ecosystem. 

Thus, resistance demonstrates the need for sustainable and effective strategies to combat the growing disease burdens. These strategies must start with an understanding of the ecological and social conditions leading to the spread of the diseases and their vectors. They must abandon the doomed pesticidal approach, which take resources from successful ecological approaches, poison humans, and disrupt healthy ecosystems that keep mosquito populations in balance with predators. 

In view of the impacts of relying on pesticides for vector control, our state should move towards sound ecologically-based mosquito management. Information about this approach is available from websites of Beyond Pesticides and the city of Boulder, CO.  (https://ow.ly/q9cE50Pt4nb)

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

All harms resulting from pesticides are unreasonable if no benefits ensue from their use. So, why is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowing the use of pesticides under the “unreasonable adverse effects” to health or the environment standard of the federal pesticide law, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), if the pesticides over short periods of time lose their efficacy on the target organism because of the well-known biological mechanism of chemical resistance? This is particularly problematic when the goal is to manage insects that are a disease vector and we are ignoring nonchemical management strategies that are efficacious and sustainable.

Insect resistance to insecticides has been an issue since the introduction of DDT in the 1940s. In fact, resistance is predicted by elementary population genetics, and the speed of its evolution is directly related to the toxicity—that is, strength of selection pressure—and inversely related to the generation length of the organism. When that target organism of the pesticide is a disease vector, like West Nile Virus, EPA’s failure to calculate target organism (e.g., mosquito) resistance is not merely economic—it poses a threat to public health. The threat is effectively caused by the reliance on chemical-intensive management strategies by virtue of the registration of the toxic chemicals instead of focusing public attention on sustainable nonchemical management practices that focus of preventing breeding and underlying conditions that contributes to the unwanted organism(s).

Areawide, indiscriminate spraying of insecticides causes resistance to develop among many organisms. Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to synthetic pyrethroids, in addition to other classes of insecticides, such as carbamates and organophosphates. For example, a study published in Pest Management Science finds resistance to insecticides like pyrethroids is jeopardizing attempts to control the mosquito Aedes aegypti the primary vector of dengue fever. Prevention of disease outbreaks is threatened by reliance on chemical biocides—whether to antibiotics, antimicrobials, or pesticides—to which pathogens and their vectors develop resistance.

Resistance is an entirely normal, expected phenomenon. Organisms evolve under the strong selection pressure of constant pesticide use, exploiting beneficial genetic mutations that give them a survival advantage. Another component of resistance is learned behavior, which allows mosquitoes to escape pesticides. As resistance grows in all areas in which biocides are used, including agriculture and medicine, it often leads to an increase in pesticide use, with implications for human health—including cancer, endocrine (hormone) disruption, reproductive dysfunction, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage—and the ecosystem.

Thus, resistance demonstrates the need for sustainable and effective strategies to combat the growing disease burdens. These strategies must start with an understanding of the ecological and social conditions leading to the spread of the diseases and their vectors. They must abandon the doomed pesticidal approach, which take resources from successful ecological approaches, poison humans, and disrupt healthy ecosystems that keep mosquito populations in balance with predators. In view of the impacts of relying on pesticides for vector control, our nation should move towards sound ecologically-based mosquito management. Information about this approach is available from websites of Beyond Pesticides (https://ow.ly/q9cE50Pt4nb) and the city of Boulder, CO.

In view of the impacts of relying on pesticides for vector control, their use constitutes unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, which should result in the cancellation of their registrations. Please ensure that EPA does not continue to approve these pesticides that threaten human and ecological health.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 4, 2023) The results of an Australian study published in Nature strike a contrast between land and water contamination with pesticide active substances (PAS), highlighting contamination as pesticides are transported through waterways. 

The study results on water transport raise serious contamination issues. Only about one percent of the pesticides entering rivers degrade, so that long stretches of waterways and the oceans suffer the direct impact of a pesticide’s active ingredient. The lack of degradation also means that water organisms are being exposed to levels of pesticides exceeding many of the regulatory threshold limits set by governments. Although observation data are highly variable, the authors note that measured concentrations of pesticides in some river reaches of North America, East Asia and Europe exceed one or more regulatory threshold limits “at least once a year.” Further, the pesticides can bioaccumulate at each level of the aquatic food web, which can multiply concentrations by a thousand or more in the highest trophic levels, according to the study authors.

The study finds that more than four-fifths of PAS are degraded in the soil, leaving about 10 percent of the original chemical in the soil as residue. Nearly half of that residues migrate into deeper layers of the soil where there are fewer microorganisms to break the active ingredient down. This means that fraction of the PAS likely accumulates in aquifers, mostly in its original chemical form. Aquifers are the source of most well water.

The authors of the study, through their assessment of hydrology and biogeochemistry, have developed their estimate of how much pesticide remains on land, how much reaches the oceans, and how pesticides behave in both ground and surface waters along the way. Understanding how pesticides behave in the global water cycle, from wells and ponds to rivers and the oceans, has been lacking.

The authors note, “[I]n many observed cases PAS may degrade into a cascade of daughter substances which can be as toxic as the parent and occasionally even more persistent.” For example, in 2021 Beyond Pesticides covered a study of pesticide metabolites, stating that “neonic [neonicotinoid] metabolites, such as desnitro-imidacloprid and descyano-thiacloprid, are more than 300 and ~200 times more toxic to mammals, respectively, than the parent compound imidacloprid.”

Globally, approximately 3.3 million tons of pesticides are applied to crops every year. While most of these pesticides are applied on land, some portion of everything on land gets into water and ends up in the ocean eventually. Pesticides are no exception.

The scientists assess the hydrology and biogeochemistry of PAS for the 92 most-used pesticides based on 2015 data. The PAS are a fraction of the total mass of pesticide compounds applied to crops, amounting to 1.1 million tons—a third of the total global usage. Of this, the researchers calculate that 783 tons of PAS are released to the oceans annually. So, according to this study, a fraction of the total reaches the oceans.

Active ingredients are virtually the only component of pesticide compounds whose toxicity is tested and regulated, so both the “inert” or “inactive ingredients” and chemicals resulting from geochemical or microbial action or disinfection processes are omitted from calculations of pesticide harms. For example, as Beyond Pesticides noted in its coverage of the pesticide metabolites study, “Nearly half of all breakdown products (transformation products) from four common-use environmental pesticides produce stronger endocrine (hormone) disrupting effects than the parent compound.”

The rivers receiving the most pesticide runoff from land include the Mississippi and the Sacramento in the U.S., the Parana in Argentina, the Ganges in India, the Yangtze, Pearl and Yellow, in China, and the Irrawaddy and lower Mekong in South Asia. These are not all of the rivers that discharge the most PAS into the oceans, however. The Danube and the Amazon joined the group in that category. In all, fifteen of the most important rivers in the world discharge at least 5,000 kg of PAS each to the oceans annually. The effects of pesticides on the oceans—unlike those of fertilizers, which deplete oxygen and cause harmful algal blooms—are little understood.

The researchers calculated another measure of the pesticide burden by comparing their estimates to actual observations in specific locations in North America, the European Union and Australia. They found that their model “generally underestimated observations,” which means that the burden on rivers and oceans is likely also heavier than they had predicted.

The most common chemicals in the modeled waters were glyphosate, metam potassium (a soil disinfectant), chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos. The ratios of pesticide types in rivers were estimated at just over half as herbicides, about 36 percent multi-purpose pesticides, about 11 percent fungicides and 0.6 percent insecticides. The ratio reaching the oceans was even more unbalanced, with about 63 percent herbicides, a little over a quarter multipurpose pesticides, about 10 percent fungicides and 0.7 percent insecticides.

A final result of the study: The group analyzes which variables exert the most control over how much PAS remain unchanged in soils and how much is discharged to the oceans. In both cases the main predictor is the rate of application to fields. For soil residues, annual soil water saturation, temperature and organic carbon content come next. For the oceans, the next most controlling variables are the surface area of the crop treated with pesticides, the surface area of the watershed, and the length of the river.

The study is a first approximation of the scale of the problem posed by pesticides traveling through planetary waters. Its results suggest that pesticides’ deleterious effects on the biosphere extend much farther than manufacturers claim. Over time, the global water cycle ensures that everything on land, including mountains, reaches the sea, and putting anything into water diminishes any control humans might have over it.  To interrupt the cascade of pesticide catastrophes, understanding the source is critical: the fields where the pesticides are applied. Stopping the process there is the most direct and effective way to start recovering from the damage pesticides cause.

The U.S. Supreme Court is not making the task any easier. As Beyond Pesticides observed last June, President Biden said the Court’s recent ruling in Sackett v.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “will take our country backwards” because it “dramatically limits the EPA’s ability to protect critical wetland ecosystems,” which are integral parts of continental watersheds. This means the burden of pesticides on waterways will increase, and, according to the Australian researchers, part of their active ingredients will traverse rivers all the way to the ocean.

Government agencies are not monolithic in their failure to press for improved regulation. Beyond Pesticides has covered the U.S. Geological Survey’s critique of the EPA’s regulation of pesticides in water. The USGS reported in 2020 that of its 110 National Water Quality Monitoring Network sampling sites, only 2.2% of the water samples were free of detectable pesticides. It is firmly established that humans are exposed to pesticides and their various related compounds through drinking water and carry body burdens of these chemicals that threaten their health.

You can take action. Urge Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland to expand USGS monitoring and mapping of U.S. waterways. Tell EPA Administrator Michael Regan that pesticides shown to contaminate our waters must be banned. For sample letters, click here. Visit here for more information on threatened waters and action suggestions.

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

Source: Maggi, F., Tang, F.H.M. & Tubiello, F.N. Agricultural pesticide land budget and river discharge to oceans. Nature (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06296-x;             https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06296-x

It’s hard to escape the impacts of the Barbie movie’s estimated $150 million marketing campaign. You may have noticed advertisements with Burger King’s pink burgers to Airbnb’s Barbie Dreamhouse. Perhaps you have seen viral memes or news stories about the movie’s takedown of the patriarchy or critiques that the movie is overly woke. The pink symbol of Barbie is often followed by a second symbol — plastic. The total mass of plastics on Earth now doubles the total mass of all living mammals, so would Barbie say life is fantastic? Or, might she urge the National Organic Standards Board to ban plastic mulch, an issue on the agenda at the Board’s upcoming October meeting?

Plastic products, including those used in chemical-intensive and organic agriculture, and pesticides, play a seemingly necessary role in modern life, encompassing many items beyond straws and grocery bags. However, the convenience of plastic comes at a considerable cost to the planet and human health. The majority of plastics are manufactured using oil and gas, exacerbating climate change. Scientists are becoming increasingly alarmed by the repercussions of microplastics, which are plastic particles smaller than 5 mm in size.

In 2022, Philip Landrigan, M.D., et al., announced the Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health to “inform the work of international leaders as they strive to fulfill the urgent call of the United National Environment Assembly to end plastic pollution and its unsustainable environmental, social, economic, and health-related impacts by negotiating a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty,” Led by heads of state, ministers of the environment from United Nations member states, 175 nations signed an agreement to develop a treaty by 2024 to end plastic pollution. The UN Environment Program has written: “A shift to a circular economy can reduce the volume of plastics entering oceans by over 80 per cent by 2040; reduce virgin plastic production by 55 per cent; save governments US$70 billion by 2040; reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent; and create 700,000 additional jobs – mainly in the global south.”

In oceans, microplastics may impact phytoplankton populations, which account for 50% of Earth’s oxygen levels. Beyond Pesticides reported on the Global Oceanic Environmental Survey Foundation’s two-year water sampling of the Atlantic Ocean near the United Kingdom, which found plankton populations may have plummeted by 90% since baseline 1940 levels. Just as insects are crucial as the basis of terrestrial ecosystems, plankton organisms are the base of aquatic and marine food chains.

Microplastics can cause harmful effects on humans and other organisms through physical entanglement and physical impacts of ingestion. They also act as carriers of toxic chemicals that are adsorbed to their surface. Some studies on fish have shown that microplastics and their associated toxic chemicals bioaccumulate, resulting in intestinal damage and changes in metabolism. Soil organisms and edible plants have been shown to ingest microplastic particles. Earthworms can move microplastics through the soil, and microplastics can move through the food chain to human food. Microplastics can have a wide range of negative impacts on the soil, which are only beginning to be studied, but include a reduction in the growth and reproduction of soil microfauna. When looking at the impact of microplastics, it is important to include the impact of associated substances. As noted above, they can carry toxic chemicals. A review by Zhu et al. cites several studies showing, “[M]icroplastics can serve as hotspots of gene exchange between phylogenetically different microorganisms by introducing additional surface, thus having a potential to increase the spread of ARGs [antibiotic resistance genes] and antibiotic-resistant pathogens in water and sediments.” Read more about the impacts of microplastics and pesticides on ocean ecosystems here.

There is growing evidence of microplastic’s effects on terrestrial organisms. A report in 2021 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations found “the land we use to grow our food is contaminated with even larger quantities of plastic pollutants” than the well-publicized amount of plastics in our oceans. The plastic coating of some synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, as investigated by a 2022 report from the Center for International Environmental Law, found that plastic-coated agrochemicals are adding microplastics to soil and crops directly. According to the report, the addition of plastics into the food supply compounds the health and environmental hazards of toxic pesticides and other agrochemicals.

Beyond Pesticides has written about the “contributions” of plastics to the climate crisis, as well as issues related to the use of plastics in organic agriculture and the scourge of chemical-intensive farming. An enormous amount of plastic in thousands of forms is produced globally each year. Toxic plastic pollution is now found, as The Guardian puts it, “from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans.” 

Beyond Pesticides has long fought for a precautionary approach to the regulation of toxic pesticides and microplastics. In order to safeguard human and ecosystem health now and for future generations, it is critical to pass laws that consider the full life cycle of material and forgo production if hazards are too high.

In 2023, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is reviewing the allowance of plastic mulch in certified organic agriculture. This is part of the larger issue relating to the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Because of growing awareness about the impacts of plastic—and the microplastic particles resulting from its use—on human health and the environment, this issue is on the agenda of the NOSB meeting, scheduled for October 24, -26 in Providence, RI. Public comments can be delivered to the NOSB by virtual meetings on October 17 and 19. (Details on how to make written and/or oral comments will be announced when the meeting announcement is published in the Federal Register.) Plastics manufacturing requires the transportation of hazardous chemicals, such as those involved in the February 2023 derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Beyond Pesticides has urged that plastic mulch not be relisted as allowable in organic production. See Beyond Pesticides’ comments on plastic mulch on the organization’s Keeping Organic Strong webpage. Moreover, Beyond Pesticides urges that the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic processing and packaging. The Crops Subcommittee last month voted 4 (yes)-2 (no) (1 absent) to remove plastic mulch and covers from the National List. The notes from the subcommittee: “Commenters and the NOSB acknowledged the need for these materials, while also finding the issue of plastic problematic. The Board is interested in determining how much plastic is actually used in organic production and is unsure how to find that data. Members discussed alternatives and solutions, and feel that biodegradable biobased plastic mulch, which is on the National List although no products exist currently, may not be the solution.”

We must ask ourselves if we want to live in a Barbie world — a world where our clothes, food, parks, and playfields are filled with plastic. Learn more about how easy it is to create non-plastic and non-chemical natural turfgrass. Prevent plastics from entering your local community with toxic and unsafe astroturf and artificial grass. Sign up to be a Parks Advocate today to encourage your community to transition to organic land management and prevent a plastic Barbie world.

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

Source: Microplastics can alter phytoplankton community composition, Sowing a Plastic Planet: How Microplastics in Agrochemicals Are Affecting Our Soils, Our Food, and Our Future, Health impacts of artificial turf: Toxicity studies, challenges, and future directions

(Beyond Pesticides, August 2, 2023) A study published in Pest Management Science finds resistance to insecticides like pyrethroids are challenging attempts to control the mosquito Aedes aegypti (Ae. aegypti), the primary transmitter (vector) of dengue fever. While this study takes place in Bangladesh, resistance to biocides—whether to antibiotics, antimicrobials, or pesticides—is growing globally. Prevention of disease outbreaks is threatened by reliance on chemical biocides to which pathogens and their vectors develop resistance. In fact, resistance is predicted by elementary population genetics, and the speed of its evolution is directly related to the toxicity—that is, the strength of selection pressure—and inversely related to the generation length of the organism. (See PAY articles here and here, a PBS article here.)

Insecticide resistance has been an issue since the introduction of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) in the 1940s. Although most countries currently ban DDT use, the compound is not the only chemical pesticide promoting pest resistance. Several current-use insecticides pose the same threat. Areawide, indiscriminate spraying of insecticides is causing resistance to develop among many pests. Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to synthetic pyrethroids, in addition to other classes of insecticides, such as carbamates and organophosphates. Thus, this study demonstrates the need for sustainable and practical strategies to combat the growing disease burdens.

The study notes, “Intensive use of pyrethroids in Dhaka has selected for highly resistant mosquito populations, which was confirmed through bioassays. This pyrethroid resistance is associated with high frequencies of the V1016G kdr mutation and activities of detoxifying enzymes. As evidenced from our free-flight experiments, the effective operational use of pyrethroids in control programs is compromised and, therefore, requires reconsideration. […] Ultimately, scalable and sustainable non-insecticide-based approaches such as Wolbachia-based population replacement could have an important role in curbing Aedes-borne diseases in Bangladesh.”

Researchers from the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Australia, examined the common insecticides used in Dhaka, Bangladesh, to determine the mechanisms and intensity of insecticide application driving resistance. The pyrethroid insecticides tested include permethrin and deltamethrin. Using a bottle assay, the research measures the mortality percentage of mosquitos after insecticide exposure. The study finds Ae. Aegypti mosquito colonies display significantly higher levels (high-intensity) of resistance to pyrethroids. Although the mortality rate of mosquitos exposed to permethrin is much lower than deltamethrin (2–24% mortality and 48–94% mortality, respectively), the metabolic mechanisms involved are the same. Specifically, responses to the synergistic reaction between pyrethroids induce multi-function oxidases, esterases, and glutathione S-transferases. Moreover, a high frequency of kdr alleles for resistance indicates a V1016G mutation, conferring resistance to deltamethrin. Although exposure can mitigate host-seeking behavior, this effect is only temporary. Considering over 74 percent of mosquitos from colonies in Dhaka survive initial exposure to pyrethroids, the implication for increased disease prevalence is elevated. 

Associate Professor Gregor Devine, Ph.D., at the Mosquito Control Laboratory, said, “‘The use of pyrethroids in Dhaka is no longer effective, and the control program needs to switch to a different approach.’ The study suggests the presence of high levels of insecticide resistance among Ae. aegypti populations may have contributed to the escalating dengue burden.”

This study resembles an all too familiar phenomenon of resistance among pest populations. Scientists note resistance is an entirely normal, adaptive phenomenon: organisms evolve, “exploiting” beneficial genetic mutations that give them a survival advantage. However, resistance is growing in all sectors of pest control, including critically needed agriculture and medicine. For nearly a century, the human response to resistance is the development of a compound that kills the resistant organism (whether pest or weed or bacterium or fungus), which works for a while. However, the dependence on chemical solutions is increasingly failing. Whether it is antibiotics for bacterial infections, herbicides for weeds/pests, or insecticides to mitigate vector-borne diseases, organisms are becoming resistant to usually toxic compounds. Once an organism inevitably becomes resistant to a particular chemical control strategy, people —the chemical industry, researchers, applicators, farmers, public health workers, clinicians, et al.—will have typically moved on to the subsequent chemical “solution.” Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) notes, “The World Health Organization underscored the problem in their 2012 guidance on policymaking for Integrated Vector Management (IVM): ‘Resistance to insecticides is an increasing problem in vector control because of the reliance on chemical control and expanding operations…Furthermore, the chemical insecticides used can have adverse effects on health and the environment.’”

Beyond Pesticides has written extensively on the issue of resistance, particularly the relationship to the use of agricultural and other land management pesticides, with the central message: resistance is a symptom of the ineffectiveness of chemical-intensive agriculture and leads to increased use of more and more toxic pesticides. In addition, resistance in one of the “sectors” mentioned above can “crossover” to become problematic in another. Growing pesticide resistance often leads to an increase in chemical inputs to control pests. Exposure to permethrin already has implications for human health, including cancer, endocrine (hormone) disruption, reproductive dysfunction, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage. Mosquito resistance can augment the use of chemical control methods, including the addition of toxic synergists like piperonyl butoxide (PBO), known to cause and exacerbate adverse health effects from exposure. Therefore, researchers need to understand the mechanisms prompting pesticide resistance among mosquito populations to safeguard human health from disease.

The use of permethrin and deltamethrin through fogging and ariel application plays a significant role in the high intensity of resistance among the Ae. aegypti colonies from Dhaka. The study highlights that pyrethroids act on the nervous system of insects, using a “knockdown” effect to cause death. Although this study suggests mosquitos can recover from the knockdown (KD) effect via a mutation in the kdr alleles, this KD effect is dose-dependent. Thus, pyrethroid increases the frequency of kdr mutation to prompt resistance. The study highlights, “[…] the substantial recovery seen after KD suggests poor binding of the pyrethroid to the mutated VGSC and a key role for metabolic mechanisms in ‘mopping up’ the pyrethroids.”

This study is not the first to demonstrate resistance to metabolic mechanisms driving genetic resistance among mosquito populations. A Colorado State University study finds two types of pyrethroid resistance: VGSC and detoxification metabolism. Similar to this study, the Colorado researchers suggest mosquitos that recover from the initial insecticide knockdown contribute to resistance in the field. Sublethal exposure may be responsible for the mosquito’s ability to recover. Rather than dying from dehydration and predation, recovery mechanisms allow mosquitoes to develop resistance over time. This study enables researchers to fully understand the genetic differences between mosquitos that exhibit resistance and those who recover or die. Knowing how genes factor into pesticide metabolism can help researchers understand how resistance evolves under field-realistic conditions. Therefore, it is essential to understand insect behavior that propagates vector-borne disease transmission that exacerbates the widespread public health crisis. Previous studies associate memory and associative learning with behavioral changes occurring in response to chemical exposure. 

In the context of deadly pesticide use in developing countries, Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, has noted, “We should be advocating for a just world where we no longer treat poverty and development with poisonous band-aids but join together to address the root causes of insect-borne disease because the chemical-dependent alternatives are ultimately deadly for everyone.” He also said, “We should focus on the deplorable living conditions and inequitable distribution of wealth and resources worldwide that give rise to squalor, inhumane living conditions, and the poor state of development that, together, breed insect-borne diseases like malaria.”

Even if dengue is not a local concern, there remains general concern surrounding the diseases mosquitoes can transmit, including the West Nile and Zika viruses. Beyond Pesticides provides valuable information on mosquito management and insect-borne diseases in the Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases section devoted to these issues. Furthermore, keep up on pesticide-related science and news, including mosquitoes and pesticide resistance, on Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News blog.

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

Source: Pest Management Science, Phsy.org

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2023) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is publishing a decade’s worth of pesticide incident data in a searchable database that will be updated on a monthly basis. The Incident Data System (IDS), with poisoning reports generated mostly from chemical manufacturers, states, a national hotline, and poison control centers, offers information on reported pesticide exposures from accidental poisoning of pets, wildlife, and humans, to pesticide drift, noncompliance, and other pesticide incidents that may be associated with product uses in compliance with label instructions. Tracking this incident data is essential to understanding the risks and damages associated with pesticide use.  

The bulk of the data on incidents is from consumer reports to chemical manufacturers. Chemical companies are required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2) to report incidents: “If at any time after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has additional factual information regarding unreasonable adverse effects on the environment of the pesticide, the registrant shall submit such information to the Administrator.” The determine of threshold number of incidents required to be reported as a pattern of “unreasonable adverse effects” is left to the manufacturers to determine. Through EPA’s Voluntary 6(a)(2) Incident Reporting Form, chemical companies are instructed to determine “the severity category of any given incident” and “the appropriate method of reporting that incident to the EPA.” According to EPA, “There are two sets of forms to reflect the two methods of reporting incidents to the Agency. Incidents that are of a more significant nature must be reported individually. Incidents that are either minor or more commonly encountered must be reported in aggregate.” 

Publishing incident data in the IDS is the first step to analyzing pesticide incidents to help regulatory agencies and stakeholders identify patterns, take appropriate actions, and presumably improve pesticide restrictions for the protection of public health and the environment. The underlying data in the IDS relies on pesticide incident reports, which are generated when a person experiences harm or witnesses harm to another person, animal, or plant and alerts the appropriate authorities (including the EPA, poison control centers, and state regulatory agencies). For more information on how to respond to pesticide emergencies. Read more here.  

Information in the IDS database includes details about the location of the pesticide incident, the exposure of an animal or human, the severity level, the date of the incident, and information about the ingredient or product involved in the exposure. Additionally, the database provides aggregated counts of reported incidents by exposure type.  

Before the IDS, access to pesticide incident data required filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, a cumbersome process that was out of reach for many. Now, the public can access data from over 44,000 reports of pesticide incidents.  

Many have long interpreted FIFRA, Section 6(a)(2) to mean that once any adverse effect on the environment has been identified, registrants are required to submit (additional) product information to the agency in order to address any data gaps for registration reevaluation. However, Section 6(a)(2) “does not require a registrant to generate new data or to seek out additional information.” Reports of bee deaths, which is by all intents and purposes, an unreasonable adverse effect, can and should be reported under Section 6(a)(2). The problem is that the registrant is required to report these incidents to EPA, but only after the incidents are reported to them by the affected party. The manufacturer of the product suspected of causing the bee incident most likely will conduct its own investigation into the incident, and as many believe, can misstate the results of the investigation in their favor. See Pesticide Enforcement and Compliance. 

The IDS database will help uncover patterns in pesticide data, which can be used to address widespread harms such as the Seresto flea collars that were linked to nearly 1,700 pet deaths (with active ingredients of flumethrin and imidacloprid). For more coverage from Beyond Pesticides on the risks of the popular flea and tick collar, see here and here and here and here.   

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the IDS covers information about the following pesticides incidents:  

• 4,412 incidents involving Glyphosate and human harm. Glyphosate is one of the most common herbicides.   
• 4,423 incidents involving Imidacloprid (a common neonicotinoid insecticide) and human harm  
• 6,343 incidents involving atrazine, the second most common herbicide.
• 1,169 incidents involving brodifacoum, one of the most widely used rodenticides in rat poison products. 
• At least 18 human deaths associated with paraquat  

If you would like to prevent your wild stock, pets, family, and ecosystem from experiencing the harms that are reported in the IDS, pass a local ordinance to eliminate pesticides in your community. Visit Beyond Pesticide’s website to learn how to pass an ordinance in your community here. To get your community off the pesticide treadmill, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future. 

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

Source: EPA Posts Pesticide Incident Data Publicly 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2023) As the national debates on the rights of women to make health decisions about their bodies in the context of abortions, the scientific literature is increasingly documenting involuntary spontaneous abortions and other reproductive effects associated with pesticide exposure—raising critical questions about the ability to control one’s health. Last week, Beyond Pesticides reported on an exploratory study, published in Environment International, that adds to the many studies demonstrating residential prenatal pesticide exposure can result in adverse birth outcomes. Residential exposure to five active pesticide ingredients (Ais) fluroxypyr-meptyl, glufosinate-ammonium, linuron, vinclozolin, and picoxystrobin has adverse effects on gestational age (GA), birth weight (BW), mortality after birth, child’s sex, premature development, low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), and large for gestational age (LGA). 

Despite the political furor surrounding medical abortions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to allow pesticides that cause involuntary spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and other reproductive effects in exposed women.

Tell EPA to ban pesticides that cause involuntary spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and other reproductive effects. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA does not permit the use of pesticides affecting reproduction. 

Most spontaneous abortions occur during the first trimester. The most common cause of miscarriage during the first trimester is chromosomal abnormality. Pesticide-induced chromosomal abnormalities may be seen in a damaged egg or sperm cell. Female farmworkers are particularly at risk, though exposure of the father to pesticides also increases the risk of spontaneous abortion. 

Pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Numerous studies indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water. Although many countries ban most organochlorine compounds, these chemicals remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. These compounds have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. Thus, exposure to these toxicants can cause many adverse environmental and biological health effects, including spontaneous abortions. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse effects on human health (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, etc.) and wildlife, and biodiversity. With the increasing ubiquity of pesticides, current measures safeguarding against pesticide use and exposure must be improved. 

The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern both because of the risk of spontaneous abortion and the health effects of those who survive, as well as to future generations. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds in a mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. A 2021 study finds pregnant women already have over 100 chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned persistent organic pollutants.  

Despite the evidence, EPA continues to allow the use of pesticides causing spontaneous abortion and other reproductive effects. It is time to ban these pesticides. 

Tell EPA to ban pesticides that cause involuntary spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and other reproductive effects. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA does not permit the use of pesticides affecting reproduction.

Letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Despite the public attention to medical abortions, EPA continues to allow pesticides that cause involuntary spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and other reproductive effects in exposed women. 

Most spontaneous abortions occur during the first trimester. The most common cause of miscarriage during the first trimester is chromosomal abnormality. Pesticide-induced chromosomal abnormalities may be seen in a damaged egg or sperm cell. Female farmworkers are particularly at risk, though exposure of the father to pesticides also increases the risk of spontaneous abortion.

Pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Numerous studies indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water. Although many countries ban most organochlorine compounds, these chemicals remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. These compounds have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. Thus, exposure to these toxicants can cause many adverse environmental and biological health effects, including spontaneous abortions. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse effects on human health (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, etc.) and wildlife, and biodiversity. With the increasing ubiquity of pesticides, current measures safeguarding against pesticide use and exposure must be improved.

The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern both because of the risk of spontaneous abortion and the health effects of those who survive, as well as to future generations.  Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds in a mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. A 2021 study finds pregnant women already have over 100 chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned persistent organic pollutants. 

In spite of the evidence, EPA continues to allow the use of pesticides causing involuntary spontaneous abortion and other reproductive effects. It is time to ban these pesticides.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Members of Congress

Despite the public attention to medical abortions, EPA continues to allow pesticides that cause involuntary spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and other reproductive effects in exposed women. 

Most spontaneous abortions occur during the first trimester. The most common cause of miscarriage during the first trimester is chromosomal abnormality. Pesticide-induced chromosomal abnormalities may be seen in a damaged egg or sperm cell. Female farmworkers are particularly at risk, though exposure of the father to pesticides also increases the risk of spontaneous abortion.

Pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Numerous studies indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water. Although many countries ban most organochlorine compounds, these chemicals remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. These compounds have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. Thus, exposure to these toxicants can cause many adverse environmental and biological health effects, including spontaneous abortions. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse effects on human health (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, etc.) and wildlife, and biodiversity. With the increasing ubiquity of pesticides, current measures safeguarding against pesticide use and exposure must be improved.

The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern both because of the risk of spontaneous abortion and the health effects of those who survive, as well as to future generations.  Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds in a mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. A 2021 study finds pregnant women already have over 100 chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned persistent organic pollutants. 

In spite of the evidence, EPA continues to allow the use of pesticides causing involuntary spontaneous abortion and other reproductive effects. I request that you, in your oversight capacity, tell EPA that it is time to ban these pesticides.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 28, 2023) A study published in Science of the Total Environment finds glyphosate can adversely impact sensory and cognitive processes in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Glyphosate exposure impairs bees’ learning of aversive stimuli like electric shocks paired with specific color discrimination. Additionally, the pesticide reduces attraction to UV (ultraviolet) light, specifically the color blue, and temporarily impacts locomotion and phototaxis (movement in response to light). These impairments to sensory and cognitive processes render foraging difficult for these glyphosate-exposed pollinators and vulnerable to unavoidable predators. The study highlights that symptoms of widespread chemical exposure may reduce foraging efficiency and adversely affect ecosystems, especially those dependent on insect pollinators. 

Pollinator decline directly affects 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, limit 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. 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 to establish monitoring and conservation to assess fluctuations in ecosystem services of essential species. The study notes, “The high-throughput paradigm presented in this study can be adapted to investigate sublethal effects of other agrochemicals on bumblebees or other important pollinator species, opening up a critical new avenue for the study of anthropogenic stressors.”

Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are the most common herbicides used globally. Previous studies evaluating chronic glyphosate or GBH exposure assessed the survival, development, physiology, colony thermoregulation, or gut microbiota specific to honey bees. However, few studies have tested field-realistic exposure to glyphosate on non-honey bees’ (i.e., bumble bees) cognitive performance. Thus, the study investigates how long-term glyphosate exposure affects locomotion, movement in response to light, and learning in bumblebees using an automated high-throughput assay with a control UV and green or blue light.

Control bumblebees in the study prefer UV light to blue light. Yet, glyphosate-treated bumblebees’ attraction to UV light decreases, with these treated bees having no preference between UV light or an alternative color. Additionally, control bees who experienced electric shocks when paired with blue wavelengths (CS+) v. UV light always chose UV light. In contrast, glyphosate-treated bees could not differentiate between blue and UV light regardless of electric shock when in blue light. The study highlights, “Our results raise the question of whether an impairment in the detection of the sky compass could also have played a role. Furthermore, UV reflectance and UV patterns are important parameters of flower coloration, strongly influencing the foraging efficiency and flower choices of bees. To sum up, even a slight shift in UV sensitivity could have broad implications for these pollinators.”

Clean air, water, and healthy soils are integral to ecosystem function, interacting between Earth’s four main spheres (i.e., hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere) to support life. However, toxic pesticide residues readily contaminate these spheres, frequently in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. 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.).

The agricultural industry relies on insect pollinators for plant pollination and crop productivity. 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.

Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate use has put animal, human, and environmental health at risk as the chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species. Although the direct effects of pesticides on pollinators are concerning, the indirect impacts on pollinator habitats are equally troublesome. Glyphosate use in mono-crop agriculture and genetically engineered crops can drift onto and destroy adjacent habitats. Habitat destruction results in the loss of species biodiversity and stable ecosystem processes integral to sustainability. 

When looking at pesticide exposure, glyphosate represents only one class out of thousands of agrichemicals that pollinators may encounter. Pesticide use poses one of the most significant threats to bumblebees and places their entire life cycle at risk. A 2018 study found that commonly used neonicotinoid insecticides begin to kill off bumblebees during their nest-building phase, as exposure makes it more difficult for a queen to establish a nest. Exposure to neonicotinoids results in bumblebee colonies that are much smaller than colonies not exposed to these systemic insecticides. Moreover, a 2017 study finds that neonicotinoid exposure decreases pollination frequency and results in fewer social interactions. That is likely because neonicotinoids alter bumblebee feeding behavior and degrade the effectiveness of bumblebee’s classic “buzz pollination” process. Research published in 2017 determined that fungicides also play an essential role in bumblebee declines by increasing susceptibility to pathogens. Moreover, EPA assesses the toxicity of individual active ingredients on bees through various testing methods when regulating pesticides. However, EPA does not require the testing of multiple active or inert ingredients to the same degree, despite evidence demonstrating these chemicals harm pollinators. 

While it is evident that factors like pesticides, parasites, habitat destruction, and poor nutrition contribute to the decline of the American bumblebee, the combined stressors can act together (synergistically) to increase the risk of bee mortality.

The study shows chronic exposure to glyphosate can reduce bumblebee’s ability to connect aversive stimuli like an electric shock with visual indications when partaking in learning tasks. The inability of bumblebees to learn these warnings puts these pollinators at risk of predation and disease when looking for food. However, this study only adds to the scientific literature on the adverse effects of chemical exposure on pollinator health, especially in sublethal concentrations. A lack of fine-color discrimination skills can threaten bumblebee survivability through a decrease in 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. In the U.S., an increasing number of pollinators, including the American bumblebee and monarch butterfly, are being added or in consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act, with specific chemical classes like systemic neonicotinoid insecticides putting 89% or more of U.S. endangered species at risk.

Furthermore, this study shows the potential of a fully automated, high throughput assay for sublethal effects testing on wild and solitary bees for chemical exposure, not just honey bees. The study concludes, “Glyphosate exposure impacted bumblebee physiology and nervous system function in several ways, from sensory perception to cognition. This could result from a broad disruption of brain maturation or function. Further research will be needed to elucidate glyphosate’s mechanism of action on insect cognition, as well as to evaluate if this effect is temporary or permanent.”

Pollinator protection policies need improvements, to safeguard not only all pollinators but the crops they pollinate as well. 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 40^th National Forum Series, Forging a Future with Nature: The existential challenge to end petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use, starting on September 14, 2023. Go to Forum website.

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

Source: Science of the Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, July 27, 2023) A study published in the Journal of Economic Entomology calls into question the scientific literature on protecting bees from pesticides. The study analyzes actions taken by pesticide users to reduce the risk of pesticides on nontarget organisms, known as “mitigation measures.” Ultimately, the study finds that there is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of bee-protecting mitigation measures.   

“Almost all research was centered around protecting honey bees. However, honey bees are a managed species that is not endangered,” Edward Straw, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher in the School of Agriculture and Food Science at University College Dublin in Ireland and lead author on the study, says, “When we try to protect bees, we really want to be protecting wild, unmanaged bee species, as these are the species which are in decline.” 

The study includes a chart of mitigation methods that have been tested in the scientific literature. The mitigation measures under evaluation include: restricting pesticide application to certain times of day, restricting the application of pesticides during weather events, removing flowering weeds that attract pollinators, applying repellents to deter pollinators, and more. The researchers find that there are few empirical tests on the most widely used mitigation measures, and they recommend that more and stronger scientific evidence is required to justify existing mitigation measures to help reduce the impacts of pesticides on bees while maintaining crop protection. 

The study also finds that only one category of mitigation measure appears to be more thoroughly covered with 12 studies — repellents, which are used to repel bees from visiting crops recently treated with pesticides. “It is an interesting idea, but it is not yet ready to be used,” says Mr. Straw. “It would need to be tested on a diversity of bee and insect species, as if it is only repellent to one or two species, all the other bees would still be exposed to the pesticide.” 

However, the researchers caution that the number of studies alone is not a sufficient measure of the effectiveness of a mitigation measure. The quality of the research is also important, and evidence from multiple continents and multiple species is needed to determine whether a measure works. 

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides says, “Even the most effective mitigation measures are not adequate to protect pollinators and human health.” Beyond Pesticides has documented drift through air and the migration of pesticides into groundwater with toxic runoff. 

With bees playing a crucial role in pollinating crops, it is important to ensure that they are adequately protected from the harmful effects of pesticides. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated to protect and enhance biodiversity, prevent crop loss, as well as protect pollinator populations, human health, and wildlife. Anything short of complete pesticide elimination in our agricultural system is inadequate. Eliminating synthetic pesticide use also helps to reduce the use of fossil fuels that contribute to the climate crisis and the spread of pests and diseases. See Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture page. Also, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective page. 

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

Source: Journal of Economic Entomology

(Beyond Pesticides, July 26, 2023) An exploratory study published in Environment International adds to the many studies demonstrating residential prenatal pesticide exposure can result in adverse birth outcomes. Residential exposure to five active pesticide ingredients (Ais) fluroxypyr-meptyl, glufosinate-ammonium, linuron, vinclozolin, and picoxystrobin has adverse effects on gestational age (GA), birth weight (BW), mortality after birth, child’s sex, premature development, low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), and large for gestational age (LGA). Pesticides’ presence in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age.

Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. Birth and reproductive complications are increasingly common among individuals exposed to environmental toxicants like pesticides. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality, with one in every 33 infants born with an abnormality that results in death. Therefore, studies like this can help government and health officials safeguard human health by assessing adverse effects following prevalent chemical exposure. 

Using a Dutch birth registry from 2009 to 2013, the researchers selected pregnant mothers over 16 years who were living in non-urban areas (who have never moved addresses or only moved once) as participants. Researchers estimated how many kg of the 139 active ingredients are used within 50, 100, 250, and 500 meters of the mother’s home during pregnancy. To determine the association between evidence of reproductive toxicity and gestational age (GA), birth weight (BW), perinatal mortality, child’s sex, prematurity, low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) among select active ingredients, the study employed generalized linear models, adjusting for individual and area-level confounders. The results demonstrate maternal residential exposure to fluroxypyr-meptyl and vinclozolin has associations with longer GA, exposure to glufosinate-ammonium increases the risk of LBW, and linuron exposure has an association with higher BW and higher probabilities of LGA. Additionally, picoxystrobin has associations with a higher likelihood of LGA.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Numerous studies indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water, and researchers caution that there are hundreds to thousands of chemicals that humans are likely to encounter. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. A 2021 study finds pregnant women already have over 100 detectable chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned chemicals. However, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are from unidentified sources, lack adequate information, or were not previously detectable in humans. Considering the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods of fetal development, exposure to toxicants can have much more severe implications. A 2020 study finds prenatal pesticide exposure can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher pesticide exposure rates, increasing the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities. These birth abnormalities can include acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even common household pesticide use during pregnancy can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children. Therefore, prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants like pesticides increases susceptibility to disease for both mother and child’s health.

The rates of preterm births, miscarriages/stillbirths, and birth malformations are increasing. Additionally, many current-use pesticides and metabolites (or breakdown products) of many long-banned pesticides still impart negative effects on human health that can continue into childhood and adulthood and may have multigenerational consequences. Thus, pesticide exposure poses a risk to mothers, their subsequent offspring, and future generations. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID). Although the U.S. bans many organochlorine compounds, the ongoing poisoning and contamination underscore how pervasive and persistent these chemicals are and their continued adverse impact on human health. 

This study amplifies the growing body of scientific research evaluating pesticides’ effects on newborns. Exposure to specific pesticides can increase the risk of higher BW, LGA, and longer GA, indicating an association between these neonatal complications and increased risk of obesity and cardiovascular diseases later in life. Although fluroxypyr-meptyl is one of the only pesticides in the study still approved for use in the European Union (EU), imported products can contain contamination from the remaining active ingredients via countries where use is possible. Moreover, some current-use pesticides share similar modes of action with the active ingredients in this study, suggesting future research on the effects of maternal pesticide exposure can use these findings as models. The study concludes, “The underlying mechanism driving these effects are unclear, but the findings warrant more research into the effects of (non-occupational) exposure to these pesticides on human health, especially in the vulnerable population of pregnant women and their babies. [Active ingredients] that were correlated or that share the same modes of action with the identified in this study may also be considered as leads for further research.”

Such ubiquitous exposure to environmental chemicals is of growing concern. But even more concerning are the multiple studies pinpointing the adverse health outcomes that are linked directly to the chemical exposures.  With the range of ever-present environmental hazards, advocates argue that it should be incumbent upon regulators to act quickly and embrace a precautionary approach. In the absence of protective regulations from the widespread use of pesticides, U.S. residents, particularly sensitive populations like pregnant mothers, are encouraged to take precautions.

There is a growing consensus that exposure to environmental toxicants before pregnancy can impair fertility, pregnancy, and fetal development. Thus, doctors and pediatricians strongly agree that pregnant mothers should avoid pesticide exposure during critical developmental periods. Exposure concerns about pesticides and other environmental toxicants are increasing significantly, especially for adults and children more vulnerable to their toxic effects. Moreover, many pollutants are subject to regulatory standards that do not fully evaluate exposure-associated disease risks. Advocates say that addressing the manufacturing and use of pesticides is essential to mitigate risks from chemical exposure to toxic pesticides. Therefore, advocates urge that policies strengthen 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 the 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 pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Body Burdens, and other diseases. To learn more about how inadequate pesticide regulations can adversely affect human and environmental health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

Human and environmental contamination from pesticides can be reduced through the buying, growing, and supporting organic. Study after study finds that making the switch to an all-organic diet significantly reduces pesticide metabolite levels in urine. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and agroindustry workers can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among vulnerable population groups. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2023) How can scientists fight the elimination of national pesticide data? More data! A new report surveys 58 academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, government officials, and businesses to measure the scientific, educational, and policy use of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide National Synthesis Project (PNSP), a database that is getting phased out by the current administration.  

According to the report authors, Maggie Douglas, PhD, Bill Freese, Joseph G. Grzywacz, PhD, and Nathan Donley, PhD, the PNSP is the “most comprehensive public description of pesticide use in U.S. agriculture.” Despite its widespread use across the government and 348 citations since 2010, the database has been degraded in recent years, including a shift from monitoring 400 pesticides to 72 pesticides in 2019. Moreover, starting in 2024, estimates of agricultural pesticide use will be released every five years (instead of annually). Advocates believe the loss of PNSP data could further hinder the ability to manage pesticide impacts on humans, agriculture, and the environment. These concerns are outlined in a letter to USGS and the Department of Interior, signed by more than 250 scientists. 

Beyond Pesticides extensively tracks USGS data and resulting findings to inform local and state action to take restrictive action on pesticides for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to act. For example, Beyond Pesticides has cited in its Daily News and databases (Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database) USGS data on issues including the following:  

• Harming Wildlife, Pesticides in Waterways Run into the Great Lakes Year-Round;  
• 45% of U.S. Tap Water Is Contaminated with PFAS, According to USGS Survey;  
• Ecosystem-Killer Fipronil More Toxic Than Previously Thought, Found in Waterways Throughout the U.S.;  
• USGS Report Shows Dozens of Pesticides Consistently Found in Midwestern Streams, Underscoring the Need for Organic Practices;   
• USGS Documents Threat of Pesticides to Waterways; Farm Bill Amendment Undermines Clean Water Act;   
• Levels of Pesticides Still a Concern for Aquatic Life in U.S. Rivers and Streams;  
• Native Bees Found to Have Residues of Pesticides Linked to Their Steep Decline;  
• USGS Survey Finds Pesticides, Fertilizers in Well Water;  
• USGS Finds Atrazine Herbicide Adversely Affects Fish Reproduction;  
• USGS Survey Finds Low-Level Pesticides in Drinking Water;  
• USGS Identifies Contaminants in Potomac River Possibly Linked to Intersex Fish;  
• Pesticides and Degradates Widely Detected in USGS Chesapeake Bay Study 
• and more, including citations of USDA data in factsheets, testimony, regulatory comments, and Action of the Week. 

Key findings from the report’s questionnaire highlight the critical role of USGS in providing pesticide use data, graphs, and maps. After compiling over 100 responses, the report finds that the PNSP is widely used in scientific research and policy analysis for “environmental integrity, agriculture, and human health.” Across federal and state governments, PNSP is frequently utilized in agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Center for Disease Control, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and USGS. Notably, many of the data from PNSP are not publicly available elsewhere. There is another national pesticide database from the USDA called QuickStats, but the report says the coverage over time, space, and pesticide compounds is not as widespread as the data in the USGS’s PNSP database.  

The report surveyed 111 people at 58 organizations with the following breakdown in representation: 60% academia, 24% nonprofits, 6% federal agencies, and 6% private sector. Among the scientists who completed the questionnaire, the PNSP was used in 65 of their collective number of scientific journal articles. The survey respondents used the database on topics including pesticide effects on wildlife or ecosystems, agricultural or pest management, the fate of the environment, and pesticide effects on humans. The themes from the survey include uses for informing research design, patterns of pesticide contamination, effects of organisms, pesticide regulation or policy, and educating farmers or the public. For more information, see a full summary of the report and talking points by the report’s lead author. 

The reasons behind these aforementioned cutbacks remain unclear, as the cost of the program—$90,000 to $150,000 per year (not including staff time)—pales in comparison to the USGS’s annual budget of $1.7 billion. Moreover, Dr. Douglas says that the changes to PNSP were made without consulting other divisions within USGS or other agencies that use the data.  

According to the report, the PNSP’s comprehensive and accessible dataset has played a pivotal role in research and policymaking. With the high stakes of biodiversity loss and public health becoming increasingly widespread, the need for reliable pesticide data is more crucial than ever. The report authors are part are calling on the USGS to:  

• Restore the dataset to its full scope of 400 pesticides or more every year and retroactively estimate the missing data 
• Gather input from stakeholders about the past and planned changes to the PNSP 
• Restore data about seeds being treated with pesticides
• Updating the estimates in the PNSP every year and posting preliminary estimates as needed 

At Beyond Pesticides, we believe the preservation of the USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project is essential to safeguard public health, support organic agriculture practices, and protect the environment from the impacts of pesticide use. Contact your elected officials today about improving transparency about pesticides and ask them how they plan to create or enforce “science-based” regulations of toxic chemicals without data.  

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to help keep the USGS’ Pesticide National Synthesis Project. Tell Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland and EPA Administrator that USGS mapping of pesticide use and monitoring of waterways is critical to good decision making and pesticides shown to contaminate rivers and streams must be banned. 

Letter to U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators 

I am writing to ask you to advocate for the retention of the Pesticide National Synthesis Project at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This important program for data collection is slated to be phased out.  

A recent study by the USGS shows that waterways that flow into the Great Lakes are experiencing year-round pesticide contamination that exceeds benchmarks meant to protect aquatic life. This is only one of many studies based on USGS monitoring of 110 stream and river sites, combined with mapping of annual agricultural chemical use. Other recent studies by USGS have discovered dozens of pesticides that are consistently found in midwestern streams; 88 percent of water samples in U.S. rivers and streams contain at least five or more different pesticides; 41% of public water supply wells are contaminated with pesticides or their degradates; and degradation of rivers from pesticide pollution continues unabated. 

The studies relating pesticide use and contamination of waterways can and should be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in pesticide registration decisions. “What you use makes it into the water,” Sam Oliver, PhD, coauthor of the most recent study, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As important as the existing monitoring network is, a joint study by USGS and EPA shows that it underestimates the problem—more frequent sampling detects twice as many pesticides, at higher concentrations. 

The USGS Water Resources Mission Area (WMA) researches pesticide use, trends in pesticide occurrence in streams, concentrations of pesticides in water of potential human health concern, pesticide toxicity to aquatic organisms, pesticides and stream ecology, and pesticides and lake sediment. While agricultural practices appear to correlate with peaking pesticide contamination during the growing season, urban runoff represents a larger overall proportion of the contamination flowing into waterways. With little to no natural soil to filter contamination, and impervious surfaces creating massive outflows of polluted water, this finding is unsurprising. Research conducted by USGS and EPA on urban runoff across the country in 2019 found 215 of 438 sampled toxic compounds present in the water. The sheer number of different chemicals and thus potential for even more toxic mixtures presents significant risks to health and the environment.   

The toxic soup in many U.S. waterways is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage. The data on water contamination has become one of the compelling reasons to abandon reliance on toxic chemicals in favor of organic land management can eliminate these threats. 

Scientific research by USGS is essential to evaluating the impacts of pesticides and must be included in EPA’s pesticide registration decisions. USGS needs your continued support to elevate, not eliminate or reduce, its role in uncovering and documenting the contamination caused by registered pesticide use. In addition, please urge EPA to cancel pesticides that pollute waterways and groundwater. No contamination is reasonable under federal pesticide law, given the availability of cost-effective alternative practices and products certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. 

Thank you. 

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

Source: An Essential Resource at Risk: Stakeholder Perspectives on the USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2023) Sewage sludge, also known as biosolids, is a byproduct of sewage treatment and is used as a source of organic matter for amending soil in nonorganic agriculture and landscaping. EPA has published a list of 726 chemicals found in biosolids in the National Sewage Sludge Surveys. This list does not include the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are emerging contaminants of biosolids.

Tell your Governor and local officials to ban the use of biosolids in farms and parks, until there is adequate testing of toxic residues—which does not currently exist.

In addition to PFAS (also referred to as “forever chemicals”), persistent toxic pollutants found in biosolids include: inorganic chemicals such as metals and trace elements; organic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, dioxins, pharmaceuticals, and surfactants; and pathogens including bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Regulation of biosolids by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been found by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG), in its report EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds of Unregulated Pollutants in Land-Applied Biosolids on Human Health and the Environment, to be inadequate. Lacking sufficient oversight at the federal level, action to protect health and the environment falls to the states and local jurisdictions.

Here are the conclusions of OIG:

“The EPA’s controls over the land application of sewage sludge (biosolids) were incomplete or had weaknesses and may not fully protect human health and the environment. The EPA consistently monitored biosolids for nine regulated pollutants. However, it lacked the data or risk assessment tools needed to make a determination on the safety of 352 pollutants found in biosolids. The EPA identified these pollutants in a variety of studies from 1989 through 2015. Our analysis determined that the 352 pollutants include 61 designated as acutely hazardous, hazardous or priority pollutants in other programs.

The Clean Water Act requires the EPA to review biosolids regulations at least every 2 years to identify additional toxic pollutants and promulgate regulations for such pollutants. Existing controls based on the Clean Water Act and the EPA’s Biosolids Rule include testing for nine pollutants (all heavy metals), researching for additional pollutants that may need regulation, reducing pathogens and the attractiveness of biosolids to potential disease-carrying organisms, and conducting compliance monitoring activities. The EPA’s risk communication regarding biosolids should also be transparent.

The EPA has reduced staff and resources in the biosolids program over time, creating barriers to addressing control weaknesses identified in the program. Past reviews showed that the EPA needed more information to fully examine the health effects and ecological impacts of land-applied biosolids. Although the EPA could obtain additional data to complete biosolids risk assessments, it is not required to do so. Without such data, the agency cannot determine whether biosolids pollutants with incomplete risk assessments are safe. The EPA’s website, public documents and biosolids labels do not explain the full spectrum of pollutants in biosolids and the uncertainty regarding their safety. Consequently, the biosolids program is at risk of not achieving its goal to protect public health and the environment.”

Despite OIG’s recommendation that EPA disclose to the public the fact that the chemicals in biosolids are not fully evaluated for safety and therefore safety claims, or implications of safety, are fraudulent, EPA continues to mislead the public. The OIG’s recommendation stated, “Change the website response to the question “Are biosolids safe?” to include that the EPA cannot make a determination on the safety of biosolids because there are unregulated pollutants found in the biosolids that still need to have risk assessments completed. This change should stay in place until the EPA can assess the risk of all unregulated pollutants found in biosolids.” However, EPA’s website does just the opposite with the following language: “Pollutants found in biosolids will vary depending upon inputs to individual wastewater treatment facilities over time. The presence of a pollutant in biosolids alone does not mean that the biosolids pose harm to human health and the environment.” Rather than alerting the public to the fact that full information is not available on the hazard of toxic chemical residues in biosolids, as recommended by OIG, the agency is telling the public that findings of residues does not indicate a threat to health.

Land application of biosolids to farms and landscapes is considered the standard means of “disposal.” Chemicals such as PFAS have been found to migrate into food when grown in farms using contaminated biosolids. Over 60% of biosolids are used in crops, and the contaminants in them make their way to our food and water. But if biosolids are used in landscaping, the contaminants pose a hazard to landscapers and those using athletic fields. In view of EPA’s failure to provide comprehensive identification, regulation, and elimination of potential contaminants, the biosolids themselves must be tested to ensure safety. Biosolids should be tested to ensure that they do not cause acute toxicity, cancer, genetic mutations, birth defects, reproductive or developmental effects, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, or immune system effects. Otherwise, they should not be used on farms or landscapes.

Tell your Governor and local officials to ban the use of biosolids in farms and parks, until there is adequate testing of toxic residues—which does not currently exist.

Letter to Governors and [local officials:

Sewage sludge, also known as biosolids, is a byproduct of sewage treatment and is used as a source of organic matter for amending soil in nonorganic agriculture and landscaping. EPA has published a list of 726 chemicals found in biosolids in the National Sewage Sludge Surveys. This list does not include the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are emerging contaminants of biosolids.

In addition to PFAS (also referred to as “forever chemicals”), persistent toxic pollutants found in biosolids include inorganic chemicals such as metals and trace elements; organic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, dioxins, pharmaceuticals, and surfactants; and pathogens including bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Regulation of biosolids by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been found by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) to be inadequate. Lacking sufficient oversight at the federal level, states and local jurisdictions must act to eliminate the hazards created by these contaminants.

Land application of biosolids to farms and landscapes is considered the standard means of “disposal.” Chemicals such as PFAS have been found to migrate into food when grown in farms using contaminated biosolids. Over 60% of biosolids are used in crops, and the contaminants in them make their way to our food and water. But if biosolids are used in landscaping, the contaminants pose a hazard to landscapers and those using athletic fields. In view of EPA’s failure to provide comprehensive identification, regulation, and elimination of potential contaminants, the biosolids themselves must be tested to ensure safety. Biosolids must be tested to ensure that they do not cause acute toxicity, cancer, genetic mutations, birth defects, reproductive or developmental effects, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, or immune system effects. Otherwise, they should not be used on farms or landscapes.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2023) A comprehensive and scathing report, “Neonicotinoid insecticides: Failing to come to grips with a predictable environmental disaster,” issued by American Bird Conservancy (ABC)in June, lays out the dire consequences of neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides’ continued use. The report is an update of an earlier review from 2013, which warned of the risks to birds, stating starkly: “A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid can kill a songbird. Even a tiny grain of wheat or canola treated with the oldest neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, can poison a bird. As little as 1/10th of a corn seed per day during egg-laying season is all that is needed to affect reproduction with any of the neonicotinoids registered to date.”

The story of neonic harm is one that has been repeated for generations with different pesticides. Pesticide manufacturers claim every new generation of their products is safer and more environmentally benign than the previous one. This is seldom true. There is ample evidence that pesticides pose threats to nearly every class of organism on Earth, from earthworms to elephants.

The neonicotinoids, introduced in the early 1990s, have been marketed as safe for vertebrates, non-bioaccumulative, and, because of their flexible application methods and long persistence in soils, requiring fewer applications than previous pesticide groups.

Neonics are now the most widely used insecticide globally in agriculture. The chemical group includes acetamiprid, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, as well as the minor compounds dinotefuran, nitenpyram and nithiazine. Neonics are often used to pretreat seeds before planting but are also sprayed on leaves and applied in what’s called “soil drenching.”

Because of neonics’ devastating harms to bees, the general public is likely now aware of the damage they cause to pollinators, but perhaps not so alert to their harms to birds. Despite the manufacturers’ assurances, residues left on seeds remain at levels that can harm nontarget insects and birds, many of which flock to agricultural fields expressly to eat seeds and insects. Thus, both seed-eating and insect-eating birds are often exposed to neonics. In fact, regardless of adult diet, it is estimated that 96% of birds feed insects to their young.

Neonics are useful because they are water soluble and thus can travel through all of a plant’s cells to kill plant predators. But this also means they are consumed not only by seed-eating birds but also by pollinating insects and hummingbirds, and they travel rapidly through aquatic environments. Even though manufacturers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumed when the neonics were registered that their water solubility would prevent bioaccumulation, their residues have been found even in seabirds.

Further, researchers have found harmful reproductive effects at concentrations much lower than the thresholds set by regulators. The ABC authors write, “Based on recent studies, we have increasing concerns over reproductive and sub-lethal effects resulting from low exposures in farm fields. In particular, impacts on sperm quality have been seen at dose levels a fraction of our calculated MATC [an average of no-effect and low-effect levels]….Given that exposure is often season-long, this raises the specter of significant effects on a large number of bird species.”

The industry and the government also appear to rely on some assumptions about bird behavior that appear to be specious. According to the ABC authors, EPA believes birds develop “learned avoidance,” that is, birds will be repelled by the neonics and will not eat enough seeds or insects treated with neonics to make them sick. But as the authors also note, “Learned avoidance in laboratory settings has been found to be highly variable and dependant [sic] on test conditions,” and if symptoms occur after a delay, a bird will not connect the symptoms to the food and will not learn avoidance. Wild birds can also be exposed to neonics via their drinking water, dermal contact, or inhalation, exposure pathways they cannot control. Birds may also be incapacitated enough that they quit eating, fail to reproduce, fail to migrate, become paralyzed or experience seizures.

The European Union banned three neonics in flowering crops pollinated by honeybees in 2013 and in 2018 expanded the ban to all field crops (but not permanent greenhouses). By contrast, EPA has ignored the advice of its own scientists. According to the ABC authors, “As early as 1994, EPA scientists had warned that both acute and chronic aquatic risk triggers had been exceeded for both non-endangered and endangered species exposed to imidacloprid….In 2007, USEPA scientists also extended concerns to vertebrate wildlife citing potential risks from low chronic exposures [references omitted].”

In May 2019, EPA obliged a request from Syngenta, Valent, and Bayer to cancel the registrations of 12 out of 59 pesticide products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The request derived from a settlement in December 2018 of a lawsuit brought by beekeepers and NGOs. EPA is also supposed to revisit the whole class of neonics to assess their effects on endangered species.

But in the meantime, perhaps the most egregious regulatory failure is that neonics used as seed coatings escape regulation, falling under the “Treated Item Exemption” of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which means the vast majority of applications of neonics are not even counted in usage estimates, according to the ABC authors. In 2017 a number of progressive organizations including the Center for Food Safety petitioned EPA to remove seed treatments from this exemption. EPA took five years to deny the petition, although it promised to “review labeling instructions for pesticides registered for seed treatments.” Earlier this year the groups sued EPA.

The federal government is also reducing the amount of data available to scientists and the public about pesticide use and spread. This year the U.S. Geological Survey slashed the amount of data it collects in its National Pesticide Use Map and is planning to release its report only every five years instead of yearly, starting in 2024. It has reduced the number of pesticides it tracks from 400 to 72, in part because the USGS buys data from a private company, Kynetec, which stopped including seed treatments in its usage statistics in 2015. The ABC authors add that the USGS also omits this category in its National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) maps, as the “seed coatings are too difficult to reliably source information on and, therefore, are not included in national pesticide-use estimates.”

Thus, no one really knows how much neonicotinoids are used on seeds. Claims that usage has declined reflect only that seed treatments are omitted from usage estimates. For example, a USGS graph of clothianidin usage in the ABC report shows that in 2014 more than 3.5 million pounds were used—the vast majority of it on corn—and the next year it was just over half a million pounds. This means only that 2015 was the first year seed treatments were dropped from usage estimates, not that less clothianidin was used. A paper published in 2015 in Environmental Science & Technology observes that, “It is remarkable that almost the entire area of the most widely grown crop in the U.S. (i.e., maize) is now treated with an insecticide, yet we have no public survey data reflecting this trend (USGS data are based on proprietary surveys and do not report the key metric of percent area treated).”

This kind of head-in-the-sand avoidance by regulators and agencies is dragging ecosystems into an abyss. Here’s what you can do to pull it back out:

• If you use neonics on outdoor plants, stop immediately. Buy organic fruits, vegetables, and seeds. Beyond Pesticides has a directory of organic retailers of these items. There are alternatives to neonics, as detailed here. If you feed wild birds, the ABC has looked into the question of whether commercial bird seed for wild birds contains neonic residues, and in 2019 concluded there is little risk of exposure to birds by this route so far.
• Write to your elected representatives in support of the Migratory Bird Protection Act. A sample letter is available from Beyond Pesticides. First introduced in 2020, the bill failed to reach a vote, and during the Trump administration the bill was altered drastically to absolve industry and agriculture from liability for bird kills. It was reintroduced in 2021 with restored protections to modify the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by banning the “unauthorized take or killing of migratory birds includ[ing] incidental take by commercial activities.” This would include birds killed by pesticides.
• As Beyond Pesticides has previously urged, “Learn more about what you can do in your community to protect pollinators and other species impacted by pesticides, and by neonicotinoids, in particular, via the short video, ‘Seeds that Poison’. More broadly, organic solutions to pest management and land management are the best ways to protect bird and non-target wildlife populations….For more information on organic land management see the recent article in Pesticides and You titled ‘Thinking Holistically When Making Land Management Decisions.’”

Beyond Pesticides collaborates with people and local organizations to advance changes that eliminate petrochemicals and fertilizers. See the Tools for Change page and become an advocate for Parks for a Sustainable Future.

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

Source: Neonicotinoid insecticides: Failing to come to grips with a predictable environmental disaster, American Bird Conservancy, June 2023, https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-Neonic-Report.pdf.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 20, 2023) Despite evidence of toxicity to pets from Seresto pet collars (manufactured with the neurotoxic insecticide flumethrin, as well as the notorious neonicotinoid imidacloprid), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) has announced that the popular flea and tick collars will remain on the market, but with new mitigation measures. However, advocates say that these measures will do little to protect people and pets from chemical exposure using these collars. The agency will require Elanco — the manufacturer of Seresto — to conduct enhanced reporting for various factors, including adverse symptoms, veterinary community outreach, and warnings on the product’s label. Seresto, developed by Bayer and sold by Elanco, has been linked to nearly 1,700 pet deaths, injuries to tens of thousands of animals, and harm to hundreds of people. There are nontoxic ways to protect pets from fleas and other pests while protecting human family members.

Children Ignored by the Agency
EPA has a history of ignoring the exposure patterns to children who come into close contact with pets and their flea collars and the potential adverse health threats, opting for warnings instead of regulatory action. In 2017, EPA issued a warning for tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) flea collars that advised: “not allowing children to play with [the] pet collars; keeping  [the] spray and power products out of reach of children; and, washing hands thoroughly with soap and water after handling.” Advocates point to the unrealistic nature of the precautions being advised, given that children come into contact with collars and other toxins sprayed on pets when they play and sleep with their pets and through hands (exposure) to mouth contact (ingestion). With TCVP pet collars (not pump/trigger liquid sprays), EPA announced a Notice of Intent to Cancel in October 2022 pending additional manufacturer data. In the case of Seresto collars and the synthetic pyrethoid ingredient, EPA is ignoring a plethora of studies in the independent scientific literature on adverse effects to children, including a 2022 study on prenatal and infant daily exposure effects.

EPA Opts for Warnings and More Information and Monitoring, Not Regulatory Action
EPA’s multi-year scientific review of Seresto-related incidents analyzes all reports of death and injury associated with these collars from 2016 to 2020. Although EPA highlights two percent of Seresto-related incidents resulted in death, death-related incidents are missing critical details that prevent EPA from determining the cause. Sublethal exposure to chemicals in these pet collars can cause severe adverse effects—from pruritus (itchy skin) and dermal lesions and changes in fur to lethargy, anorexia, and neurological symptoms. Since the removal of the collar can alleviate moderate to severe clinical signs of adverse health incidence, and reapplication of the collar results in a reoccurrence of clinal symptoms, EPA will require the registrant of Seresto to implement the following measures:

 “To alert veterinarians and consumers of potential risks, the terms of continued registration require Elanco to include label warnings on Seresto products that describe common adverse effects that have been reported, along with instructions to remove the collar if those effects occur and instructions on how to report the incident. Elanco also must develop an outreach program to more effectively communicate with veterinarians and the public on the risks of using the product and other similar pesticides on pets.

• To improve the quality of data reported when receiving reported incidents from consumers, Elanco must pursue additional information to the greatest extent possible to ensure that complete details of each event are captured. This information includes whether the pet had any pre-existing conditions or previous history of the reported condition. The Seresto pet collar registration has also been split into two registrations, one for cats and one for dogs, to make comparison of incident data across products easier in the future. Elanco must report incident and sales data to EPA on an annual basis.
• To reduce the risk of strangulation, Elanco must evaluate potential changes to the emergency release mechanism of Seresto pet collars to prevent death by strangulation or choking. The company must submit a report detailing the data and analysis collected and performed in pursuit of this effort within one year. Based on this evaluation, EPA may require a modified release mechanism for the Seresto collar.
• To allow for the continued evaluation of reported incidents, EPA has limited its current approval of Seresto collar registrations to five years. EPA will continue to evaluate Seresto incident data over that period.”

Background
Seresto collars are plastic pet collars embedded with pesticides designed to kill fleas, ticks, and lice; they contain the active ingredients flumethrin and imidacloprid. Flumethrin, a chemical in the pyrethroid class of synthetic neurotoxic insecticides, has been linked repeatedly to neurological issues, such as seizures and learning disabilities in children, to gastrointestinal distress, and to damage to invertebrates, according to EPA’s own analysis. However, this is not the first-time tick and flea pet products have garnered negative attention regarding pet health, as numerous flea and tick prevention products (e.g., collars, topical treatments, sprays, and dust) include pesticides such as (TCVP (mentioned above), propoxur, synthetic pyrethroids, and fipronil are toxic, not just to pets and non-target organisms, but to humans, as well.

Moreover, the agency fails to evaluate the synergistic effects of pesticides as these pest collars can contain more than one active ingredient that can work in tandem with another to exacerbate the adverse health symptoms. For instance, USA Today reports, “A 2012 Bayer study found [flumethrin and imidacloprid] have a ‘synergistic effect,’ meaning they are more toxic together on fleas….” However, a 2016 EPA bulletin concluded, “The risk of the combination of the two active ingredients, flumethrin, and imidacloprid, was not assessed because the two chemicals act in completely different ways.” Therefore, the EPA does not adequately evaluate the risks and harms of exposure to multiple pesticide compounds and “inert” or “other” pesticide ingredients.

EPA’s review of these Seresto-related incidents highlights the agency’s failure to thoroughly evaluate these products for animal safety with ongoing monitoring. In fact, in 2021, internal emails at EPA show that career scientists at the agency expressed concern about pesticide-laced pet collars, such as the notorious Seresto flea and tick collars, but that EPA managers “instructed them to avoid documenting those worries in publicly accessible records.” Additionally, the 2021 internal email revelations are further and unfortunate evidence of the state of EPA’s function in carrying out its fundamental mission “to protect human health and the environment.” However, for EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, this means protection from the broadly damaging impacts of synthetic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides has chronicled EPA’s “capture” by industry influence and the corruption that has marked both agrichemical industry behavior and, occasionally, internal EPA actions, as well as specific instances of EPA failures, such as those (like the pesticide pet collars) that put children at risk, and those that continue to allow the devastation of critical species (such as pollinators), ecosystems, and fragile habitats.

Furthermore, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) notes that EPA has received more than 75,000 complaints about these pet collars, associating their use with problems ranging from skin irritation to death. Gizmodo puts the current count of complaints to the EPA about Seresto, since 2012, at more than 86,000 — with 2,340 of those relating to pet deaths. CBD’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Burd, commented that — given EPA’s estimate of the ratio of pesticide incidents “in the real world” to complaints filed with EPA as roughly 5:1 — a sensible extrapolation is that many more pets wearing Seresto collars have been hurt or have died than are represented by reports filed with the agency. Karen McCormack, a retired EPA scientist and communications officer, notes that these collars have generated the greatest number of incident reports of any pesticide product in her long experience. She says, “EPA appears to be turning a blind eye to this problem, and after seven years of an increasing number of incidents, they are telling the public that they are continuing to monitor the situation. But I think this is a significant problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.”

Until EPA acts to protect pets by canceling the registration for Seresto flea and tick collars, dog and cat families can take steps to ensure their beloved pets are not negatively affected by these products (insecticide dust, sprays, or shampoos). Certainly, veterinarians may be able to suggest alternatives. In addition, check out Beyond Pesticides’ page on Keeping Our Companions Safe, its guide to least-toxic controls for fleas, and its comprehensive guide to keeping pets safe. NRDC also offers guidance on its website: Non-toxic Ways to Protect Your Pet.

Safely kill flea and tick larvae with non-toxic solutions: vacuum daily during flea season (changing bag often); groom pet daily with a flea comb (cleaning comb with soap-water between brushes); frequently bathe pets with soap and water; and frequently wash pet bedding, restricting pet to only one bed. Learn more about how to protect your pet from pesticides and the least-toxic controls for flea and tick infestation. 

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

Source: EPA, USA TODAY; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2023) A study in Environment International (August issue) by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) finds that almost half of U.S. tap water is contaminated with PFAS chemicals, with measured concentrations in both private wells and public water sources. Authors of the study “estimate that at least one PFAS could be detected in about 45% of U.S. drinking-water samples.” Although there are more than 12,000 different types of PFAS, only 32 are detectable by USGS lab tests, so 45% is likely a low estimate. 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of chemicals found in a variety of common household products such as nonstick pans and stain resistant carpeting, as well as pesticides and biosolids used as fertilizer. Long-chain PFAS, such as PFOA and PFOS, are more widely known because of their high toxicity and controversial use in the past. Today, long-chain PFAS are often replaced with short-chain PFAS, as the latter are not as bioaccumulative; however, short-chained PFAS also pose a significant threat because they remain highly persistent in the environment. Past Beyond Pesticides’ articles have described the prevalence of PFAS in products as well as their negative health consequences, including cancer, decreased fertility, obesity, and hormone suppression. 

PFAS are concerning because of their persistence in the environment alongside their contamination of food and water. “The quality and sustainability of drinking-water are rising concerns in the United States  because of population-driven water demands, increasing contamination of drinking-water resources, and a growing understanding of potential human-health consequences associated with exposures to contaminants,” according to the study’s authors. PFAS can contaminate drinking water sources as a result of biosolids application, outdoor pesticide use, industrial and wastewater treatment discharges, firefighting foams, and septic or landfill system contamination. 

The EPA recently issued health advisories on PFAS, emphasizing that it failed to adequately regulate this group of dangerous chemicals. Industrial chemical giants Dupont, Chemours, and Corteva are currently embroiled in a multi-billion dollar settlement over their role in PFAS water contamination. Although, as the study’s authors point out, “newly proposed MCLs for PFOA (4 ng/L) and PFOS (4 ng/L) were released in March 2023 by EPA as part of the National Primary Drinking-water Standards Rule,” these standards are not yet enforceable, so contamination remains a pressing issue. 

The aim of this study is to compare water samples from private and public wells, highlight in aggregate the consequences of PFAS on human health, and determine the primary drivers of PFAS contamination of drinking water. Water samples from all 50 states, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands were collected from 716 point-of-use tap water locations (269 private wells and 447 public water sources) between 2016 and 2021, with PFAS concentration measurements assessed by three different laboratories.  Researchers collected data through a standardized analytical survey with the help of a volunteer network. New data was examined in combination with tap water samples collected by the research team in past years. Although there are more records of water contaminants from samples gathered directly after treatment and before distribution, there are limited measurements of PFAS contamination at point-of-use (water that directly comes out of household faucets). This trend holds especially true for private wells, as they are often poorly monitored. As highlighted by authors of the study, testing before distribution does not account for contamination through “plumbing material with PFAS or sorption/degradation in the supply network.”  

After analysis, similar PFAS concentrations were identified in private and public water sources, but increased contamination levels were measured near urban centers, as well as industrial manufacturing and waste facilities that actively use PFAS. Types of PFAS identified per water source ranged from one to nine, and the corresponding amount of PFAS detected ranged from 0.348 to 346 ng/L. Seventeen different types of PFAS were detected in at least one source and as mentioned above, 45% of the water sources measured contained at least one type of PFAS. Exposure to PFOA and PFOS are believed to pose the greatest risk to human health, considering their well-documented carcinogenic capacity. 

Given the growing body of evidence on the dangers and prevalence of PFAS in our homes, outdoor spaces, and human bodies, methods are needed to clean and remediate drinking water sources—and immediately eliminating these toxic chemicals from production and use to protect people and the environment. More research is needed to investigate how PFAS interact with other organic and inorganic contaminants. Additionally, research must identify, and address, the geographical regions and subpopulations most affected by PFAS water contamination, as well as ensure that sample monitoring continues for both heavily used public systems and the more sparsely used public and private wells. 

Beyond Pesticides offers a variety of articles in the archives detailing the dangers of PFAS and prevalence of PFAS in pesticides. Check out Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination to learn more about the health and safety of water sources. Click here and here to take action against the widespread contamination of PFAS and explore Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change webpage to get involved in community action.  

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

Source: Environment International 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2023) The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council, the governing body for the world’s largest source of multilateral funding for biodiversity loss and climate change, has authorized $34 million USD to support the new high seas treaty agreement announced on March 4. The move marks a significant step toward safeguarding the delicate ecosystems of the world’s oceans and promoting sustainable practices on a global scale. The oceans suffer from severe pollution caused by various substances, including pesticides, agricultural runoff, industrial and petrochemical waste, and synthetic chemicals found in plastics. These pollutants pose a significant threat to human health. The ecological consequences of ocean pollution have long been highlighted by Beyond Pesticides.

The March draft agreement was approved by 193 countries under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). Then in June, the BBNJ agreement was adopted by consensus at the United Nations meeting in New York. The agreement will be open for countries to sign on September 20, 2023, after the Sustainable Development Goal Summit. In order for the treaty to be entered into force, sixty countries must ratify the BBNJ. In the United States, President Biden can ratify the treaty if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate approves a resolution of ratification.

The BBNJ is a legally binding agreement that establishes a framework for managing activities such as fishing, shipping, resource extraction, and pollution in the high seas. Critics of the agreement are concerned that the U.S. will not ratify the new high seas treaty because it was developed under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was not ratified by the U.S.

The $34 million allocation by the GEF Council will provide financial support to countries and organizations working toward the effective implementation of the BBNJ treaty. These funds will be utilized for capacity-building efforts, technical assistance, and the development of innovative tools and approaches to monitor and conserve marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The funds will be used to support various initiatives, including the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) in high seas regions, the development of scientific research programs to enhance our understanding of marine biodiversity, and the creation of partnerships and networks to facilitate international cooperation on sustainable ocean management. In addition to the aforementioned benefits, the treaty includes the following principles:

• The Precautionary Principle
• Polluter pays
• The common heritage of humankind
• Equity, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits integrated, ecosystemic approaches
• Recognition of the special circumstances of small island developing states and least-developed countries

GEF CEO and Chairperson Carlos Manuel Rodríguez said, “The Global Environment Facility is honored to serve this important new convention. We are ready to continue and intensify support for biodiversity protection and ocean health on the high seas.” According to its website, GEF is governed by a body of 32 (14 for developed countries, 16 for developing countries, and 2 for economies in transition) appointed by the 185 member countries, and funding is made available to developing countries that are seeking to comply with international environmental agreements. The website notes, “Financial contributions by donor countries are provided via several trust funds administered by the World Bank acting as the GEF Trustee and serviced by a functionally independent Secretariat housed at the World Bank.”

The GEF Council’s decision has been met with widespread acclaim from environmental organizations, scientific communities, and governments worldwide. Cassandra Worthington, community and policy manager at Beyond Pesticides, said, “The allocation of funds from the GEF not only signifies a financial commitment but also sends a strong message of collective responsibility towards the protection and conservation of marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries.”

Though many climate activists have historically focused on the carbon in the atmosphere, there is a growing concern about the accumulation in the Earth’s oceans. Oceans play a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate, holding 50% more carbon than the atmosphere. In the face of catastrophic climate change, prioritizing the health of Earth’s oceans can help stabilize global temperatures and weather patterns.

Moreover, protecting the health of the oceans ensures the preservation of diverse ecosystems and safeguards countless species from extinction. The same chemicals responsible for the decline of insects on land also contribute to the loss of vital aquatic and marine organisms, disrupting entire ecosystems. Healthy marine ecosystems contribute to the overall biodiversity of the planet. Beyond Pesticides reported neonicotinoid insecticides, detected in rivers, streams, and lakes across 29 states, which have detrimental effects on crucial aquatic organisms and ecosystems.

With the climate crisis upon us, international collaboration to take action is critical to a sustainable future. Healthy oceans are a critical element of any plan to mitigate the threats of the climate crisis. Beyond Pesticides is urging people and organizations to: Tell President Biden to sign the UN high seas treaty. Tell EPA and Congress to protect the ocean from toxic pollution. In your community, advocate for Parks for a Sustainable Future and work with Beyond Pesticides to put organic land management practices in place.

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

Source: GEF press release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2023) Students of environmental policy quickly learn that the most meaningful change to protect health and the environment begins with action in local communities. The challenge now is to preserve the rights of communities under federal law to restrict pesticides and advance local protections through the adoption of eco- and health-friendly, organic land management practices. As is known from history, with the leadership of local communities, the states and the federal government will follow.

History of Action in Communities and States

Major actions on the banning or restricting of specific pesticides over the last seven decades—from DDT (in Michigan and Wisconsin), 2,4,5-T [1/2 of Agent Orange] (in Oregon [read A Bitter Fog]), to chlordane (New York)—began with calls from the grassroots about dying wildlife to elevated cancer and miscarriage rates and other diseases. But, these chemical incidents (which continue to today with similar campaigns, but different chemical names like glyphosate, imidacloprid (neonicotinoids), and others), launched broader community-based efforts to curtail overall pesticide use—stop drift, runoff and other nontarget exposure—and require organic-compatible practices. Tracing the history—from Mendocino County, CA to Lincoln County, OR, to Casey, WI (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court), to Montgomery County, MD, to South Portland  and Portland, ME, to Eastern Arkansas—communities have sought to exercise their local democratic right to protect their families and communities from the assault of toxic pesticides. This right is the current existential challenge because today the continued reliance on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers significantly contributes to existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises. Will we allow Congressional elected officials, in alliance with the pesticide lobby, to take away this path to a livable future?

Chemical Industry and Congressional Allies Seek to Take Away Local Rights

While chemical industry power has in most cases successfully curtailed the rights of local communities to restrict pesticides on private property (allowing drift over neighbors and sensitive areas and runoff to waterways), the issue has been left to the state governments to determine the authorities it allows to its cities, towns, and counties. At least six states have upheld the right of localities to restrict pesticides, with Maine and Maryland communities serving as the shining example of local governments exercising their values and principles to protect people and the environment. Where a state preempts local authority, local governments are increasingly adopting ordinances that adopt organic land management practices (allowing only organic-compatible products to be used) on their public property. However, communities are fighting to get pesticides out of their local environment because these chemicals move so easily through the total environment (air, water, land, lawns, gardens, etc.). While not giving up on the responsibility of federal and state governments to honor their responsibility to protect public health and safety, the history of change teaches that the urgent need for transformative change will occur from the ground up.

Industry Pushes Farm Bill to Limit Local and States Rights to Adopt More Protective Standards

The industry, and its allies in Congress, continue to try to stop local governments from acting and are now discussing, in the 2023 Farm Bill, provisions that will stop local governments from restricting pesticides (see below). In so doing, the legislation under discussion will take away the right of states to restrict or choose not to restrict (like Maine and Maryland) their local jurisdictions from restricting pesticides. The federal pesticide law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) currently allows localities to restrict pesticides. As the federal government fails to take the urgent action necessary to confront the health, climate, and biodiversity crises, and is paralyzed by the current political discourse, the importance of local and state action has never been more important. (For more history, read this.)

Fighting Back with Organic

The good news is that practices are available through organic land management that contribute significantly to the mitigation and reversal of the current health, biodiversity, and climate emergencies by eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. (See legislation under discussion below that upholds and supports organic management practices.)

Act Now

There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity. The Farm Bill covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—offering many opportunities for strengthening organic production.

Tell Congress to use the Farm Bill to strengthen organic agriculture and our democratic process.    

As Congress drafts the 2023 Farm Bill, there is an opportunity for many topics—good and bad—to be introduced. Dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, which addressed threats posed by the Great Depression and drought, the Farm Bill is an omnibus bill passed every five years. It is designed to secure a sufficient food supply, establish fair food prices for both farmers and consumers, provide supplemental food assistance, and protect the soil and other natural resources on which farmers depend, but includes much more. Several proposals relevant to organic agriculture are currently under consideration, and Congress needs to hear that there is strong public support for those that will strengthen organic agriculture. In addition, bills that threaten democratic processes are also being considered. Our voices are also needed to oppose attacks on democracy and support an open, democratic process in writing the Farm Bill.

The Farm Bill is created through a process of negotiation that largely excludes the public at large. It consists of many sections, championed by a number of different constituencies and vest interests. The Agriculture Committees negotiate the contents of the Farm Bill, but it reaches Congress as one bill to be considered as a whole. As the Farm Bill is currently being put together, we are aware of several potential “marker bills” relevant to organic agriculture and the adoption of organic land care that may be incorporated.

Positive goals may be supported by these marker bills:

• Increase number of organic farms.
  • Opportunities in Organic Act R. 3650 and S. 1582.
    
    
• Support beginning and BIPOC farmers.
  • Justice for Black Farmers Act ( 96, H.R. 1167)
    
    
• Promote soil health and climate resilience through conservation policy.
  • Agriculture Resilience Act ( 1016, H.R. 1840)
    
    
• Sustain research that supports organic.
  • Strengthening Organic Agriculture Research Act
    (SOAR) (H.R. 2720)
    
    
• Provide infrastructure that supports organic.
  • Seeds and Breeds for the Future Act (S. 2023)
    
    
• Support for organic dairy is urgently needed, but so far no marker bill has been introduced that covers these areas:
  • More detailed organic milk data to reflect the depth of information provided for non-organic milk production.
  • An organic dairy safety net program based on organic-specific milk and input cost data.
  • Immediate support to address dramatically increased organic input costs for organic dairy farms.
  • Investment in organic milk processing infrastructure that serves areas within the US that have large numbers of organic dairies.
  • Fund feasibility studies on Regional Organic Milkshed Market Access.
  • Expand and improve access for organic dairy farmers to current funding.
  • Create Regional positions for Organic Dairy Market Specialists.
  • Support increased regionally headquartered processing capacity.

• Invest in local and regional food systems.
  • Local Food and Farms Act ( 1205, H.R. 2723)
  • Strengthening Local Processing Act ( 354, H.R. 945)
    
    
• Address consolidation in food and agriculture.
  • Farm System Reform Act ( 271, H.R. 797)
  • Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act ( 272, H.R. 805)
  • Protecting America’s Meatpacking Workers Act ( 270, H.R. 798)
    
    
• The following measures to strengthen organic integrity should be supported, but currently no bill incorporates them:
  • Set a timeframe for the NOP to do rulemaking after receiving a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendation when the recommendation is supported by 2/3 of the board.
  • Require the NOP to clearly state how their rulemaking relates to NOSB recommendations.
  • Authorize funding for the NOP to keep pace with organic industry growth and direct specific resources towards standards development.
  • Allow USDA to expand the definition of reimbursable expenses for farmer members of the NOSB to cover substitute labor on their operations during their Board service. Restore the NOSB procedure for “sunset review” of National List materials, to require a 2/3 vote to re-list a material (as opposed to the current process of a 2/3 vote needed to de-list.)
  • Require the NOP to accredit third-party material review organizations that review agricultural inputs for compliance with the organic standards.
  • Grant the NOP the authority to take enforcement actions against false organic claims on agricultural non-food products.

In addition, the following bills threaten the adoption of pesticide restrictions and organic land care by communities and should be strenuously opposed:

• Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (R. 4288). Threatens to undermine local and state authority to protect the health of their residents from pesticides—effectively overturning decades of Supreme Court precedent.
  
  
• Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act, 2019), not to be confused with the Enhance Access to Snap Act (also abbreviated EATS Act). The EATS Act is virtually identical to the notorious “King amendment,” which former Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tried unsuccessfully to attach to the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, generating overwhelming bipartisan opposition. With the bill’s purpose “To prevent States and local jurisdictions from interfering with the production and distribution of agricultural products. . .,” local and state health and environmental concerns are preempted. An analysis of the King amendment by the Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Program produced a long, but not exhaustive, list of laws in every state that could be repealed by the EATS Act.

Note: We will update this action as more information becomes available to Beyond Pesticides.

Tell Congress to use the Farm Bill to strengthen organic agriculture and our democratic process.    

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

I am writing to urge you to support an open democratic process in creating the 2023 Farm Bill and to use the Farm Bill to address the existential threats to health, climate, and biodiversity, as well as threats to democratic process.

As Congress drafts the 2023 Farm Bill, there is an opportunity for many topics to be introduced. The Farm Bill is created through a process of negotiation that largely excludes the public at large. It consists of many sections, championed by a number of different constituencies. The Agriculture Committees negotiate the contents of the Farm Bill, but it reaches Congress as one bill to be considered as a whole. I urge you to support a more open process.

I also urge you to support the following goals, as embodied in these marker bills:

*Increase number of organic farms: Opportunities in Organic Act H.R. 3650 and S. 1582.

*Support beginning and BIPOC farmers: Justice for Black Farmers Act (S. 96, H.R. 1167)

*Promote soil health and climate resilience through conservation policy: Agriculture Resilience Act (S. 1016, H.R. 1840)

*Sustain research that supports organic: Strengthening Organic Agriculture Research Act
(SOAR) (H.R. 2720)

*Provide infrastructure that supports organic: Seeds and Breeds for the Future Act (S. 2023)

*Support for organic dairy is urgently needed, but so far no marker bill has been introduced that covers these areas:

– More detailed organic milk data to reflect the depth of information provided for non-organic milk production.

– An organic dairy safety net program based on organic-specific milk and input cost data.

– Immediate support to address dramatically increased organic input costs for organic dairy farms.

– Investment in organic milk processing infrastructure that serves areas within the US that have large numbers of organic dairies.

– Fund feasibility studies on Regional Organic Milkshed Market Access.

     – Expand and improve access for organic dairy farmers to current funding.

     – Create Regional positions for Organic Dairy Market Specialists.

     – Support increased regionally headquartered processing capacity.

*Invest in local and regional food systems: Local Food and Farms Act (S. 1205, H.R. 2723); Strengthening Local Processing Act (S. 354, H.R. 945)

*Address consolidation in food and agriculture: Farm System Reform Act (S. 271, H.R. 797); Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act (S. 272, H.R. 805); Protecting America’s Meatpacking Workers Act (S. 270, H.R. 798).

*In addition, measures to strengthen organic integrity should be supported, but currently no bill incorporates them, and they deserve public debate.

It is also vitally important to protect democracy and local authority by opposing these proposals:

*Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R. 4288), which threatens to undermine local and state authority to protect the health of their residents from pesticides—effectively overturning decades of Supreme Court precedent.

*Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act, S. 2019), not to be confused with the Enhance Access to Snap Act (also abbreviated EATS Act). S. 2019 is virtually identical to the notorious “King amendment,” which former Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tried unsuccessfully to attach to the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, generating overwhelming bipartisan opposition. An analysis of the King amendment by the Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Program produced a long, but not exhaustive, list of laws in every state that could be repealed by the EATS Act.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2023) The exoskeleton of the black soldier fly (BSF; Hermetica illucens) has the potential to be an effective organic fertilizer. A study in the journal Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment highlights the positive impacts on plant size, flower count, seed production, appeal to pollinators, and resilience to herbivory that the fly’s molted exoskeleton (or exuviae) can have when used as a soil supplement. The use of insect exuviae as an organic alternative to harmful synthetic fertilizers is an important step toward an environment free from chemical contaminants, and BSF are uniquely equipped to contribute to a regenerative organic agricultural system.

The study set out to determine the impacts of BSF exuviae on plant growth, resilience to herbivory, and pollination. The scientists divided black mustard plants into four different treatment groups: 1) grown in soil amended with BSF powdered exuviae; 2) control group planted in chemically-treated (conventional) soil; 3) grown in amended soil and subjected to increased herbivory from caterpillars (Pieris brassicae) and aphids (Brevicoryne brassicae); and 4) planted in conventional soil and subjected to increased pest exposure. Scientists measured plant growth, flowering status, seed production, herbivore abundance, and pollinator activity.

After three weeks, the supplemented soil grew plants with enhanced height, width, and leaf length compared to the control. The supplemented plants produced more seeds and flowers, attracting a greater number of pollinators. Moreover, the plants maintained their enhanced growth despite herbivore attacks, signaling a heightened level of resilience. The study authors note, “When infested, plants grown in amended soil were better able to compensate for tissue or assimilate loss and resisted the attack better, not only maintaining their larger size, but also their enhanced seed production.”

Plants interact with a large variety of organisms above and below ground. On the surface, mutualistic plant-pollinator interactions are crucial for successful reproduction, but plant herbivory can negatively affect a plant’s survival. Underneath the soil, plant roots interact with countless microbes that can be both beneficial and harmful to the plant. BSF exuviae contain large amounts of the natural biomolecule chitin, which enhances the growth of beneficial microorganisms. Chitin increases the concentration of plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), a microorganism useful to the plant’s defense system in fighting plant pathogens and insect pests. Moreover, PGPR leads to faster regrowth by enhancing nutrient and water uptake.

The idea of a “circular agricultural system” is often discussed in advocating for a more sustainable future. But what is circular agriculture, and how exactly does it address the issues of pesticide use and climate change today? “Circular agriculture aims to minimize inputs of concentrate feed and chemical fertilizer as well as outputs of harmful substances and waste. Residual products from one chain are feedstocks for another.” In a circular system, inputs and outputs are localized as much as possible, removing the need for chemical soil additives. For example, instead of cultivating a monoculture field, a farmer grows a variety of crops, including livestock feed. Rather than importing animal feed from an external source, the farmer’s cows can eat feed locally grown on the farm. Cows produce manure, and manure is an effective fertilizer. Rather than importing chemical fertilizers from an external source, the farmer can use the manure as an organic fertilizer—and the cycle repeats. Circular agriculture works toward a more self-sustaining approach in contrast to industrial farming today. This system “can reduce resource requirements and the ecological footprint of agriculture. It can also help ensure a reduction in land-use, chemical fertilizers and waste, which makes it possible to reduce global CO2 emissions,” according to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Black soldier flies are already the “most widely used insects produced for animal feed” and are known for their ability to break down organic matter. Along with their most recent use as soil supplements, BSF can contribute to a circular and organic agricultural system. BSF are a nutritious source of protein for livestock; insect farming inevitably produces molted exuviae, which fertilize the soil and allow flies to break down any organic waste produced throughout the process. A consistent food supply of organic waste ensures BSF will reproduce, and the cycle can begin again.

To broaden the use of BSF as an organic fertilizer, society needs to invest more in scientific research and development and encourage insect farming practices. Not only does BSF fertilizer benefit the natural environment through sustainable crop development and conservation of ecosystem services, but the boost in crop yield and productivity enhances economic gains as well. Additionally, the use of harmful pesticides has drastic consequences for human health. By eliminating pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, we can alleviate the disturbing prevalence of health risks from chemical exposure.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the transition to organic agriculture and offers resources on the website highlighting insects and other pollinators’ role in the global food system. Click here if you want to learn more about the dangers of chemical-intensive agriculture, and here to learn about its threats to food security. Take action to support organic farmers and an agricultural system free of harmful pesticides. Land management of public spaces, including parks and play fields, also plays an important role in reducing pollution and mitigating threats to biodiversity and climate. To convert your community to organic land management, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future.

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

Source: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2023) A study published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research finds exposure to p-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB), a chlorophenol compound with uses as an insecticide, disinfectant, repellent, fumigant, fungicide, and deodorizer, can increase the risk of common endocrine (hormone)-mediated reproductive cancers (i.e., breast, uterine, and ovarian) in women. P-DCB or paradichlorobenzene has carcinogenic (cancer-causing) properties and the chemical has been banned in the European Union (EU) since 2005 for air fresheners and 2008 for mothballs. Being a chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbon (with benzene) compound (chlorobenzene), in addition to its cancer-causing properties, p-DCB can cause acute illnesses like headaches, numbness, sleepiness, nausea and vomiting and chronic effects like nervous system disorders leading to depression, and impact on the brain, birth outcomes, reproductive system, liver, and kidneys.

Pesticides have a long history associated with endocrine-disrupting properties that induce various molecular changes, prompting disease development. Adding to the science, a similar review published in Environmental Exposure, Biomonitoring, and Exposure Assessment highlights how specific estrogen-mimicking pesticides increase the risk of disease, particularly hormone-related cancers among women (e.g., breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer) and men (i.e., testicular, prostate cancer).PDCB, also known as para-dichlorobenzene, contains the carcinogen benzene and is chlorine-based (a chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbon compound), which in December 2019 gained it the status of EPA’s “High-Priority Substance for Risk Evaluation” under the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is long-lasting in the environment. According to EPA, the chemical is mainly used as a fumigant for the control of moths, molds, and mildews, and as a space deodorant for toilets and refuse containers. Importantly, it is also used as an intermediate chemical in the production of other chemicals, including those for tree-boring insects, and in the control of mold in tobacco seeds. It shows up in ambient air testing, in drinking water, and in factories producing or processing the product.

Exposure to past and current-use endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), like pesticides, have a long history of severe adverse human health effects. Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotics (i.e., chemical substances like toxic pesticides foreign to an organism or ecosystem) present in nearly all organisms and ecosystems. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds as endocrine disruptors, including various household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (e.g., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause cancer, among other health issues.

The study “provides insights on the potential role of environmental exposures in the etiology of gynecological cancers. Further exploration of the epidemiological and pathophysiological interactions between p-DCB exposure and endocrine-related female cancers is warranted to expand upon these findings.”

Exposure to p-DCB can disrupt metabolic and endocrine effects associated with endocrine-related female cancers (breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers). Using the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 to 2016, the study analyzed the urinary components of 4,459 women aged 20 years or older for concentrations of 2,5-dichlorophenol (2,5-DCP), the primary metabolite of p-DCB, to determine the association between p-DCB exposure and widespread endocrine-related cancers. Of the participants, 202 women have an endocrine-related reproductive cancer diagnosis with a significantly higher urinary concentration of 2,5-DCP than women without these cancers. Additionally, women experiencing moderate and high exposure to p-DCB have urinary concentrations of 2,5-DCP significant enough to increase the risk of endocrine-related reproductive cancers compared to low-exposure groups.

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

Endocrine disruption is an ever-present, growing issue that plagues the global population. Overall, endocrine disruption can negatively impact reproductive function, nervous system function, metabolic/immune function, hormone-related cancers, and fetal/body development. Thus, the connection between cancers and EDCs has a historical establishment. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) classify many EDCs as possible carcinogens based on epidemiological studies identifying instances of kidney, ovarian, testicular, prostate, and thyroid cancer, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma and childhood leukemia. However, the variations in EDC exposure levels and duration can make it challenging to investigate among humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fails to evaluate the depth and scope of chronic health and environmental concerns regarding exposure to EDCs. In addition to cancers, exposure to EDCs has links to infertility, early puberty, other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more. EDCs can also wreak havoc on wildlife and their ecosystems. Hence, advocates maintain that policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure.

This study adds to the little scientific literature concerning the probable link between p-DCB exposure and female reproductive cancers via endocrine disruption. Although endocrine-related cancers have genetic and behavioral components, the environmental components, like chemical exposure, are also essential to understand, especially since there is an incomplete understanding role the endocrine system plays in the development of these cancers has incomplete understanding. As an endocrine disruptor, p-DCB causes a dose-dependent increase in estrogenic activities, directly affecting the size and function of reproductive organs. Additionally, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorizes p-DCB as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B), warranting further investigations into the carcinogenic potential of this chemical to humans upon chronic exposure.

Studies directly link obesity with an increased risk of hormone-regulated endocrine cancers in women, finding an association between obesity/metabolic disorders and increased 2,5-DCP concentrations. This finding is unsurprising as p-DCB is a compound with lipophilic properties, accumulating in adipose (fatty) tissue. Like other EDCs and hydrocarbons, p-DCB may impair fatty acid metabolism and lipid synthesis, indicating a potential underestimation of toxicity effects on human, animal, and environmental health. Considering products in the U.S. containing p-DCB are frequently used in households and workplaces, the potential risk to the metabolic and endocrine system among individuals is infinite.

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

EPA has been severely criticized for its failure to evaluate pesticides in wide use for their endocrine-disrupting properties. See Inspector General Rips EPA for Failure to Test Pesticides for Endocrine Disruption. For a deeper dive into EPA’s failure to meet its statutory responsibility to evaluate pesticides for endocrine disruption fully, see  While France Bans a Common Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides, EPA Goes Silent: EPA ignores statutory mandate to review pesticides that cause deadly illnesses at minute doses, defying classical toxicology.

The ubiquity of pesticides in the environment and food supply is concerning, as current measures restricting pesticide use and exposure do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. For instance, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide biomarker (including parent compound and breakdown products) in their body. One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticides in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, from rural to urban, can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Environmental Science and Pollution Research

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2023) A study by University of Delaware entomologist Thabu Mugala and colleagues finds that modifications to their farming methods can reduce slug damage when those changes also encourage natural slug predators, allowing farmers to avoid the endless cycle of pesticide dependency, pest resistance, genetically engineered crops, and synthetic fertilizers. With insects as the target for tens of millions of pounds of agricultural use, growers of the highest-production crops in the U.S., corn and soybeans, continue to find slugs to be a serious problem. Corn and soybean growers who have adopted no-till or conservation tillage and cover crops often think these practices worsen the problem by increasing moisture and decaying plant material in fields, which slugs love. But the cause-and-effect picture is more nuanced and requires strategies that nurture ecological balance.

Slugs are the most damaging non-arthropod pest in no-till corn production in the U.S., and truly effective chemical deterrents do not exist at agricultural scale, as Beyond Pesticides noted here, although biological methods may be on the horizon, such as a parasitic nematode already used in Europe that shows promise. The most voracious natural slug hunters are ground beetles, but harvestmen (daddy longlegs), and wolf spiders also eat them.

The Mugala study, “Ground beetles suppress slugs in corn and soybean under conservation agriculture,” investigates 41 fields in Mid-Atlantic states through two growing seasons. The researchers looked at the interactions among cover cropping, tillage, pre-plant insecticide applications, weather, and natural enemies on slug populations and activity.

Slugs are mollusks and generalists, making use of both living and decaying plants, and cool, wet weather often triggers a slug outbreak. Farmers dealing with slugs know that tillage disrupts the soil microclimates that slugs like, and are tempted to use it, especially because, once started, a slug outbreak is difficult to suppress by chemical means. The available chemicals are expensive, do not work well in damp environments, and kill wildlife, according to Mugala et al., who also observe that while “there is no commercially available biological control agent for slugs in North America, there is an array of native and exotic predatory and parasitic natural enemies of slugs present.” Many of the pesticides used against insects, including neonicotinoid seed treatments, also kill these other beneficial arthropods, as well as other soil invertebrates important to cycling nutrients naturally.

Some slug baits are also problematic. Many contain metaldehyde, which as Beyond Pesticides reported in March, hampers the growth of vegetables and is quite toxic to many animals. Other anti-slug weapons may be difficult to use on field scales, such as bread-dough or beer bait. One Lithuanian study found that invasive Spanish slugs would not eat a lethal dose of either metaldehyde or iron phosphate pellets, and about 17 percent of the pellets were removed nightly from the study area by earthworms.

Less toxic regenerative methods may help slugs, but they also help their predators, and some tweaks to tillage and cover cropping may discourage slugs while encouraging their enemies. Mugala et al. report that the timing of cover crop removal affects slugs’ depredations—doing it too soon before planting gives slugs a leg up, so to speak. While a 2022 study of chemical-intensive corn production found reduced need for slug bait with the use of row cleaners to remove plant debris in seed rows and the application of nitrogen fertilizers at night, this approach ignores the value of natural predators and ecosystem services (see more).

Adding to the uncertainty about the best way to deal with slugs, some of the research data can appear contradictory; a 2013 survey of Shenandoah Valley farmers found that 13 percent of no-till fields planted with corn and soybeans showed slug damage, while only 1 percent was reported for conventionally-farmed fields. But another study found that farmers who always used insecticide at planting reported the most slug damage, independent of their tilling practices. This may be because their arthropod predators suffer sharp declines in fields applied with pesticides and where seeds have been treated with neonicotinoids. Farmers may be blaming regenerative methods for damage that is actually caused by pesticides.

The pesticide industry has long tried to monkey-wrench agricultural independence; Monsanto introduced Roundup-Ready soybeans in 1996 and claimed genetically modified seeds would enable sustainable (and now regenerative) agriculture by eliminating the need for tillage. Unfortunately (but inevitably) the target weeds became resistant to Roundup, and many farmers returned to tillage and even stronger chemicals. The first insect resistance to a pesticide (sulfur-lime) was noted in 1914.  With each iteration of this Darwinian process, the industry’s response is to develop a variant of the failed pesticide rather than developing ecologically-based pest management and abandoning chemical-intensive agricultural practices that ignore the ecosystem in which they operate.

Where once the industry touted the Green Revolution and the utter dependence of agriculture on its products to feed the world, now it is trying to convince people that it is on the sustainability bandwagon, all the while continuing to market its non-regenerative products. In Syngenta’s words, “Although the green revolution has been successful in feeding a rapidly growing human population, it has also depleted the Earth’s soil and its biodiversity and contributed to climate change. These extractive practices are not sustainable. We must move quickly to transform agriculture by employing a suite of practices known as regenerative agriculture.” The company manufactures the herbicide atrazine, a notorious endocrine disrupter.

Even as it claims progressive goals, the industry also continues its old-school scaremongering. CropLife America, the agricultural chemical industry’s powerful lobby group, claims that “Without pesticides, farmers would need twice as much land to grow the same amount of food due to reduced yields.” This is not true. Many farmers have reduced or eliminated pesticides without significant loss of yields or profits.

Despite the industry’s use of the right buzzwords and its attempts to clothe itself in the virtues of regenerative practices, pesticide use has not decreased. Just the opposite. In the U.S. about 196 million pounds of pesticides were used in agriculture in 1960; by 1981 it was 632 million pounds; by 2020 it was up to more than a million tons. The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization put global usage in 2022 at just over four million tons, with the U.S. in the lead and Brazil second. 

Farmers are already familiar with Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which looked like a step in the right direction when President Richard Nixon directed federal agencies to integrate it into agriculture in 1972. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) update in 2018 describes IPM as “a science-based, sustainable decision-making process that uses information on pest biology, environmental data, and technology to manage pest damage in a way that minimizes both economic costs and risks to people, property, and the environment.” But it took two decades for the USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to jointly agree to get IPM in place on 75% of U.S. acres by 2000. IPM has not been universally popular, and it has not weaned agriculture off pesticides. By 2001, some kind of IPM had been practiced on 70% of crop acreage, but pesticide use increased during the same interval, with little decline in the use of the most toxic pesticides.

More recently, organic and regenerative agriculture has been expanding. Between 2012 and 2017, U.S. cover crop usage increased by 50%. Still, cover crops are in use in less than 5 percent of croplands nationwide, reflecting a stubborn resistance to a core practice of regenerative agriculture. There remains among many farmers a fear, encouraged by the pesticide industry, that abandoning pesticides will result in pest apocalypse, yield reduction, and penury.

Agriculture will likely only survive and thrive if pesticide use declines rapidly. Nontarget effects of pesticides ranging from neonicotinoid insecticides to dicamba are wreaking havoc with the balance between plants, animals and humans. It should not take yet another generation to make the transition to sustainable food production, whether you call it integrated pest management or regenerative agriculture. See Beyond Pesticides webpages on Organic Agriculture and Keeping Organic Strong.

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

Source: Mugala T, Brichler K, Clark B, Powell GS, Taylor S, Crossley MS. Ground beetles suppress slugs in corn and soybean under conservation agriculture. Environ Entomol. 2023 May 26:nvad047.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37235638/

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2023) A study published in Parkinsonism & Related Disorders finds high exposure to household pesticides increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD) two-fold. There is a multitude of epidemiologic research on Parkinson’s disease demonstrating several risk factors, including specific genetic mutations and external/environmental triggers (i.e., pesticide use, pollutant exposure, etc.). However, several studies find exposure to chemical toxicants, like pesticides, has neurotoxic effects or exacerbates preexisting chemical damage to the nervous system. Past studies suggest neurological damage from oxidative stress, cell dysfunction, and synapse impairment, among others, can increase the incidence of PD following pesticide exposure. Despite the widespread commercialized use of household pesticides among the general population, few epidemiologic studies examine the influence household pesticides have on the risk of PD, although many studies demonstrate the association between PD onset via occupational (work-related) pesticide exposure patterns.

Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, with at least one million Americans living with PD and about 50,000 new diagnoses annually. Alzheimer’s ranks first. The disease affects 50 percent more men than women, and individuals with PD have a variety of symptoms, including loss of muscle control and trembling, anxiety and depression, constipation and urinary difficulties, dementia, and sleep disturbances. Over time, symptoms intensify, but there is no current cure for this fatal disease. While only 10 to 15 percent of PD incidents are genetic, PD is quickly becoming the world’s fastest-growing brain disease. Therefore, research like this highlights the need to examine alternate risk factors for disease development, especially if disease triggers are overwhelmingly nonhereditary.

Using an observational cross-sectional study, the researchers explored the association between household pesticide exposure and PD risk. The researchers selected patients with PD from the Latin American Research Consortium on the Genetics of Parkinson’s Disease (LARGE-PD), and specialists evaluated movement disorders associated with PD. The study extracted data on sex, age at evaluation (for all participants), age at onset for patients with PD, and lifetime smoking history (at least 100 cigarettes during lifetime). To determine household pesticide exposure, researchers asked participants whether they used chemicals to kill various types of pests (e.g., insects, weeds, fungi) in or around the house/apartment during their lifetime (four categories of answers: 1–5 days/year, 6–10 days/year, 11–30 days/year, more than 30 days/year). The study categorizes high exposure to household pesticides as more than 30 days per. Men tend to have higher instances of PD relative to household pesticide exposure. After adjusting for sex, age, smoking, or region of origin, researchers find the risk of PD is independent of these factors, and the odds of developing PD increase two-fold upon from (>30 days/year) household pesticide exposure.

Parkinson’s disease occurs when there is damage to dopaminergic nerve cells (i.e., those activated by or sensitive to dopamine) in the brain responsible for dopamine production, one of the primary neurotransmitters mediating motor function. Although the cause of dopaminergic cell damage remains unknown, evidence suggests that pesticide exposure, especially chronic exposure, may be the culprit. Occupational exposure poses a unique risk, as pesticide exposure is direct via handling and application. A 2017 study finds that occupational use of pesticides (i.e., fungicides, herbicides, or insecticides) increases PD risk by 110 to 211 percent. Even more concerning, some personal protection equipment (PPE) may not adequately protect workers from chemical exposure during application. However, indirect nonoccupational (residential) exposure to pesticides, such as proximity to pesticide-treated areas, can also increase the risk of PD. A Louisiana State University study finds that residents living adjacent to pesticide-treated pasture and forest land by the agriculture and timber industry have higher incidence of PD. Furthermore, pesticide residues in waterways and on produce present an alternate route for residential pesticide exposure to increase the risk for PD via ingestion. In addition to PD, pesticide exposure can cause severe health problems even at low residue levels, including endocrine disruption, cancers, reproductive dysfunction, respiratory problems (e.g., asthma, bronchitis), and other neurological impacts. Nevertheless, direct occupational and indirect nonoccupational pesticide exposure can increase the risk of PD. 

This study adds to the research that associates pesticide exposure with PD. A history of high exposure to household pesticides increases the risk of PD regardless of the age at PD onset. Insecticides are the most commonly used household pesticides, particularly synthetic pyrethroids, and organophosphates. Several studies identify various pesticides as involved in the pathology of PD, including the insecticides rotenone and chlorpyrifos and herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, and paraquat. A Washington State University study determined that residents living near areas treated with glyphosate—the most widely used herbicides in the U.S.—are one-third more likely to die prematurely from Parkinson’s disease. In the Louisiana State University study, exposure to 2,4-D, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat from pasture land, forestry, or woodland operations, as prominent risk factors for PD, with the highest risk in areas where chemicals quickly percolate into drinking water sources. Overall, research finds exposure to pesticides increases the risk of developing PD from 33 percent to 80 percent, with some pesticides prompting a higher risk than others.

This study adds to the large body of scientific studies strongly implicating pesticide involvement in Parkinson’s disease development. In addition to this research, several studies demonstrate autism, mood disorders (e.g., depression), and degenerative neurological conditions (e.g., ALS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s) among aquatic and terrestrial animals, including humans exposed to pesticides. Pesticides themselves, mixtures of chemicals such as Agent Orange (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) or dioxins, and therapeutic hormones or pharmaceutical products can possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Therefore, the impacts of pesticides on the nervous system, including the brain, are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Considering health officials expect Parkinson’s disease diagnosis to double over the next 20 years, mitigating preventable exposure from disease-inducing pesticides becomes increasingly essential.

Parkinson’s disease has no cure, but preventive practices, like organic agriculture or Parks for a Sustainable Future, can eliminate exposure to toxic PD-inducing pesticides. Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate toxic pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace regenerative, organic practices and consumers to purchase organically grown food. A complement to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do. Those affected by pesticide drift can refer to Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on What to Do in a Pesticide Emergency and contact the organization for additional information. Furthermore, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parkinson’s Disease article from the Spring 2008 issue of Pesticides and You.

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

Source: Parkinsonism & Related Disorders

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2023) [Editor’s note to readers: The local, democratic decision-making process to adopt restrictions on pesticide use, now under attack in Congress, has historically been critical to the protection of health and the environment when federal and state governments have failed in their responsibility. This local democratic right has not only protected communities where action is taken, but it has driven state and federal policy to do better—to do what is required in a society that cares about a sustainable future.

While federal and state pesticide policy sets a floor on minimum protections and rights, there is nothing more important than nurturing the local democratic process to increase and strengthen protections that elude government agencies that are unduly influenced by the powerful chemical industry. As we face existential crises of health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency resulting from gridlock in legislative bodies that ignore the scientific facts documenting harm and solutions that are within our grasp, there is nothing more important than empowering local communities to embrace meaningful changes that eliminate pesticides and adopt organic land management practices. These changes embrace nature and ecosystem services.

While the federal regulatory process is skewed toward assumptions of the benefits of toxic chemicals, local communities are able to address problems holistically by asking simple questions like: “Do we need to use toxic chemicals to manage lawns and landscapes, parks and playing fields?”; “Do we have to allow pollinators and waterways to be poisoned to manage land in our community?”; Do we have to expose our children and those with preexisting health conditions to toxic chemicals to achieve our land management goals?; “Why are we being told that the risks are acceptable when the chemicals have not even been regulated for damage to the endocrine system (affecting all organ systems in the body) or for chemical mixtures and synergistic effects with other chemicals, or for impacts on those with neurological, immunological, and reproductive diseases and cancer?; And, most importantly–a question not asked by regulators– “Are there solutions that do not rely on toxic chemicals?” These are the questions being asked in local communities nationwide, questions that are critical to health and safety.

Because of the critical value of local authority to restrict pesticides, we again urge the widest possible outpouring of voices in the halls of Congress to stop the chemical industry from shutting down the local democratic process in our communities to stop the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. Public communication with members of Congress is essential if we are to stop the pro-pesticide lobby from pushing on communities its toxic products. Urge your networks and your elected officials, and your local government officials to take action by using the links below. These are the questions that communities have a right to ask, then answer, and then act on.]

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

Amendments to the nation’s pesticide law, the Federal insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the attack on local authority to restrict pesticides have now taken shape with the introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R.4288) in the U.S. House of Representatives. With the pro-pesticide industry advocating for the preemption (or prohibition) of local authority to restrict pesticide use, the battle is focused on these amendments, or a similar attack on local authority, becoming a part of the Farm Bill. Members of Congress are now negotiating on this. However, local democratic authority to restrict pesticides in communities are not negotiable, advocates say.

Any change to local or state authority to restrict pesticides will overturn decades of Supreme Court precedent. Environmental groups and consumer protection advocates have long fought off provisions like those in the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act, which seeks to prohibit improved protections from inadequately regulated toxic pesticides. Among the many deficiencies in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review of pesticides is its failure to fully evaluate for endocrine disruption, according to the Office of Inspector General. This bill will hinder state governments from tailoring laws to address the specific needs and concerns of their communities.

While the bill’s language appears to focus on labeling, it actually prohibits any locality or state from imposing restrictions that are more restrictive than the federal labeling on a pesticide product. The bill states that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) will require the “uniformity in national pesticide labeling, and prohibit any State, instrumentality or political subdivision thereof, or a court from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirement. . .different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator. . .” In other words, if a community restricts pesticide use near sensitive areas, like waterways, or seeks to protect children, or those with preexisting health conditions, that action would constitute a restriction different, albeit more protective, from the label. 

For more background on the effect of the legislative language, please see Pesticide Lobby Pushes Farm Bill Amendment to Strip Localities and States from Restricting Pesticides.

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

The fight to defend the authority of local governments to protect people and the environment has been ongoing for decades, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. The Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law. In Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier,  the Court ruled that federal pesticide law does not prohibit, or preempt, local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government throughout their jurisdiction. According to Mortier, however, states do retain authority to take away local control. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording. 

Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to prohibit localities from developing policies reflecting the unique needs and values of the people living there. In states that do not prohibit local action on pesticides, an ever-increasing number of communities are stepping up to protect their residents and unique local environment from pesticide poisoning and contamination. Having failed to curtail local action and with a growing number of communities deciding to act, the chemical industry is flexing its muscle with an attack in Congress. 

States and localities must retain the ability to inform their residents about product risks, including pesticides like glyphosate. Environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, are urging the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to draft a Farm Bill that does not undermine (i.e., preempt) the authority of local communities that are striving to safeguard public health and the environment. 

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

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

Thank you for your active participation and engagement!