(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!

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2023) The introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (H.R.4288) in the U.S. House of Representatives, expected to be a part of the Farm Bill negotiations, is raising the specter (yet again) of undermining local and state authority to protect the health of their residents from pesticides—effectively overturning 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 toxic pesticides that are not adequately regulated by the federal government. 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. Critics argue that 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.

The introduction of state pesticide preemption laws has been a growing trend, largely influenced by the pesticide industry’s efforts to limit local and state control since the late 20th century. This has led to an ongoing debate surrounding the balance of authority between local, state, and federal levels of government in pesticide regulation, particularly in areas related to public health.

During the 2018 Farm Bill deliberations, similar efforts by the pesticide industry to limit state control were rejected by the Farm Bill conference committee. However, the introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act now aims to preempt California from issuing cancer warnings on products containing glyphosate, such as Roundup.

In addition to a blanket prohibition of local authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the EPA, advocates see the new bill as an attempt to preempt California, and other states, from issuing cancer warnings on products. Under Proposition 65, a right-to-know law in California, residents are provided with information about chemicals that may cause cancer or reproductive effects. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an internationally recognized authority on the carcinogenic potential of chemicals, classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic in humans.”

The constitutionality of the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate is currently being litigated. In a federal district court ruling, Monsanto and others claimed that the warning violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. California appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, and oral arguments were submitted in April 2023.

Despite the IARC finding and a preponderance of cancer findings in the scientific literature, as well as numerous jury verdicts for plaintiffs suffering non-Hodgkin lymphoma, in 2020, EPA released a human health risk assessment for glyphosate as part of the mandatory registration review under the FIFRA that concludes that the weed killer does not pose a cancer risk. However, in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the EPA’s determination, stating that the agency failed to adequately consider the potential cancer-causing effects of glyphosate. The court found that the EPA disregarded evidence, including increased risks of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and tumors in animal studies, as acknowledged by its own experts, advisory panel, and medical professionals. Consequently, the EPA has been ordered to revise its assessments for the final registration review of glyphosate by 2026, with the previous deadline extended by Congress.

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 the 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. 

Environmental activists and concerned citizens argue that states 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.

The introduction of the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act has ignited a contentious debate regarding the balance between federal and state control over pesticide regulations. The outcome of this proposed legislation could have significant implications for public health, environmental protection, and the authority of state governments across the United States.

Take action! Click here for the following two steps:

• 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.

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

Source: 118th Congress H.R.4288 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2023) A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds concentrations of organophosphate (OP) metabolites in urine during the prenatal phase have links to adolescent/young adult externalizing (e.g., hyperactivity, aggression, attention problems) and internalizing (e.g., depression) behavior problems. Thus, prenatal exposure to OP pesticides can permanently affect behavioral health as children mature into adulthood. This study adds to the growing body of research reinforcing the adverse effects of organophosphate (OP) exposure on cognitive health and neurological development, especially for infants and children. Prenatal development is one of the most vulnerable periods of exposure, as the fetus is most susceptible to the harmful effects of chemical contaminants. Many studies indicate that prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases susceptibility to diseases, from learning and developmental disabilities to cancer. Given research links to pesticide exposure and neurological and cognitive development, studies like this can help government and health officials identify how pesticides’ impact on the brain elevates health concerns. 

Researchers gathered two urine samples from mothers during pregnancy (at weeks 13 and 26) and five urine samples from offspring from the ages of six months to five years old to measure urinary dialkylphosphates (DAPs) (nonspecific OP metabolites). Subsequently, the study also assesses reports of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems using the Behavior Assessment System for Children ages 14, 16, and 18. The results find an association between maternal DAP concentrations during pregnancy and more behavioral problems, including hyperactivity, aggression, attention problems, and depression. However, after birth, OP metabolite concentrations in the urine of the offspring between six months and five years find less of an association with behavioral problems but suggest an association with mood disorders like depression.

Pesticide use is widespread and direct exposure from applications or indirect exposure from residues threatens human health. Children are more vulnerable to the impact of pesticides as their bodies are still developing. Their bodies also inhale, absorb, and ingest more chemical than adults relative to body weight. Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases susceptibility to disease. A 2020 study finds the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which prenatal pesticide exposure can increase disease risk. A pregnant mother’s exposure to environmental toxicants can increase the likelihood of developmental disabilities, as most developmental disabilities begin before birth. Many studies link childhood pesticide exposure to lower IQ, but prenatal pesticide exposure even more so. Moreover, women living near areas of highly toxic chemical use have an increased risk of birthing a baby with cognitive function, like Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even many long-banned pesticides still cause adverse effects on human health. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID).

Research on pesticide-induced diseases commonly investigates pesticide exposure concerning the development of various physical illnesses. However, there is a lack of information connecting pesticide exposure to the subsequent psychological (psychiatric) effects on the general population. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), mental health disorders affect 970 million people globally, with the number of people living with these disorders increasing by 26 to 28 percent in the past three years. Although the etiology of psychiatric disorders is often genetic, studies suggest that other etiological factors, like pesticide exposure, play a role in mental health incidents. Poor mental health has a tangible influence on physical health (e.g., depression and cardiovascular disease); therefore, the combination of pesticide exposure and mental illness worsens the adverse effects on human health. If pesticide exposure exacerbates psychiatric disorder symptoms, it is important to evaluate how pesticide exposure affects mental health, in addition to physical health.

For over two decades, research concerning pesticide exposure and psychiatric disorders, such as depression, focused on occupational hazards, especially for agricultural farmworkers. Exposure to agricultural pesticides puts farmers at a six times greater risk of exhibiting depressive symptoms, including chronic anxiety, irritability, restlessness, and sadness. Linear models reveal an association between lifelong pesticide poisoning episodes and the increased risk of developing mental disorders among tobacco farmers. Tobacco farmers using organophosphate pesticides have a higher prevalence of minor psychiatric disorders. However, pesticide exposure from nearby agricultural fields also threatens residential (nonoccupational) human health. Previous studies found that populations living near farms are more likely to have high depressive symptoms. Similarly, a 2019 study found that teens and adolescents living in agricultural areas, where organophosphate exposure is prevalent, are at higher risk of depression. Uniquely, gender (female), physical health, and age (young adult) indicate the likelihood of having depressive symptoms, with the most adverse effects on women, those in poor physical health, and children under 14. 

Whether pesticide exposure is occupational or residential, the development of depression symptoms is of concern. Nearly half of Americans with a mental health diagnosis seek treatment for symptoms every year. Untreated symptoms of depression can increase the risk of suicide, a severe sign of depression. Commonalities between occupational and household pesticide exposure are suicidal thoughts and pesticide provocation as a suicide agent. A study published in the WHO Bulletin found that people storing organophosphate pesticides in their homes are more likely to have suicidal thoughts as the exposure rate is higher. The study found an association between suicidal thoughts and ease of household pesticide accessibility. Geographic areas with more frequent home storage of pesticides have higher rates of suicidal thoughts than the general population. WHO scientists recognize pesticide self-poisoning as one of the most significant global methods of suicide. Robert Stewart, Ph.D., a researcher for the WHO Bulletin, stated that: “Organophosphate pesticides are widely used around the world. They are particularly lethal chemicals when taken in overdose and are a cause of many suicides worldwide.” With that in mind, researchers say it is vital to recognize how pesticide exposure and accessibility can influence mental illnesses. 

Chemical exposure during pregnancy harms the offspring’s health, especially neurological development. Understanding the mental health implications of conventional pesticide exposure can help identify the various physiological mechanisms attributed to psychiatric disorders. Additionally, a past study demonstrates pregnant women already have over 100 detectable chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples. Thus, pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. This discovery ignites concerns over prenatal exposure to chemicals from consumer and industrial products and sources. The number of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities is increasing in the U.S., and many children in rural areas—where pesticide use is most prevalent—have a higher rate of neurological disabilities. Therefore, it is essential to effectively monitor and assess pesticide exposure for the sake of human health.

The findings of OP exposure and behavioral problems are not new. Therefore, healthcare providers must have sufficient information on signs and symptoms of chemical exposure to address health issues regarding pesticide exposure and mental health incidents. Farmers, landscapers, and other individuals encountering chemical exposure through ingestion, inhalation, and skin (dermal) contact are unaware of the nonphysical side effects. Considering depression related to acute pesticide exposure may persist long after initial exposure, those working with toxic pesticides must have adequate protective equipment to minimize exposure. Advocates urge government agencies to assess the provocation of psychiatric disorders accompanying acute and chronic pesticide exposure to protect human health. Given the rise in mental health problems among agricultural workers and the potential health risks to the general population, analyzing existing studies is crucial.

This research highlights the significance of researching potential mental health detriments resulting from pesticide exposure, especially as society tends to rank mental health risks second to physical health. Mental health is just as—if not more–important than physical health, and reviews such as this highlight the importance of knowing pesticide implications beyond physical ailments. Through its Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD), Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticides, see PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Our choices encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table daily by purchasing organic products. By buying and using organic products, you not only support an agricultural system that does not heavily rely on the widespread application of dangerous pesticides but also a residential system. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Lastly, suicide is the tenth leading cause of death among adults (3rd for adolescents) in the U.S., with more than 34,000 individuals succumbing to the disease annually. Suicidal thoughts and behaviors are dangerous and harmful and are therefore considered a psychiatric emergency. An individual experiencing these thoughts should seek immediate assistance from a health or mental health care provider. If you or someone you know is in an emergency, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or 911 immediately.

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

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2023) After nearly 40 years since the Bhopal, India manufacturing facility leaked 47 tons of a chemical used in pesticide production, exposing half a million people and killing thousands, a new study in the BMJ Medical Journal has shed light on the enduring health and human capital effects resulting from in-utero exposure. The study finds significant negative impacts on both economic and health outcomes. Individuals who were in the womb during the disaster exhibited lower birth weights and remain more susceptible to respiratory problems, cognitive impairments, and other health issues later in life. Moreover, those born just after the gas leak were found to have lower educational attainment and reduced earning potential as adults. Over the past four decades, Beyond Pesticides has consistently reported on the Bhopal Gas Disaster, which stands as one of the most devastating industrial tragedies in history [1] [2] [3] [4].

The calamitous night of December 2, 1984, resulted from a gas leak of the highly toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) from a Union Carbide Corporation (now owned by Dow Chemical Company) manufacturing facility. MIC is an intermediate chemical used in the production of insecticides such as carbaryl (Sevin), aldicarb, and other carbamate pesticides, which are still sold in the United States today. That night in Bhopal, residents living miles away from the site still vividly recall the scene: waking up suffocating, witnessing scenes of chaos, and fleeing through streets filled with lifeless bodies.

While several instances of safety violations contributed to the gas leak, activists often point to the underlying issue—the overwhelming demand for pesticides and industrial chemicals that are unnecessary for effective pest management. Initially, the Indian government reported a death toll of 3,500 within the first few days of the disaster. However, international organizations like Amnesty International claim the number of fatalities to be between 7,000 and 10,000 in the immediate aftermath. Eyewitness testimonies, such as that of Mohammed Karim, who helped handle the bodies in Bhopal, challenge the government’s reported death toll. Karim asserts that 15,000 to 20,000 people lost their lives in the initial days of the disaster. He substantiates his claims by estimating that his team buried around 4,800 bodies per day for four days, with military trucks subsequently disposing of them in the Narmada River.

For those who survived the gas leak, many still experience impacts on their health and their children’s health. This study investigated the causal relationship using spatial difference-in-difference analysis, a well-established method for inferring causality. It examines the effects on adults who were exposed to the Bhopal Gas Disaster while in the womb. The research yields notable findings, including a significant difference in the sex ratio among the 1,260 babies born within 100 km of the gas leak site in 1985, as compared to those born between 1981 and 1984. Additionally, individuals who were in utero during the gas leak and lived near Bhopal exhibit significantly higher rates of cancer in adulthood compared to the cohort living further from Bhopal and the group born before the disaster. Lastly, the study examines differences in male unemployment patterns. Men born in 1985 (in utero during 1984) and residing within 100 km of Bhopal are one percent more likely to report unemployment disability compared to older cohorts. Moreover, men living within 50 km of Bhopal have a two percent higher likelihood of reporting unemployment.

The Bhopal Gas Disaster serves as a stark reminder of the hazards posed by the petrochemical industry, including the production and use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Many advocates firmly believe that eliminating the supply and demand for toxic petrochemical chemicals is the only way to prevent industrial disasters, like Bhopal, as well as other threats to human health, wildlife, and ecosystems. Jay Feldman, the executive director of Beyond Pesticides, emphasized, “The Bhopal Gas Disaster is a tragic consequence of the aggressive promotion and use of hazardous pesticides. Four decades later, the disaster remains etched in our movement’s collective consciousness and underscores the urgent need to eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. Beyond Pesticides, along with our coalition partners, is leading the way by implementing organic land management practices and promoting the transition to organic in 60 communities across the United States.”

As the legacy of the Bhopal Gas Disaster lives on, Beyond Pesticides remains committed to preventing similar environmental and human catastrophes through a just transition to organic practices and the elimination of hazardous chemicals. Tell Congress to eliminate future Bhopal disasters by passing an Organic Green New Deal.

Advance organic management practices to replace dependence on chemical-intensive land and building management practices. See Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe webpage for information nontoxic management of unwanted plants and insects. Also see, information on transition to organic agriculture and Parks for a Sustainable Future for action steps to achieving a future no longer reliant of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.

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

Source: BMJ Medical Journal 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2023) Mosquito season is upon us, and to many that means spraying pesticides to kill them. But not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds.

Tell EPA to eliminate pesticides that threaten birds or their insect food supply. Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior to protect birds by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten them. Tell Congress that EPA and other agencies need to do their job and protect birds and other mosquito predators.

While the appetite of purple martins for mosquitoes is well known, most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome–like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities. They include, for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings. Attract these birds to keep mosquitoes from feasting on you.

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, sparrows, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only insectivores to feed on mosquitoes. Animals who contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.

On a personal level, you can nurture a safe haven for birds and other mosquito predators. Urge your community to adopt safer mosquito management practices. And, remember there are safer personal repellents. See How To Repel Mosquitoes Safely.

Spread the word to your neighbors on safer mosquito management with Beyond Pesticides’ doorknob hanger, Manage Mosquitoes This Season without Toxic Chemicals.

Tell EPA to eliminate pesticides that threaten birds or their insect food supply. Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior to protect birds by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten them. Tell Congress that EPA and other agencies need to do their job and protect birds and other mosquito predators.

Letter to EPA:

Mosquito season is upon us, and to many that means spraying pesticides to kill them. But not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome–like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities. They include, for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings.

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, sparrows, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only insectivores to feed on mosquitoes. Animals who contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment that should lead to the elimination of these pesticides.

Please eliminate the use of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. At the same time, teach people how to choose safer personal repellents.

Thank you.

Letter to USFWS and DOI:

Mosquito season is upon us, and to many that means spraying pesticides to kill them. But not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome–like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities. They include, for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings.

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, sparrows, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only insectivores to feed on mosquitoes. Animals who contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is not consistent with management of public lands to support wildlife.

Please eliminate the use of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. At the same time, teach people how to choose safer personal repellents.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

Mosquito season is upon us, and to many that means spraying pesticides to kill them. But not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome–like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities. They include, for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings.

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, sparrows, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only insectivores to feed on mosquitoes. Animals who contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment that should lead to the elimination of these pesticides.

Please ensure by your oversight that EPA, DOI, and other agencies eliminate the use of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. At the same time, urge EPA to teach people how to choose safer personal repellents.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2023) Exposure to environmentally relevant concentrations of the herbicide glyphosate (GLY) has the potential to induce heart damage (cardiotoxicity) through the aging (senescence) of cells and a reduction of the number of rapidly increasing (proliferating) cells, according to a study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Specifically, glyphosate induces toxic effects on cardiomyocytes (cardiac muscles) responsible for contractions that pump the blood. Cardiovascular (heart) disease (CVD) is one of the leading causes of death in the U.S., with approximately 700,000 people dying annually of heart disease, equating to 25% of all U.S. deaths. Additionally, heart conditions are one leading cause of disability in the U.S.

Research has shown that environmental pollutant exposure can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, including stroke, heart attack, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and cardiac arrest. Considering chemical exposure exacerbates adverse disease effects, reviews like these highlight the significance of evaluating synergism between diseases and toxic chemicals to safeguard human health. The study warns, “Our findings offer important information regarding the potential mechanisms of GLY cardiotoxicity toxicity. Notably, our study provides new insights into the relationship between GLY and senescence. Cardiac dysfunction of GLY to non-target organisms need to be noted in future study. Our study raises concerns about the cardiovascular health of populations chronically exposed to GLY.”

Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are the most commonly used pesticides globally, readily contaminating soil, water, and food resources. Although GBHs’ ubiquitous nature has links to various chronic diseases, including cancers (e.g., non-Hodgkin lymphoma), and reproductive and developmental dysfunctions, much less research considers exposure effects on cardiovascular (heart) health.

For the experiment, researchers obtained AC16 human cardiomyocytes from American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, Maryland) and the Tg(myl7:nDsRed) and Tg(myl7:eGFP) transgenic line in a male and female zebrafish from the Chinese Zebrafish Resource Center. The researchers exposed the AC16 and zebrafish cardiomyocyte cells to various concentrations of glyphosate. The results find low concentrations (30 μg/L) of glyphosate structurally enlarged AC16 cardiac muscle cells, indicating a senescent (aging) state. Additionally, the increased expression of P16, P21, and P53 proteins following glyphosate exposure further highlights glyphosate’s role in the senescence of AC16 cells (senescence induction). However, the mechanical mechanism involved in glyphosate-induced senescence of AC16 cardiomyocytes was through reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated DNA damage. In zebrafish, cardiomyocyte reduction occurs from the notch signaling pathway (intracellular signaling mechanism that plays a role in vascular development) stimulated by glyphosate, which decreases the proliferation capacity of these cardiac muscle cells. Like AC16 cardiomyocytes, the cardiotoxicity of glyphosate in zebrafish has links to DNA damage and mitochondrial damage. In both human and zebrafish cardiomyocytes, glyphosate causes endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress by hampering ER protein processing signals, thus activating the PERK-eIF2α-ATF4 pathway responsible for autophagy (cellular breakdown of old, damaged, dysfunctional components) gene transcription. Thus, the results suggest the underlying mechanism involved in cardiotoxicity is ER stress from glyphosate exposure.

Overall, symptoms of cardiotoxicity include weakened heart muscles (myocarditis), elevated levels of proteins (troponins) in heart muscles, abnormal electrical activity in the heart (ECG), heart attack (myocardial infarction), heart failure (systolic dysfunction), blood clotting impairment (coagulopathy), inflamed blood vessels (endotheliitis), heart cell death (necroptosis), vascular damage, hypertrophy, fluid leakage around heart sac (myocardial edema) and tissue scarring of the heart (myocardial fibrosis). Although epidemiological studies highlight ambient pollutants, like air pollution at the primary residence, as a major constituent of heart diseases, many individuals continuously experience exposure to contaminants in the workplace. Risks linked to heart diseases and occupational chemical exposure are less studied and lack adequate policies and practices that mitigate exposure, especially for those disproportionately affected by toxic pesticides.

Because of the disproportionate risk in people of color communities, the contamination and poisoning associated with glyphosate is an environmental justice issue. However, pesticide exposure affects a large portion of the population, and the intermediate relationship between heart illnesses and pesticides needs more research. With the range of ever-present environmental hazards, advocates argue that regulators act quickly and embrace a precautionary approach.

Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate-based herbicide use (e.g., Roundup) has put human, animal, and environmental health at risk. Glyphosate has been the subject of extensive controversy about its safety for humans, non-human organisms, and ecosystems. Science and environmental advocates have noted the multiple risks that glyphosate use represents, with Beyond Pesticides listing glyphosate as having endocrine, reproductive, neurotoxic, hepatic, renal, developmental, and carcinogenic effects on human health. The chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion and loss of services). Exposure to GBHs has implications for specific alterations in microbial gut composition and trophic cascades. Past studies find a strong association between glyphosate exposure and the development of various health anomalies, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and autism. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” stark evidence, like from the World Health Organization (WHO), demonstrates links to cancers, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Thus, EPA’s classification can perpetuate adverse impacts among vulnerable individuals like pregnant women and infants.

This study provides one of the first understandings of the mechanism involved in glyphosate-mediated cardiotoxicity. Cellular aging and restricted cardiomyocyte proliferation are significant risk factors for heart failure. During the progression of heart failure, the damaged cardiac cells are incapable of regenerating themselves, and thus fibrotic tissue replaces new cardiomyocytes. The notch signaling pathway is essential for the increasing growth and development of cardiomyocytes, playing an important role in cardiac development. However, glyphosate reduces cardiomyocytes’ growth and development capacity through this notch pathway, decreasing the number of cardiomyocytes.

Glyphosate is far from the only pesticide with cardiotoxic effects. Organophosphate (OP) insecticides can disrupt redox reactions (oxidative state changes), Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS) responsible for water and sodium (liquid) homeostasis, blood pressure, cardiac physiology, and proteins for signaling cells (cytokine) to produce the cardiotoxic symptoms. Exposure to specific OPs like malathion, paraoxon, and chlorpyrifos stimulates ROS, cardiac-lipid peroxidation (oxidative degradation of lipids leading to lipoxidation, which plays a role in the onset of heart diseases), and protein damage in heart tissues. Like glyphosate-mediated cardiovascular effects, the subcellular alterations in cardiologic function from OP exposure led to various aforementioned heart diseases.

Cardiovascular disease is becoming increasingly prevalent, and understanding the risks pesticide exposure plays in disease development is essential to consider. With too many illnesses in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, eliminating pesticide use is critical for safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities. Policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure, while advancing practices and products that are compatible with organic systems and regenerative. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on pesticide-related illnesses, see PIDD pages on cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other diseases. Learn more about how pesticides can adversely affect human and environmental health by reading Beyond Pesticides’ journal, Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Considering 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide compound in their body, primarily from dietary exposure, including food and drinking water, advocates maintain that current restrictions on their use must adequately detect and assess total chemical contaminants. Thus, Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, chemical occupational workers, and the agricultural sector can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment. For more information on the benefits of organic, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2023) In the first major settlement amid an influx of PFAS litigation, industrial chemical giants DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva will pay $1.185 billion dollars to cities and towns across the U.S. to cover the cost of PFAS remediation and monitoring in public drinking water systems. The significance of this nationwide class-action settlement cannot be overstated, as citizens have battled powerful chemical corporations for decades with limited success. Dangerous toxicants have been indiscriminately discharged into the environment by chemical companies since the mid-1900s, and the PFAS litigation is important in the company’s acceptance of responsibility for contamination. Of course, the damage to health and the environment is incalculable, given the pervasive environmental contamination and poisoning that it has caused, and additional lawsuits are pending, with more expected. Advocates maintain that this case exemplifies the inadequacies of regulatory controls that do a poor job of capturing the long-term effects of chemicals before being introduced into the market and a worse job of questioning the essentiality of toxic substances for which there are alternative practices and products. PFAS bring into sharp focus the legacy of chemical contamination and the impact on  future generations—a problem well-documented with pesticides like DDT and its legacy of generational contamination of waterways and the environment.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of chemicals pervasive in our built environment, found in products from nonstick pans to stain resistant carpeting to pizza boxes. PFAS are known as legacy or forever chemicals, as they do not naturally break down once introduced into the environment. Rather, they must actively be remediated or else will linger in soil, groundwater, and our bodies for an indeterminate amount of time. Although an estimated 200 million Americans are exposed through their tap water, and traces of these chemicals are found in the bloodstreams of almost every American (including infants), high-load levels are linked to a multitude of negative health outcomes including kidney and testicular cancer, liver and immune system damage, and developmental and reproductive issues such as low birth weight, thyroid disruption, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and infertility.

The collection of lawsuits to date addresses widespread PFAS contamination from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) or firefighting foam. PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam have seeped into groundwater sources since their introduction in the 1960s for military and firefighting training exercises. Approximately 300 communities nationwide have identified water contamination with PFAS as a result, and, in response, water system facilities are installing PFAS remediation and treatment infrastructure with monitoring capabilities in an attempt to remove or lower the levels of the chemical in the drinking water. Cities such as Philadelphia and San Diego are suing industrial chemical corporations for millions of dollars to cover the cost of the development and upkeep of these treatment plants. More than 4,000 PFAS-related cases have been consolidated and will be overseen by Judge Richard Gergel in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Far more lawsuits are on the horizon. The current settlement only accounts for the cost of remediation in water sources already contaminated with PFAS and those with required EPA testing protocols. Moreover, the settlement funds do not resolve personal injury cases of exposed firefighters and military personnel who have personally experienced negative health effects. This settlement only comes from DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva (Chemours and Corteva are both off-shoots of DuPont). Other chemical giants, such as 3M, are facing legal battles of their own.

Although the chemical industry believes “the firefighting-foam complaints are without merit” and claim to uphold appropriate safety standards, this is not the first time that DuPont has been held to account. In 1947, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), a particularly toxic type of PFAS, was invented by 3M and shortly after, used by DuPont. For years, DuPont used this chemical in Teflon products and discharged resulting industrial waste in the small town of Parkersburg, West Virginia, where large amounts of PFOA leached into the groundwater. After a decades-long battle to hold DuPont accountable, lawyer Rob Bilott succeeded in bringing charges against the chemical company for rampant rates of cancer among Parkersburg residents who had spent years drinking PFOA-contaminated water. DuPont finally agreed to cease production of PFOA in 2015, which has since been replaced by other legacy pollutants currently in production.

One of the lead plaintiffs’ attorneys involved in the PFAS litigation states, “This settlement barely scratches the surface of the vast harm inflicted.” The fight against PFAS contamination has a long way to go, but increased awareness and outrage regarding the severe consequences of chemical exposure sheds lights on the shady practices of industrial chemical giants, like DuPont, that have been hidden for far too long, as captured in the film Dark Waters. EPA is working to place federal limits on a variety of PFAS in drinking water and have declared that almost any level of PFAS in drinking water poses a threat to consumers. While EPA had previously advised a PFOA limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) in drinking water, it has now set a safety limit of 0.004 ppt, demonstrating the agency’s changing outlook on the dangers of PFAS.

According to Natalie Lewis, an environmental health and toxicology student at Duke University working with Beyond Pesticides, “Tightening restrictions on PFAS chemicals bring hope to the dire dilemma our society faces, but the relief of these initial steps in the right direction must not quell our outrage or soften the resolve for change.” With the understanding that PFAS chemicals are legacy or “forever” chemicals, public calls intensify for their phaseout as quickly as possible.

Studies show dangerous concentrations of PFAS chemicals in pesticides used extensively on crops, meaning food is doused with toxic chemicals that have no natural way of breaking down in the environment. Moreover, PFAS contamination of biosolids used for fertilizer has threatened farming operations.

To learn more about the prevalence of harmful chemicals in our environment, check out Beyond Pesticides’ resources regarding Threatened Waters. The Organic Agriculture webpage offers insight into what a pesticide-free future looks like, and the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database provides information on potential health consequences of toxic exposure. Explore our Tools for Change resources if you want to help advocate for the health of your community, and click here to take action against the onslaught of legacy chemicals.

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

Sources: JD Supra

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2023) An autopsy report from the Broward County Medical Examiner’s office in Florida found that acute exposure to the fumigant sulfuryl fluoride resulted in the death of two pest control workers from Pompano Beach. After the fumigation of a Pompano Beach warehouse in April, three workers fell ill, and two died after pesticide application. The highly toxic chemical can be used by the chemical pest control industry for killing termites, powder post beetles, old house borers, bedbugs, carpet beetles, moths, cockroaches, rats, and mice. In addition to being highly acutely toxic, sulfuryl fluoride, as a fluoride compound, can cause various chronic adverse health effects, including cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity (reduced IQ), and reproductive damage.

This case represents the broader issue of how toxic chemical compounds can enter the body, causing physiological damage. In fact, just last March 2023, a case report article published in Frontier in Public Health confirms one of the first reported deaths from inhalation of the fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone) during work, resulting in acute renal (kidney) failure, hyperkalemia (high potassium levels in the blood), and brain edema (swelling). Considering over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts, including pesticides, are chemicals commonly present in human blood and urine samples, toxicity risk increases when entering the body. Therefore, cases like this highlight the importance of understanding the risk of death associated with acute pesticide exposure and poisoning both to applicators and consumers. 

The autopsy reports 64-year-old pest control operator Leon Johnson, who was found dead in front of his home, suffered from acute sulfuryl fluoride poisoning. Mr. Johnson and his co-worker Jason Lambert started feeling nauseous and vomiting while standing outside the fumigated warehouse. After being sent home, both parties passed away from this exposure. The medical examiner found sulfuryl fluoride in Johnson’s system and on his clothing, ruling his death accidental acute pesticide exposure.

The case of sulfuryl fluoride presents a familiar pattern of widespread chemical use without proper knowledge of health and environmental effects before implementation and a failure to take regulatory action on known hazards after being allowed in commerce. Sulfuryl fluoride, registered for termite and other wood-boring pest extermination in 1959, gained additional attention as a potential alternative to methyl bromide, a broad-spectrum insect fumigant. Ninety-nine percent of structural fumigation treatments use sulfuryl fluoride. However, researchers have identified concentrations of sulfuryl fluoride in the atmosphere due to the chemical’s long half-life and greenhouse warming potential (GWP).

Epidemiological studies show that fumigation workers using sulfuryl fluoride exhibit neurological effects as the chemical is a toxic gas that targets the central nervous system. Studies report reduced performance on cognitive and memory tests, central nervous system depression, diminished sense of smell, respiratory irritation, shortness of breath, pulmonary edema, nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, itching, slurred speech, extremity numbness, muscle twitching, seizures, and death from respiratory failure. Additionally, sulfuryl fluoride is 3.5 times heavier than air, staying closer to the ground or floor, which may present higher exposures to individuals whose breathing zone is closer to the ground.

Despite being outside the warehouse building during fumigation, Mr. Johnson still encountered chemical exposure. Thus, the autopsy report attributes the mishandling of pesticides to the poising incident. This mishandling can incorporate a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for pesticide applicators, improper tenting of the structure, or residues on clothing, skin, and hair. These chemicals do not remain in one place as fumigants and as a class of pesticides are most prone to drift, highly volatile, highly toxic, and have very high application rates. Therefore, those who may consider this issue outside of their concern note that a recent study focusing on the Western United States found that fumigant pesticides (in this case metam sodium) have close links to county-level cancer rates. Not only does sulfuryl fluoride cause respiratory stimulation response and central nervous system inhibition after inhalation, but the volatile organic compound also contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and poor air quality.

Recent work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) demonstrates North America is the leading global source of sulfuryl fluoride emissions in 2019. Following the 2022 report, “Termite Fumigation in California Is Fueling the Rise of a Rare Greenhouse Gas,” researchers demonstrate that sulfuryl fluoride increases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although most sulfuryl fluoride emissions in the U.S. occur in California, most global emissions also occur in California. According to the most recent data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulations, sulfuryl fluoride is the 12th most used pesticide applied to sites across California, with over 2.9 million pounds used in 2018 for structural and agricultural pest control and over three million pounds used statewide in 2021. Although 50 to 60 percent of sulfuryl fluoride emissions mainly occur in California, reports like this suggest that other states like Florida may also produce emissions that remain unaccounted for by current National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chemical tracking. The risk of multiple chemical contaminants in the atmosphere increases as global warming progresses. Melting glaciers can release persistent organic pollutants into waterways. Recently, pesticides and fertilizers overtook the fossil fuel industry in environmental sulfur emissions. Thus, health and environmental concerns will increase significantly, especially for individuals and ecosystems more vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemical exposure.

The history of sulfuryl fluoride has pitted one chemical use against another instead of incentivizing movement away from chemical dependency to viable alternative and organic management practices. Beyond Pesticides and other organizations maintain that without the phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride, there is little incentive to upgrade and adopt modern practices that forego hazardous chemical use.

There are many viable alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide fumigation. These alternatives include temperature manipulation, atmospheric controls, biological controls, and less toxic chemical controls (diatomaceous earth). Many existing commodity storage facilities are too old and outdated to prevent pest infestation. This ineffectiveness leads to a reliance on toxic fumigation. Thus, a clean, regularly-maintained storage or processing facility can easily keep facilities pest-free.

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

Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Local 10 News

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2023) Pesticides interfere with biological processes. This is their purpose. Unfortunately, they nearly always have unintended consequences, many of which have been ignored by their manufacturers. A new review article by Irish and Dutch researchers in the ISME Journal adds to the emerging scientific literature examining how pesticides affect the relationship between the human gut and the human brain (the “gut-brain axis”).

Often called the “second brain” because it houses nerve cells and produces neurotransmitters, the gut-brain axis may be the most important locus where microbes and pesticides meet. The human gut plays host to a variety of microorganisms, ranging from bacteria and archaea to fungi, viruses and yeasts.[1] In a healthy person these microbes remain in balance and often cooperate both with each other and with human cells.

The gut and the brain are deeply integrated through the vagus nerve and the neuroendocrine system. The vagus nerve is a treelike bundle of fibers extending from the lower part of the brain to nearly every body organ, but particularly the heart, lungs and digestive tract. The neuroendocrine system comprises specialized cells inhabiting nearly all the organs of the body that respond to signals from the brain and gut to produce hormones that regulate digestive enzymes, the pace of digestion, air and blood flow in the lungs, blood pressure, heart rate, blood glucose levels, and other functions.

Pesticides may exert influence over any or all of these processes. They may also affect the immune system, and some, such as glyphosate, can cross the blood-brain barrier. Pesticides can affect the production of many chemicals by gut bacteria, including serotonin and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), both important neurotransmitters. They are also notorious for disrupting the endocrine system, including reproductive hormones; a 2020 review by Spanish scientists proposed that xenobiotics such as pesticides should be termed “microbiota disrupting chemicals” as they can interfere with microbes’ role in metabolizing steroid hormones such as estradiol, cortisol and testosterone.

Beyond Pesticides has previously reported on numerous studies elucidating the deleterious effects of pesticides on disease risks involving the gut-brain axis. These include the close association between digestive disruption and Type 1 diabetes in children and Type 2 diabetes in adults, and the ability of azoxystrobin (AZO) fungicide to impair the function of the colonic barrier in nutrient absorption and protection from harmful substances. The digestive problems associated with Type I diabetes have been linked to exposure to antibiotics and some pesticides. Such exposures reduce the numbers of certain bacteria in the gut that can help protect against the inflammation triggered by these chemicals. Pesticides’ effects on gut microbes have also been linked to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), as has digestive dysfunction.

Adult-onset neurological diseases also involve digestive disruption, which in turn may be related to disruption of the gut microbe balance. In 2022 Beyond Pesticides reported on a study showing that the gastrointestinal disruptions, including damage to enteric glial cells that lead to Parkinson’s disease (the second most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer’s), are associated with exposure to rotenone, chlorpyrifos, and herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, and paraquat.[2] The Irish and Dutch researchers also reviewed a study showing that glyphosate can enter the brain and raise inflammation levels, a process that has been linked to Alzheimer’s. A 2022 study suggested that chronic exposure to dietary pesticides can affect gut microbes and trigger a cascade of changes leading to these neurodegenerative diseases.

Pesticides’ effects on host-microbe processes are not confined to humans. Importantly, pesticides affect the microbes associated with plants and nontarget insects, often changing the proportions of various species. For example, French researchers in 2022 identified glyphosate’s changes to honey bees’ immune systems and gut microbiota, demonstrating a plausible mechanism for the bees’ susceptibility to certain diseases. Sometimes pesticides have a seemingly perverse—but predictable—Darwinian effect: In 2018, Beyond Pesticides reported on research detailing how insect pests’ gut microbiota contribute to the skyrocketing incidence of pesticide resistance. Microbes are nothing if not adaptable.

One common bacterial genus, Lactobacillus, which lives in the digestive tract and the female reproductive tract, as well as in fermented foods such as yogurt and kefir, demonstrates abilities that could point toward protection from pesticides’ damage to the gut-brain axis. Lactobacillus species are adversely affected by herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides, according to the authors of the current study. They are known to enhance mood and reduce anxiety and depression, and they also provide vital services in the gut, where they produce mucus that lines the intestinal walls and enhance signaling among different types of immune cells. Thus their reduced presence in the gut caused by pesticides may contribute to many, if not all, diseases affecting the brain-gut axis.

However, they may also come to the rescue after pesticide exposure. Interestingly, Lactobacillus and other bacterial genera actually degrade pesticides in the foods they ferment. A combination of L. acidophilus and Bifidus animalus synergistically reduced levels of “up to 48.6% for heptachlor and 54.7% for pp’DDE in goat milk bio-yogurts after 14 days of cold storage when both cultures were used,” according to a recent Bulgarian study.  

A remarkable Chinese study reported in Cell in 2022 exposed human volunteers to high doses of organophosphorus and organochlorine compounds. These triggered inflammatory responses and increased numbers of pathogenic bacteria in the gut. The researchers then dosed a subset of the exposed group with a proprietary version of a lactobacillus strain called Lactiplantibacillus plantarum. Lactobacilli are already present in many probiotic supplements and are used to improve symptoms of eczema, high cholesterol, and bowel inflammation. In the Chinese study’s probiotic group, microbial diversity was reestablished, inflammatory markers decreased—including two factors associated with kidney disease—and the bacteria promoted the breakdown of the pesticides and excretion of their metabolites.

Microbes are everywhere—even in the rocks deep below the seafloor. They are certainly everywhere in the human body, not only the gastrointestinal tract—one study found pesticides reduced the flora in the human mouth—and it appears that pesticides may affect microbes wherever they are. Estimates of the total number of microbial cells in a typical human—about 39 trillion-exceed the number of actual human cells—about 30 trillion. This has led many scientists to adopt pioneering microbiologist Lynn Margulis’s proposal that humans and most other multicellular organisms should be viewed as “holobonts,” that is, a single organism comprising a host and one or more symbionts—generally microbes. It would encourage a paradigm shift away from the pesticide industry’s assumption that its products’ effects are siloed and target only specific agricultural pests. Not even a monoculture field is free of trillions of microbes on its plants, in its soil, and in its water. Many of these are beneficial and may have their own ability to control pests.

The pesticide industry has turned a blind eye to the effects its products have on thousands of non-target organisms, and microbes may be the most significant of all. Although as usual more research is needed, the trajectory of scientific understanding regarding humans and the microbial world curves toward reduction of pesticide use in favor of striking a balance within the biosphere rather than willful disregard of the interrelationship of all life.

Thus the ability of microbes to protect against pesticide exposure offers remarkable potential for mitigating the harms caused by the indiscriminate effects of pesticides. But we do not have to wait until research can offer specific means of using microbes in this way. We can reduce our exposures now. Beyond Pesticides encourages consumption of organic foods to decrease pesticide levels in one’s body, both to reduce risk of chronic metabolic diseases and to ingest a wider variety of beneficial microbes.  Supporting organic agriculture helps farmers and other consumers to make the transition away from pesticide-driven agriculture. Regenerative organic agriculture can restore microbial health to soils, which may ameliorate problems caused by pesticides’ damage to host-microbe relationships in plants, insects, aquatic organisms, and others.

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

Source: Matsuzaki, R., Gunnigle, E., Geissen, V. et al. Pesticide exposure and the microbiota-gut brain axis. ISME J (2023). https://rdcu.be/de4rf.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2023) In view of EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from pesticides, the lives of those essential insects, birds, and mammals are increasingly dependent on state and local laws that under threat of U.S. Congressional action in the upcoming Farm Bill.

Tell Congress: Don’t allow the Farm Bill to preempt state and local laws.

The Farm Bill covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—and one provision that the pesticide industry would like to include is preemption of local authority to restrict pesticide use. This attack on local governance  would undercut the local democratic process to protect public health and safety, especially important in the absence of adequate federal protection of the ecosystems that sustain life.

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, and protect the soil and other natural resources on which farmers depend, but includes much more. Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have previously considered and rejected legislation to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide or food production laws that are more protective than federal rules. If such language were to be incorporated into the 2023 Farm Bill as the industrial agriculture, chemical sector, and the pest control industry plan to do, it would overturn decades of precedent as well as prevent local governments from protecting their residents from hazardous chemicals in their environment. Even if a state is currently preempting local jurisdictions from restricting pesticides throughout their communities, a federal law codifying a prohibition of local rights to restrict pesticides will make it virtually impossible to restore the basic local authority to protect public health and the environment, which has historically been vested in local governments. Remember that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 upheld the right of local communities to restrict pesticides under current pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The most recent of these potential preempting pieces of the Farm Bill is the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS Act), introduced as S. 2619/H.R. 4999 in the 117th Congress by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA), who are expected to reintroduce it soon. 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. 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.

A diverse set of more than 170 groups strongly opposed the King amendment, including the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, FreedomWorks, Fraternal Order of Police, National Farmers Union, National Dairy Producers Organization, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, United Farm Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and National Fire Protection Association, plus hundreds of federal and state legislators (bipartisan), individual farmers, veterinary professionals, faith leaders, legal experts, and newspaper editorials including USA Today.

When it comes to pesticides applied in communities on lawns and landscapes, the language contained in a 2022 bill, H.R. 7266 “to prohibit the local regulation of pesticide use” is under consideration in the Farm Bill debate. Incorporation of such preemption language is a direct assault on nearly 200 communities across the country that have passed their own policies to restrict the use of toxic pesticides.

The fight to defend the authority of local governments to protect people and the environment has been ongoing for decades. In response to the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, which found in favor of localities’ authority, the pesticide lobby immediately formed the “Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy,” and developed boilerplate legislative language to restrict 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 in most cases obtaining, preemption legislation whose text was often identical to the coalition’s. Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to preempt local authority in states that do not prohibit local action on pesticides. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an industry-backed group, appeared to be behind a failed effort during the last two years to preempt local authority in the Maine state legislature.

As National Pollinator Week draws to a close, it is vital that communities maintain their right to restrict pesticides linked to pollinator decline and ecosystem collapse, cancer and a host of health effects, and water contamination in order to  protect their resident’s health and unique local ecosystems.

Tell Congress: Don’t allow the Farm Bill to preempt state and local laws.

 In addition to contacting your members of Congress through the above link, reach out to your local officials and ask them to sign on to a letter opposing preemption language in the Farm Bill. Click here for a sample letter that you can use to contact your local officials. Only local officials may sign on to this letter.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

As we observe Pollinator Week, we must recognize that in view of EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from pesticides, the lives of those essential insects, birds, and mammals are increasingly dependent on state and local laws.

The Farm Bill covers many areas—ranging from the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP) to trade—and one provision that the pesticide industry would like to include is preemption of state and local authorities—which would undercut the local democratic process to protect public health and safety.

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, and protect the soil and other natural resources on which farmers depend, but includes much more. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have previously introduced legislation to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide or food production laws that are more protective than federal rules. If such language were to be incorporated into the 2023 Farm Bill as some plan to do, it would overturn decades of precedent as well as prevent local governments from protecting their residents from hazardous chemicals in their environment.

The most recent of these potential preempting pieces of the Farm Bill is the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS Act), introduced as S. 2619/H.R. 4999 in the 117th Congress by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA), who are expected to reintroduce it soon. 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. 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.

A diverse set of more than 170 groups strongly opposed the King amendment, including the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, FreedomWorks, Fraternal Order of Police, National Farmers Union, National Dairy Producers Organization, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, United Farm Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and National Fire Protection Association, plus hundreds of federal and state legislators (bipartisan), individual farmers, veterinary professionals, faith leaders, legal experts, and newspaper editorials including USA Today. Incorporation of such preemption language is a direct assault on nearly 200 communities.

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have considered and rejected legislation to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide or food production laws that are more protective than federal rules. If such language were to be incorporated into the 2023 Farm Bill as the industrial agriculture, chemical sector, and the pest control industry have advocated, it would overturn decades of precedent as well as prevent local governments from protecting their residents from hazardous chemicals in their environment. This would be an attack on the nearly 200 communities that have passed or plan to pass their own policies to restrict the use of toxic pesticides. Communities must maintain the right to restrict pesticides linked to pollinator decline and ecosystem collapse, cancer and a host of health effects, and water contamination in order to protect their resident’s health and unique local ecosystems.

Please oppose any attempts to introduce into the Farm Bill any language that preempts state and local authorities.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2023) Pollinators are especially important to the ecosystem. They pollinate plants by going from flower to flower and transferring pollen. Without pollinators, availability would be severely limited or cut off to many delicious foods, such as apples, almonds, cherries, blueberries, pumpkins, and many others. Many types of pollinators, like honey bees, bumble bees, and butterflies, are declining due to loss of habitat, widespread use of toxic pesticides, parasites, and disease.

Help these important beneficial creatures by

1. Not using toxic pesticides
2. Planting pollinator habitats, like colorful flowers, gardens, and trees
3. Telling your friends and family all about the importance of pollinators.

Wild and Managed Bees

Wild and managed bees play a crucial role in the global food system. About two-thirds of the world’s most important crops benefit from bee pollination, including coffee, cacao, and many fruits and vegetables. Wild pollination is becoming increasingly important with the growing instability of managed honey bee colonies. According to one study, wild bees’ agricultural value is now similar to that of honey bees, which are no longer considered wild in many regions due to their intense management. While many may prefer butterflies and birds to pay a visit to their gardens and backyards, bees should also be welcomed since they are such important pollinators of many crops in the food supply. Most bees are not aggressive and rarely sting, and once this fear is overcome, many find bees a welcome addition to their backyards. If you are interested in encouraging bees to visit your yard, the following tips will ensure that you and your bees live happily together.

Mounting scientific evidence points to the role of pesticides in bee declines across the globe, especially to neonicotinoid insecticides, which, even at low levels, have been shown to impair foraging, navigational and learning behavior in bees, as well as suppress their immune system to the point of making them susceptible to pathogens and parasites. Other recent research finds that as pesticide use on farms has increased, wild bee populations have plummeted. Thus, bee-friendly practices for farmers and gardeners, including maintaining wildflowers and grass strips, utilizing hedgerows, organic farming techniques, and limiting the use of pesticides and other chemicals, allow all bee species to flourish. Beekeepers looking to organic beekeeping, without the reliance on the above-mentioned practices, manage their hives sustainably and successfully. By practicing organic beekeeping, and thus minimizing stress on the bees, organic beekeepers can maintain their hives.

For a hands-on approach to how you can protect biodiversity, see Do-it-Yourself Biodiversity. Declare your garden, yard, park, or other spaces as pesticide-free and pollinator friendly. The Bee Protective Habitat Guide identifies which native plants are right for your region to create the perfect pollinator habitat. Attracting and keeping bees in your backyard can be easy, especially if you already enjoy gardening. By providing a bee habitat in your yard, you can increase the quality and quantity of your garden fruits and vegetables. With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other insects for pollination, the decline of honey bees and other pollinators due to pesticides, and other man-made causes demands immediate action. For more on this and what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage and buy a Pesticide-Free Zone sign for your yard.

Butterflies/Moths

Butterflies and moths play an important role as both pollinators and prey. These insects pollinate as they feed on flower nectar. Butterflies, often regarded as mere ornamental additions to a landscape, are significant pollinators themselves. Monarchs pollinate many flowers, including calendula and yarrow. Other butterflies pollinate dill, celery, fennel, cilantro, lettuce, peas, and basil, among other important food plants. Butterflies are also known to be excellent indicators of ecosystem health, so if an environment has lots of butterflies it is reasonably robust. Moth pollination is important for night-blooming plants, which are not readily serviced by daylight pollinators like bees. Additionally, moths and their larvae are prey to birds, bats, small mammals, and even other insects.

Butterflies and moths belong to the order Lepidoptera and approximately 70 percent of agricultural pests—many of them moths at various life stages—also belong to this order. This puts butterflies smack in the bullseye for many pesticides. For instance, studies repeatedly report that neonicotinoid pesticides destroy insects’ nervous systems, and they are not selective as to species.

In nature, a range of organic flowers in one’s garden can ensure the availability of food and habitat for local species. The Butterflies and Moths of North America Checklist is a tool one can use to determine which species are common in the area while providing information on migratory schedule, preferred habitat, caterpillar host plants, and adult food plants. These pollinators typically like flowers exhibiting strong, sweet fragrance, long floral tubes, and large volumes of nectar. Additionally, take measures to ensure the garden contains no pesticide contaminants. Avoid introducing plants that have been treated with pesticides.

Birds (Hummingbirds)

Hummingbirds live on a diet of nectar from a variety of flowering plants, consuming up to twice their body weight in nectar each day. This requires constant foraging for sources of nectar and the birds spend most of their day flying flower to flower in search of this food source. They are equipped with a long, skinny modified beak that allows them to access nectar, as well as a long tongue that can further be extended into the flower. While foraging for nectar the hummingbird simultaneously contaminates itself with pollen particles from the flower. The pollen sticks to the birds’ feathers and beak, allowing the bird to transport it to the next flower it visits. Once that pollen comes into contact with a new flower, the plant is inadvertently cross-pollinated, allowing the plant to reproduce. The abundance of various hummingbirds makes them an integral pollinator to ecosystems across the eastern United States and parts of Canada.

Pesticides implicated in the worldwide decline of insect pollinators also present significant risks to their avian counterparts, hummingbirds. For instance, the Ruby Throated Hummingbirds display unique reactions to toxic pesticides. Research by scientists at the University of Toronto finds that exposure to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides, for even a short period of time, can disrupt the high-powered metabolism of hummingbirds.

Fortunately, there are steps one can take to hummingbirds like installing a hummingbird feeder in your yard or garden to attract the essential, charismatic pollinator. Supplying your hummingbird feeder with the right nectar solution is also important. So, be sure to use trusted nectar recipes, like the ones recommended by the Smithsonian National Zoo, but ensure to use organic sugar in the mix. It will guarantee that the nectar solution is free of pesticides and additives. Planting the flowers preferred by hummingbirds is another way to preserve hummingbird populations, as they require nectar for survival. Make sure that the plants are not treated with systemic, including neonicotinoids, and other pesticides. Maintaining biodiversity in your garden will nurture the pollinators, including the hummingbirds.

Bats

Pollinator bats, like the Mexican long-tongued bat and lesser long-nosed bat, feed primarily on the nectar and pollen of night-blooming flowers in tropical and desert climates, like agave and cacti. The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service notes that bats primarily pollinate large flowers that produce strong fragrances and large volumes of nectar. Over three-hundred species of fruit-bearing plants depend on the Mexican long-tongued bat and other bat species for pollination, including mangoes, guavas, and bananas. In addition to their role in pollination, bats also contribute to the survival of cacti by dispersing their seeds.

However, the role of the bats in pollination has been diminishing through the expansion of agriculture using lands to cultivate agave, actively pruned to prevent flowering. Thus, pollinating bat species do not play a primary role in producing commercial agave “nectar,” which is not floral nectar, but a synthetic syrup made from the sap of the agave plant. So, the destruction of habitat to create commercial agave fields may be hurting the bat populations. In addition to danger relating to the availability of agave, bats are subject to the loss of nesting sites. Caves that harbor bats are becoming increasingly inhospitable as miners and caving tourists disrupt the very sensitive ecosystem of the bats, who respectively abandon their nesting site. Additionally, insect-eating bats can encounter food (insects) exposed to pesticide treatments and these pesticides can diminish their ability to echolocate, thus traveling on less established paths and frequently becoming lost while hunting. Since bats’ rate of reproduction is slow, it can be difficult to access specific concerns for chemical exposure patterns that can lessen bat population fitness and increase vulnerability.

Preservation of habitats frequented by bats, including scrub and saguaro desert, deciduous, pine, and oak forests, canyons, and food sources is imperative to protect the future of all bat species. Even if a certain bats’ range doesn’t reach a local region, there are many other species of bats that act as beneficial pollinators. Consult these species profiles to determine which bats contribute to pollination in the local area. It is also critical to avoid planting any seeds or flowers treated with pollinator-toxic pesticides as these chemicals can undermine the intent to provide habitat for wild pollinators. In addition to actively opposing the destruction of habitat and food sources, one can provide personal support to local bat populations by installing a bat house or ordering one online to provide non-traditional habitat for your region’s species. Further, many pollinating bat species visit hummingbird feeders, so supplying a hummingbird feeder with the right nectar solution is also important. Be sure to use trusted nectar recipes, like ones recommended by the Smithsonian National Zoo. However, use organic sugar in the mix to guarantee that the nectar solution is free of pesticides and additives. Additionally, it is important to educate others to dispel the myths surrounding bats in your community. Bats are an important part of local ecosystems and play a large role in pollination and control of insect populations. The organization Bat Conservation International has more information on bat myths here.

Beetles

Beetles are frequently overlooked in the world of pollinators. Gardeners are often familiar with the beneficial pest-control services provided by ladybugs and predaceous ground beetles, but flower-visiting species like soldier beetles, scarabs, long-horned beetles, sap beetles, and checkered beetles all provide important pollination services that complement the work of other pollinators in the landscape. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, the beetles were some of the earliest insects to utilize flowers for food and habitat. In doing so, these ancient pollinators began an important collaboration between flowers and beetles which continues today. Mature beetles feed on the pollen of flowering plants. They pollinate as they feed, transporting pollen on their body from a previous flower to successive locations. Idaho State University notes that beetles play a more important role in the pollination of tropical regions than in temperate ones. Even so, there are approximately 50 native plant species in the U.S. and Canada that depend upon beetle pollination.

Although most beetles are not in immediate danger, there are still hundreds of species that are vulnerable to extinction according to the International Union for Conservation’s Red List of Threatened Species. Beneficial pollinator beetles, like tumbling flower beetles, do little to no damage to crops and are not considered pests. However, their larvae do bore into stalks and may be grouped with other stalk-boring insects which collectively cause crop damage. The crops which house the tumbling flower beetle larvae may be. The stem-boring habit of the larvae protects them from non-systemic pesticides, but treatment with systemic pesticides (e.g., neonicotinoids) targeting more destructive insects will also cause detriment to beneficial beetle populations.

Luckily, there are steps that can be taken to ensure that beetles continue to thrive. Planting preferred varieties of flowers is a great way to support beetles, using the plants’ stems to host their larvae and their pollen as a food source. Additionally, avoiding the use of pesticides is paramount in protecting local, beneficial pollinators. These ground-dwelling beetles can encounter harmful chemical exposure by interacting with plants, soil, or air subjected to pesticide treatments.

Beneficial (Wasps)

Pollinator wasps, like Pollen and Fig Wasps, differ from their omnivorous Vespid wasp relatives by rearing their young in plants, rather than other insects. Fig wasps’ nests include a mixture of soil and nectar to an egg, nectar, and a small pollen patty. Pollen wasps then seal their nests with mud. Once the female wasp larvae hatch, she makes her way through one of the escape tunnels dug by the males, picking up pollen from the male fig flowers in the process. With pollen now in tow via her body, the female emerges in search of a new fruit to lay her eggs in, pollinating another fig in the process and starting the cycle all over again. This process highlights the symbiotic relationship between the life cycle of the fig wasp and the fig tree. Pollen wasps are known to specialize in foraging on specific flowers, including beardtongues, borage, and tansies, though there are also reports of the insects feeding on mallows and marigolds. These wasp pollinators have long proboscis (nose-like structures) that allow them to reach the nectar in their preferred flower species.

Fig wasps may seem like a menial pollinator given that they only pollinate one type of plant, but that is far from the case. The fig wasp is an integral species, as the fig tree has been identified as a keystone species in tropical rainforests where they help maintain the population and diversity of a variety of species. The Encyclopedia of Life defines a keystone species as “a species within the ecosystem that exerts a major influence on the composition and dynamics of the ecosystem of which it lives.” This means that the fig tree is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its environment, relative to its abundance within the ecosystem. Although pollen wasp flower preference may be a strain of beardtongue planted, establishing a diversity of flowers in one’s garden will foster a diversity of pollinators.

One of the most important actions one can take to protect pollinating wasps is eliminating the use of pesticides that can harm these unique insects. Neonicotinoids, once applied, will make their way into a plant’s vascular system, and express themselves in pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets, putting these wasps at risk. Other insecticides, like synthetic pyrethroids, are acutely toxic to many nontarget pollinators and may leave harmful residue on plants and their flowers once applied. Since there is little data on the range and distribution of these wasp species, encouraging public land managers to forgo the use of insecticides and herbicides in natural areas can make an important impact on the availability and quality of forage for pollinating wasps. Additionally, some scientists are concerned that climate change and global warming could have a negative impact on wasp populations. If the changes in temperature take place too quickly for these adaptations to occur, it could threaten the existence of pollinating wasps.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster native pollinator health and broader biodiversity. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and scheduled sprays, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and pollinators alike, set action levels for pests based upon monitoring, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective. To learn more about the benefits of organic agriculture, visit Beyond Pesticides’ webpage.

For more information on the impact pesticides have on non-target organisms read Beyond Pesticides’ report on Bees, Birds, and Beneficials, which can be found here. Switching to organic means of pest control around your home and garden is the best way to protect the health of pollinator populations in your community. For more information on how you can get involved in pollinator conservation throughout the nation, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective webpage. See Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Friendly Seed and Nursery Directory to source safe seeds. For more information, see the webpage on Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind.

Advancing Policy

This past May, Nevada passed A.B. 162, sponsored by Assemblywoman Michelle Gorelow, prohibiting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides and continued momentum for targeted, common-sense restrictions. While Nevada joins California, Minnesota, New Jersey (the first state to curtail neonics’ nonagricultural uses), and New York in leading the way, this incremental approach does not go far enough as it does not address the holistic combination of environmental stressors leading to pollinator declines, exacerbated by the health, biodiversity, and climate crises.

To promote transformational change and “shift the needle,” it is vital to reestablish a national strategy to work across agencies to eliminate our reliance on toxic pesticides and assist in the transition to organic land management—in the interest of protecting ecosystems against the ongoing dramatic destruction of biodiversity and the insect apocalypse. Only by eliminating all pesticides and treated seeds that harm pollinators—from neonicotinoids, fipronil, synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphate insecticides to the herbicide glyphosate—and assist land managers, from farmers to landscapers, to transition to organic practices that prohibit these deadly chemicals’ use, will a broad systemic transformation be possible.

Beyond Pesticides’ nationwide Parks for a Sustainable Future program supports this long-term vision of adopting organic practices; relying on working models that support soil biology and soil health, the program strengthens the grass plants’ ability to stand up to use-associated stressors and eliminate toxic synthetic pesticides and fertilizers detrimental to pollinator health. For example in New York City, Beyond Pesticides partnered with the Eco-Friendly Parks for All (EFPA) coalition of environmental, public health and political action organizations, the Parks and Recreation Department, and Stonyfield Organic Yogurt to pilot organic land management programs at eight sites across the five boroughs in compliance with Intro 1524, which restricts land management products to those compatible with organic systems.

Envision an organic community where local parks, playing fields, and greenways are managed without unnecessary toxic pesticides, children and pets are safe to run around on the grass, and bees and other pollinators are safeguarded from toxic chemicals. At Beyond Pesticides, this is the future we envision and are working to achieve.

To work with Beyond Pesticides and develop an action plan for transitioning your community to organic land management, please send us an email at [email protected].

Stay tuned to TAKE ACTION this Saturday online!

In view of EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from pesticides, the lives of those essential insects, birds, and mammals are increasingly dependent on state and local laws.

Stay tuned tomorrow, Saturday, June 24th for Beyond Pesticides’ “Action of the Week” to preserve and promote local pollinator protections with a click of the mouse!

For more information and to stay in the loop, click here to subscribe to our Weekly News Update and Action of the Week listserv!

Thank you for joining the Beyond Pesticides team for the 2023 National Pollinator Week, during which time we recognized—and took action to protect—this important ecosystem link. Pollinators—bees, butterflies, birds, bats, and other organisms—make a critical contribution to plant health, crop productivity, and the preservation of natural resources, but their existence is still threatened by pesticides.

For more on pollinators and pesticides year-round, follow us and like our page on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn!

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

Image Credit: Lyndsey Marston, 3Legged Dog Ink, “Save Our Pollinators” and Akayla Bracey, “The Bee and the Flower.” Check out our Art Page for more!

(Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2023) Since the early twentieth century, ‘migratory’ beekeepers have provided a critical service to U.S. agriculture by moving their hives seasonally to pollinate a variety of crops. Annually, commercial beekeeping adds between $15 and $20 billion in economic value to agriculture, which is a major industry in the United States, with 21.1 million full- and part-time jobs related to the agricultural and food sectors—10.5 percent of total U.S. employment.

Before insects and pollinators like bees evolved to pollinate, pollination occurred through the wind, scattering the pollen from the plants and landing on other flowers that could reproduce. However, commercial pollination services contribute to increased yields. Without commercial pollination, food prices would rise, the farm sector would suffer globally, and the security and variety of the food supply would diminish. With the wild insect pollinator populations already in serious decline, commercial, migratory beekeeping is more than ever a vital piece of the agricultural economy. With pollinator decline, as an integral part of worldwide biodiversity collapse and the “insect apocalypse,” commercial beekeepers face collapse as well.

The United Nations states that 80 percent of the 115 top global food crops depend on insect pollination, with one-third of all U.S. crops depending on pollinators, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Honey bees alone pollinate 95 kinds of fruits, nuts, and vegetables, such as apples, avocados, almonds, and cranberries. However, research finds that many insect populations, including managed and wild pollinators, are collapsing. A systematic review of insect population decline studies published in 2019 found that 41% of insect species worldwide are declining. The declines of butterflies, wild bumblebees, and honey bees have links to hazardous pesticide use in chemical-intensive agricultural systems. Since 1990, roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been vanishing, according to research published in Science. This research finds worldwide trends in declines in terrestrial insect biomass to be nearly 1% each year (~9% each decade). Despite habitat fragmentation and climate change, extensive use of pesticides, like neonicotinoids, sulfoxaflor, pyrethroids, fipronil, and organophosphates, increase the potential risk and indiscriminate threat to all insects.

Most animals on Earth are insects, who play a significant role in sustaining the ecosystem, despite their size. For instance, butterflies are also known to be excellent indicators of ecosystem health, so if an environment has ample butterflies, it is reasonably robust. Insects found in nature preserves are consistently contaminated with over a dozen pesticides, calling into question the ability of these areas to function as refuges for threatened and endangered species. Research shows that residues from neonicotinoid insecticides (including seed treatments) and sulfoxaflor accumulate and translocate to pollen and nectar of treated plants. Pyrethroids and fipronil impair bee learning, development, and behavioral function, reducing survivability and colony fitness. However, inert ingredients in these products cause similar or more severe impacts on insect populations, such as disruption in bee learning behavior through exposure to low doses of surfactants. With the global reliance on pollinator-dependent crops increasing over the past decades, a lack of pollinators threatens food security and stability for current and future generations. 

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, limits crop yields. In turn, the economy will take a hit, as much of the economy (65%) depends upon the strength of the agricultural sector. The agricultural industry relies on insect pollinators for plant pollination and crop productivity. The journal Science reported on a study of cotton pollination, showing that the services of butterflies and hoverflies add approximately $120 million annually to the $1.8 billion cotton industry in Texas. Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. And a study in Environmental Health Perspectives finds that resulting from the loss of pollinators, “3%–5% of fruit, vegetable, and nut production is lost due to inadequate pollination, leading to an estimated 427,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 86,000-691,000) excess deaths annually from lost healthy food consumption and associated diseases.” That study also finds the economic value of crops to be “12%–31% lower than if pollinators were abundant.” Hence, pesticide use fails to support sustainability goals, decreasing agricultural and economic productivity and social (human/animal) and environmental well-being. 

In regard to human health, studies show that pollinator declines will result in increased malnutrition from lost micronutrient consumption, and nutrient deficiencies. Over the past decades, pollinator losses have resulted in a shocking 427,000 excess deaths each year, primarily from chronic disease. Interestingly, it is middle- and high-income countries where these excess deaths are most pronounced. According to the study, 1% of total annual mortality in upper-middle- and high-income countries can be attributed to loss of pollination. Lower fruit and vegetable intake accounts from 189,000 and 151,000 deaths, respectively, from stroke, heart disease, and cancer, and a reduction in nut consumption is resulting in an estimated 99,000 deaths each year.

Since the threat to pollinator health is widespread, the agricultural industry must adopt practices that conserve and bolster wild bee populations, like planting wildflowers or using alternative managed pollinators to increase crop yields. Because wild bees are economically important, it underscores the importance of economic investments in pollinator conservation efforts. A study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B highlights agricultural industry investments in pesticides and fertilizers would be detrimental without confronting the decline of wild pollinators beforehand. After all, these synthetic chemicals lack any real monetary benefits for farmers. 

Overall, a decline in pollinators directly affects the environment, society, and the economy. With a reduction in pollinators to help maintain yields, the economic value of the crop is depressed. However, research finds that organic agriculture boosts local economies as green spaces, like community gardens, will expand viable habitats for pollinators and food sources for people. Low-maintenance gardening and the elimination of toxic pesticide (and the adoption of organic land management practices) aid in turning gardens organic, and many plants considered weeds (i.e., dandelions, creeping buttercups) are critical for pollinator survival, especially in urban areas where vegetation is sparser.

A broad transformation of the food system is necessary to change the course of pollinator health. Pollinator protection policies need improvements, not only to safeguard wild pollinators but the crops they pollinate as well.

Beyond Pesticides maintains that we must move beyond pesticide reduction and commit to complete pesticide elimination in our agricultural system to protect and enhance biodiversity and prevent crop loss. Eliminating synthetic pesticide use prevents direct and indirect harm to pollinator populations, human health, and wildlife while eliminating fossil fuels that further the climate crisis and spreading of pests and diseases. With EPA’s failure 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. These considerations should be part and parcel of every pesticide registered in the U.S., yet the federal government continues to ignore these positive policy proposals. Help bring greater attention to the adverse impacts of dependency on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers and the need to take climate change seriously in the context of pesticide registrations by sending a letter to EPA, USDA, and Congress today. Learn more about the science and resources behind pesticides’ pollinator impact and take action against the use of pesticides.

Learn more about what you can do to protect wild bees and other pollinators by checking out information on pollinator-friendly landscapes, pollinator-friendly seeds, and organic agriculture. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. The government should pass policies that eliminate a broad range of pesticides by promoting organic land care. Organic land management eliminates the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. Particularly, regenerative organic agriculture can nurture soil health through organic carbon sequestration, preventing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmers and farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2023) Pollinators––bees, butterflies, birds, bats, and other organisms––make a critical contribution to plant health, crop productivity, and the preservation of natural resources. However, pesticides consistently act as a key contributor to dramatic pollinator declines. Much research attributes the decline of insect pollinators over the last several decades to the interaction of multiple environmental stressors, from climate change to pesticide use, disease, habitat destruction, and other factors. Roughly a quarter of the global insect population has disappeared since 1990, according to research published in the journal Science. Monarchs are near extinction, and beekeepers continue to experience declines that are putting them out of business. We continue to lose mayflies, the foundation of many food chains, and fireflies, the foundation of many childhood summer memories. The declines in many bird species likely have close links to insect declines. Recent research finds that three billion birds, or 29% of bird abundance, have been lost since the 1970s. 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. 

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. The pervasiveness of pesticide exposure combined with climate change threatens global species biodiversity. The globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk. With the increasing rate of biodiversity loss, advocates say it is essential for government agencies to hold the pesticide industry accountable for the direct (i.e., excessive agrochemical use) and indirect (i.e., water pollution from runoff) impacts on ecosystems. A study in the journal Nature found that “The interaction between indices of historical climate warming and intensive agricultural land use is associated with reductions of almost 50% in abundance and 27% in the number of species within insect assemblages relative to those in less-disturbed habitats with lower rates of historical climate warming.”

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. 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. Pesticides intensify pollinators’ vulnerability to health risks (such as pathogens and parasites), with pesticide-contaminated conditions limiting colony productivity, growth, and survival. Past research finds that notorious bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides kill bees outright, resulting in a range of complex damage, including their ability to impede bees’ olfactory senses and adversely affect their vision and flying ability. Other chemicals like glyphosate weaken bees’ ability to distinguish between colors. 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 systemic insecticide. Spray applications of various agrichemicals affect the visitation patterns of pollinators through a range of different processes. Neonicotinoid exposure decreases pollination frequency, resulting in fewer social interactions as the chemical alters bumblebee feeding behavior and degrades the effectiveness of bumblebees’ classic “buzz pollination” process. A study published in 2017 determined that fungicides also play a significant role in bumblebee declines by increasing susceptibility to pathogens. Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assesses the toxicity of individual active ingredients on bees through various testing methods when regulating pesticides. However, there are no requirements for EPA to test multiple active or inert ingredients to the same degree despite evidence demonstrating these chemicals harm pollinators. As if biodiversity loss was not bad enough, it combines with the other existential threats to amplify the impacts on essential pollinators and other beneficial insects. 

Providing an organic habitat on personal property and encouraging communities to go organic can protect pollinators, and all species, including humans, that depend on their ecosystem services. Since plants in many garden centers across the country are grown from seeds coated with bee-toxic neonicotinoid pesticides or drenched with them, Beyond Pesticides has compiled a comprehensive directory of companies and organizations that sell organic seeds and plants to the general public to protect pollinators. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs, as well as living plants and seedlings. Use the Bee Protective Habitat Guide to plant a pollinator-friendly garden, and consider seeding white clover into your lawn. Additionally, display a Pesticide-Free Zone sign to show the neighbors that pesticide-free spaces are essential for health and the environment. 

In partnership with major retailers like Natural Grocers and Stonyfield Organic, the Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program provides in-depth training and demonstration sites to assist community land managers in transitioning public green spaces to organic landscape management while aiming to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these sustainable and safe practices. Through this program, Beyond Pesticides is now assisting local leaders and municipal landscapers in converting parks and recreational areas across the country to exclusively organic practices, eliminating synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use.

Solutions to the problems of chemical-intensive agriculture exist and provide proof that farming can occur without a range of negative impacts on the surrounding environment. Organic agriculture has never permitted synthetic fertilizer use, nor do organic farmers allow synthetic insecticides like bee-killing neonicotinoids. Instead, regenerative organic farming embraces a natural systems approach, working with the existing ecological services in the region. Organic farming yields multiple bottom-line benefits for wildlife and the wider environment, human health, and the economy. For more information on the dangers of synthetic fertilizers and alternative organic companies you can support, see the Beyond Pesticides page on Fertilizers Compatible with Organic Landscape Management. Get active in your community to eliminate synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides by sending a letter to your local officials today.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 20, 2023) Welcome to National Pollinator Week, during which time we recognize—and take action to protect—this important ecosystem link. Pollinators—bees, butterflies, birds, bats, and other organisms—make a critical contribution to plant health, crop productivity, and the preservation of natural resources, but their existence is threatened by their pesticide-contaminated habitat.  

Check out this week’s calendar of activities and actions below! On social media, we will be featuring Pollinator Artwork submitted by the community, as well as the numerous cute (and “not so cute!”) pollinators that live in the world around us!  Also, check out our live Pollinator Poll!

Follow us and like our page on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn! 

Monday: Juneteenth and Environmental Justice 

As Pollinator Week launches with the celebration of Juneteenth, it is time to renew our commitment to environmental justice while seeking the adoption of transformational policies and practices that recognize the urgency to address disproportionate harm inflicted by toxic pesticide use.  

Those fighting for environmental justice understand that the harms inflicted by toxic chemical production and use cause disproportionate adverse effects on people of color—from fenceline communities near chemical production plants to the hazardous and inhumane working conditions in agricultural fields, to the elevated risk factors for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) from toxic pesticide exposure.   

• Support the Black Institute: The Black Institute isn’t a think-tank, it’s an action-tank. Through a head, heart, and feet strategy, TBI injects new ideas for achieving racial equity and justice into the policy realm. An Eco-Friendly Parks for All (EFPA) coalition partner, the Black Institute is a leader in advancing organic land management legislation in New York City that bans toxic pesticides. 

For more information on the EFPA’s successful pilot organic land management programs at eight sites across the five boroughs, check out the June 1, 2023 press conference! Blog post: New York City Parks Dept. and Advocates Announce Organic Demonstration Sites Following Passage of Law. 

Tuesday: Know your Pollinators and BEE-Protective 

Pollinators are responsible for over 80% of the world’s flowering plants. Without their services, crops like blueberries, almonds, and apples would suffer!  Pollinators like birds, bees and butterflies are commonly known for their role in pollination, but did you know that bats and beetles are also pollinators? 

Unfortunately, pollinators are suffering severe declines worldwide.  

We can all play a role in protecting pollinators simply by making an organic garden, pledging it as pollinator friendly, or even organizing your community, schools, or local government to make choices that foster pollinators. 

Beyond Pesticides advocates for widespread adoption of organic management practices as key to protecting pollinators and the environment. The organization has long sought a broadscale marketplace transition to organic practices that legally prohibits the use of toxic synthetic pesticides and encourages a systems-based approach that is protective of health and the environment. Learn more on the role that pesticides play in pollinator decline, and actions you can take to BEE Protective.  

• Check out the short film: “The Seeds That Poison” is a Beyond Pesticides’ feature video highlighting the hazards associated with a major use of bee-toxic pesticides – seed coatings! Please watch and share with friends and family! Click here to watch.
• Explore your pollinators: Learn about the pollinators that exist around us on the Know Your Pollinators page on the website! Bees, birds, bats, butterflies, and more! 

Wednesday: In Peak Bloom—Summertime with Pollinators Under Threat! 

As we approach summertime with our parks and playground in peak bloom, the pollinators that allow the landscape to thrive remain under threat in their native habitats.  

Why? What are the main hazards that threaten their very existence? 
 
Pollinators are dying because their food and homes are disappearing, diseases have increased, and rising temperatures and natural disasters are affecting their ability to survive – all of which are related to the existential crisis of climate change. The pervasiveness of pesticide exposure combined with climate change threatens global species biodiversity. As has been widely reported, pollinators (such as bees, monarch butterflies, and bats) are a bellwether for environmental stress as individuals and as colonies. Pesticides intensify pollinators’ vulnerability to health risks (such as pathogens and parasites), with pesticide-contaminated conditions limiting colony productivity, growth, and survival.  
 
At the same time, pesticides are being sprayed in pollinator habitats, from fields and farms to parks and gardens. Residues from neonicotinoids (including seed treatments) and sulfoxaflor accumulate and translocate to pollen and nectar of treated plants. Pyrethroids and fipronil impair bee learning, development, and behavioral function, reducing survivability alongside colony fitness. The elimination of synthetic petrochemical toxic pesticides and a transition to organic practices can not only help combat climate change but make Planet Earth a safer place for us (and pollinators) to flourish!

• Plant pollinator habitats: Explore Beyond Pesticides’ resources to find ideas for native plantings or sources of untreated flowers and dig your pollinator-friendly garden today. Use the Bee Protective Habitat Guide and or Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory to help! 

• Take local action: Use our Tools for Change organizing materials to engage your public officials or local garden center to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides! Launch a campaign to convert to organic landcare management in your local parks and other public places to make them safer for kids, pets, and pollinators alike! Be sure to mark it on the Honey Bee Haven map! 

For information on growing plants to protect pollinators, see our Pollinator-Friendly Seeds and Nursery Directory. Use the Bee Protective Habitat Guide to plant a pollinator garden suited for your region! Consider seeding white clover into your lawn; learn more from Taking a Stand on Clover.  

Thursday: Pollinators Sustaining the (Socio-economic) Ecosystem!

Pollinators play a significant role in sustaining the ecosystem, despite their size. The United Nations states that 80 percent of the 115 top global food crops depend on insect pollination, with one-third of all U.S. crops depending on pollinators, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, these vital insect populations, including managed and wild pollinators, are collapsing.  

A systematic review of insect populations found that 41% of insect species worldwide are in decline, with the loss of butterflies, wild bumblebees, and honey bees linked to hazardous pesticide use in chemical-intensive agricultural systems. Additionally, “inert” ingredients in products cause similar or more severe impacts on insect populations, such as disruption in bee learning behavior through exposure to low doses of surfactants. With global reliance on pollinator-dependent crops increasing over the past decades, pollinator loss threatens food security and stability for current and future generations.  

Increasing people’s access to healthy, pesticide-free foods will protect pollinators. Declines in pollinator populations are likely to increase global malnutrition and disease. Vulnerable communities are most likely to be impacted by this effect. Produce will not disappear overnight, but become increasingly expensive and out of reach, particularly for those already living in areas with precarious access. 

The threat of pollinator losses to the food supply and human health are not future concerns, but present issues. Recent research finds 425,000 excess deaths each year can be attributed to pollinator declines caused by a lack of affordable healthy food. While low-income countries are the hardest hit economically from this decline, deaths are concentrated in middle- and high-income countries, accounting for now 1% of annual total mortality.    

In addition, protecting the farmworkers who grow our food from toxic chemicals will lead to heathier foods and healthier pollinator populations. Farmworkers are at disproportionate risk of pesticide poisoning, with an average life expectancy of 49 years!

• Take the pledge to support organic: In partnership with Natural Grocers, sign the Ladybug Pledge to support 100% organic produce. Also, pledge to protect pollinators and produce in your garden by never using chemicals that harm beneficial insects and ladybugs! 

• Take your yard pesticide free: Display a Pesticide-Free Zone sign for your yard and show your neighbors that pesticide-free spaces are important for health and the environment.

• Stand up for farmworkers: Demand justice and just conditions; stand in solidarity with farmworkers and the pollinators vital to our food supply! Tell the EPA, as well as your elected officials in Congress to protect farmworkers from toxic soil fumigants and encourage organic alternatives.     

Friday/Saturday – Partner with pollinator activists to take action!  

This past May, Nevada passed A.B. 162, sponsored by Assemblywoman Michelle Gorelow, prohibiting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides and continued momentum for targeted, common-sense restrictions. 

While Nevada joins California, Minnesota, New Jersey (the first state to eliminate neonics), and New York in leading the way, we need to ban all pesticides and treated seeds that harm pollinators—from neonicotinoids, fipronil, synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphate insecticides to the herbicide glyphosate—and assist land managers, from farmers to landscapers, to transition to organic practices that prohibit these deadly chemicals’ use.   
 
To promote transformational change, it is vital to reestablish a national strategy to work across agencies to eliminate our reliance on toxic pesticides and assist in the transition to organic land management—in the interest of protecting ecosystems against the ongoing dramatic destruction of biodiversity and the insect apocalypse. Check out Parks for a Sustainable Future to work with Beyond Pesticides and get a free action plan for transitioning your community to organic land management.
 
Stay tuned for this Saturday to take action with Beyond Pesticides via a click of the mouse! To subscribe to our Weekly News Update and Action of the Week listserv, click here!

*** 

Thank you for partnering with Beyond Pesticides this Pollinator Week! Creating lasting connections with the natural world is interwoven with a healthy ecosystem that supports critical species, such as pollinators. We protect people when we protect pollinators. 

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

Image Credit: Photographer: Christy Wilkinson, “Passiflora Incarnata gets bees drunk”.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 16, 2023) Juneteenth is a celebration of freedom for the last 250,000 enslaved people in Galveston, Texas, but it is also a reminder that justice has not historically been “swift” or complete for Black Americans. The holiday commemorates the abolition of slavery in Texas on June 19, 1865, two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation. 

According to a 2022 Gallup Poll, 40 percent of Americans know “a little bit” or “nothing at all” about Juneteenth. While this is a significant improvement in comparison to the 60 percent for the aforementioned metric in the previous year (when the holiday was federally recognized), greater public awareness is needed. This holiday is a time for individuals and organizations to acknowledge and reflect on their past and current actions or inactions that perpetuate systemic racism.

As known from the history books, the Emancipation Proclamation was signed on January 1, 1863, and the civil war ended on April 9, 1865. Juneteenth is a lesser-known anniversary commemorating the emancipation of enslaved people who received news of their freedom two and a half years after Abraham Lincoln’s freedom proclamation. While the technologies in the 19th century had a much slower travel time, there were concerted efforts to withhold and delay the communication that “all slaves are free.” The Congressional Research Service acknowledged the efforts to delay and keep enslaved plantation laborers for “one last cotton harvest.”  

There are parallels between the delay of freedom in 1865 and the delay in recognition of the holiday today. While news spreads quicker now, this nation continues to confront the same forces against justice. Juneteenth, for many Americans, is a holiday of gratitude and grief. Beyond Pesticides commemorates the anniversary of the second emancipation by highlighting the current need for environmental justice.

Environmental Justice

The father of environmental justice, Robert Bullard, Ph.D., defines environmental racism as any policy or practice that unequally affects or disadvantages individuals, groups, or communities based on their race. Dr. Bullard states that, until the 1980s, environmental conservation and pollution were separate. Many environmental organizations prioritized the preservation of “wilderness” rather than urban areas, predominantly comprised of people of color (POC), who continuously experience the disproportionate impacts of pollution and the effects of environmental racism.   

During the Jim Crow Era—following slavery—segregation propagated disparities between black and white communities, causing justice-related priorities to vary between demographic divides. Both the civil rights and environmental justice movements spread nationwide during the 60s and 70s. However, the two movements rarely coincided, and the implications are felt today. This division amplified the perception among civil rights advocates that environmentalism catered to white organizations and populations while ignoring POC and their struggles.

However, this does not mean environmentalism was completely void of addressing racial inequalities. Many early environmental justice leaders came out of the civil rights movement, bringing the same tactics they had used in civil rights struggles—marches, petitions, rallies, coalition building, community empowerment through education, litigation, and nonviolent direct action.

The 1960s saw some of the first localized protests of environmental inequalities such as:

• Latinx farm workers, led by Cesar Chavez, fought for workplace rights and against harmful pesticides in the farm fields of California’s San Joaquin Valley.
• African American students took to the streets of Houston, TX, to oppose a city garbage dump in their community that had claimed the life of a child.
• Residents of West Harlem, New York City, fought unsuccessfully against a sewage treatment plant in their community.

Despite the localized attempts to mitigate environmental racism, it was not until 1982 that the gap between the environmental and civil rights movement started to narrow: 

This is the story of Warren County, NC, an impoverished, rural county that became the epicenter of the growing environmental justice movement—drawing nationwide attention to racial disparities.

In 1978, employees of Ward PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) Transformer Company deliberately dripped 31,000 gallons of PCB-contaminated oil along approximately 240 miles of soil lining highway shoulders in North Carolina throughout 14 counties. By 1982, North Carolina had announced a plan to move soil contaminated with PCBs from alongside 210 miles of the state’s roadsides to a newly developed landfill located in Warren County—one of the only counties in the state with a majority African American population. PCBs are toxic chemicals that have links to birth defects, liver diseases, skin disorders, and cancers. The decision triggered a wave of protests, one of which resulted in the arrest of a U.S. congressman and dozens of activists who tried to block the PCB-laden trucks at the landfill’s entrance. Unfortunately, the pressure against PCB soil dumping did not deter the decision and 60,000 tons of contaminated soil was dumped in the landfill and buried 7 feet, only 3 feet above many groundwater tables.

Because of the outrage over Warren County, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) evaluated the correlation between landfill locations with the racial demographics of surrounding communities. The report concluded that three of every four landfills in the Southeast U.S. were in or near communities with majority non-white populations–with more than a quarter living below the poverty line. Although officials eventually removed the PCB-laden soil from Warren County, 25 years later, race remains the predominant indicator of proximity to pollution in the United States (more than socioeconomic factors). Today, numerous reports and public awareness of environmental racism continue to build on the movement that originated in Warren County, North Carolina.

Beyond Pesticides is working in coalitions to disrupt the disproportionate burden of pesticide use in communities of color. The Black Institute, a member of Eco-Friendly Parks for All, published a groundbreaking report on disparate pesticide application in public parks near Black and Brown communities. This injustice in parks, as well as disproportionate occupational risk to farmers and landscapers, is particularly concerning when it leads to pesticide-induced diseases (e.g., respiratory illness, neurological disorders, endocrine disruption, cancers, etc.).  

Examples of disproportionate risks include:

• African American women are 40 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than women of any other racial group. Even more concerning, incidences of triple-negative breast cancer—an aggressive breast cancer subtype lacking remediation—is approximately three-fold higher in non-Hispanic Black women compared to non-Hispanic White women. Although past studies suggest genetics produce these demographic differences in breast cancer outcomes, scientists now believe genetic factors only play a minor role compared to external factors (i.e., chemical exposure).
• The death of a young boy with leukemia highlighted yet another instance of environmental injustice. The incidents of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the boy’s community were nearly five times higher than the national average. Thousands of Black residents are suing Union Pacific Railroad Company for contaminating their properties with highly hazardous creosote wood preservatives, with known carcinogenic properties.
• More than five decades prior to chlorpyrifos revocation (removal of chemical for all uses), the toxic organophosphate insecticide disproportionately harmed low-income African American and Latinx farmworkers (and their families) who harvested much of the domestic—and contaminated—crops of grapes, citrus, and sugar beets, among others. Risks of exposure to chlorpyrifos impact neurological, reproductive, and endocrine systems.
• The Black Institute aggregated information from numerous public records and reported on the disproportionate risk to communities of color regarding the distribution and concentration of toxic pesticides. The Poison Parks Report found dangerous concentrations of pesticides in Idlewild Park. Surrounding communities, 90 percent of which were African American, had concentrations of glyphosate at 50 percent in 2018 (compared to “normal concentrations” at 0.5 – 3%). No concentration of glyphosate has been demonstrated to be safe for human health and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer identifies glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.

Although there are regulatory systems in place to evaluate and monitor pesticide use and exposure limits (i.e., the Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] and The Food Quality Protection Act [FQPA]), pesticide-related illnesses continue to disproportionately harm communities of color. Regulations ignore people with increased vulnerabilities due to preexisting health conditions—most often associated with racial and socioeconomic factors. For example, federal pesticide law does not consider the cumulative effect of high-exposure and high-risk occupations. 

Science, technology, and a shift to organic can aid in the reduction of surface-level food system issues; leaders must incorporate social justice across the agricultural industry for permanent systemic transformation. Partnering with activists in communities of color to address agrochemicals’ impacts can be a start to alleviating inequalities. However, changes in policy are required in the food system so that the burdens placed on POC communities are no longer overlooked. Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor progress on inequities related to pesticides, agriculture, farmworker well-being, and public health. For current reporting on matters related to environmental justice, see Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog.

A section of Beyond Pesticides’ latest issue of Pesticides and You, “Retrospective 2021: A Call to Urgent Action,” is devoted to the inequities of pesticide use. Section IV, “Disproportionate Pesticide Harm Is Racial Injustice: Documenting Victimization: Structural Racism,” reprises Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 coverage of environmental injustices. The publication also calls for urgent action re: federal and state “evaluations that go into toxic chemical regulation . . . to reform and replace the current regulatory decision-making process, which is empirically racist, with one that acknowledges and cares for those with the highest real-world vulnerabilities and exposure[s].”

One important way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to integrated pest management, land management, and agriculture by transitioning to organic. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, chemical occupational workers, and the agricultural sector can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment. For more information on the benefits of organic for both consumers and farmworkers, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2023) The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction dramatically limits the EPA’s ability to protect critical wetland ecosystems. On May 25, in a 5-4 majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA has authority to protect only “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.” Wetlands must appear “indistinguishable” from larger waterways at a surface-level perspective. Wetlands next to a large waterway are no longer protected if they are separated by a manmade or terrestrial barrier. Water flows underground from upstream to downstream sources and exits the confines of its customary boundaries during periods of flooding, so to declare waterways distinct based merely on a surface-level perspective defies scientific understanding of ecosystem health. 

Critical Nature of Wetland Ecology 

The conservation of wetland ecology is critical to the health of our environment. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) states, “Wetlands are among the most productive habitats on earth” given their role in flood resilience, improvement in water quality, and coastal erosion control. Wetlands are essential nursery grounds for many species of fish and oases for migratory birds en route to their final destinations.  

Not only are wetlands one of the most crucial ecosystems on the planet, but they are also particularly vulnerable to stressors such as habitat loss, pollution, and climate change. Both sea level rise and rapid human development are quickening the pace of their disappearance. Upstream runoff can carry destructive chemical pesticides and fertilizers that wreak havoc on downstream ecosystems. Many wetlands are brackish, meaning they are a mixture of fresh- and saltwater. When sea levels rise, coastal wetlands are inundated with massive amounts of seawater, throwing off their careful salt concentrations and spelling out death for organisms reliant on a narrow range of water chemistry. 

History of Clean Water Act and Court Cases 

Clean Water Act (CWA) has played an integral role in the preservation of environmental health over the last few decades. Prior to the passing of CWA, jurisdiction of the nation’s waterways was left in the hands of the states and very few regulations were imposed. The federal government finally took action after Ohio’s Cuyahoga River spontaneously caught fire in 1969 due to a substantial amount of pollution in the waters. Passed in 1972, CWA “aimed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” The law forbids “unpermitted discharges of pollutants to ‘navigable waters,’” which are defined as “the waters of the United States.” A few years later, authority was broadened to encompass waters “adjacent” to navigable waterways. CWA sets industrial wastewater standards, requires a strict permitting process regarding wetland development, and outlines safety limits for contaminant concentrations in drinking water. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are tasked with the protection of wetlands and enforcement of CWA regulations to defend water quality against polluting industries.  

Despite the success of the CWA in improving the quality of waterways, decades-long debates have pitted politicians against each other over the ambiguity of exactly which “waters of the United States” fall under EPA jurisdiction. Under constitutional law, the legislative branch is granted the power to regulate interstate commerce. This detail found in Article I, Section 8, allows a federal agency (e.g., EPA) to impose waterway regulations within states since “navigable waters” play an important role in interstate commerce. Historically, wetlands neighboring a large waterway, despite an interrupted surface connection, were under EPA’s jurisdiction. Even the smallest creeks, however, run downstream to larger lakes and rivers, so many believe the original wording of CWA does not clearly portray the extent of the EPA’s authority. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers often consider potential regulatory infractions on a case-by-case basis, but court cases in years since have attempted to clarify these uncertainties. 

One such landmark case brought before the Supreme Court in 2006, Rapanos v. United States, highlighted key issues related to CWA’s scope in a case brought by a land developer. Half of the Court supported a broad interpretation of “waters of the United States” that includes smaller tributaries that eventually flow into larger bodies of water. The opposing justices, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, favored more limited EPA authority, arguing for the protection of what they referred to as only “traditionally navigable waters” or those “indistinguishable” from such. To qualify, neighboring tributaries would have to be “relatively permanent” bodies of water with a “continuous surface connection” or uninterrupted by any terrestrial barriers. A contentious case, the ruling concluded with a 4-1-4 plurality. The court finally decided on a resolution by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the concurring vote, in which he deemed EPA jurisdiction extending to “traditionally navigable waters,” as well as any U.S. waters serving as a “significant nexus,” meaning wetlands that “either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the navigable waters. Ambiguity, however, remained, as one could endlessly debate what qualifies as “significant.”  

In 2015, the Obama administration took a position on the not fully defined language of the amended CWA. The administration’s stance, known as WOTUS (waters of the United States), and later the Clean Water Rule, asserts that any waterway active for at least part of the year (implying seasonally flowing or ephemeral streams) qualifies as a protected wetland and is therefore under EPA jurisdiction. EPA had spent years studying the effects of upstream pollutants on downstream waters and, based on its in-depth scientific reports, found that protecting all tributaries and wetlands is necessary to the preservation of the quality and health of larger waterways. This position generated immediate backlash, as the industrial, mining, and agricultural sectors, as well as property rights activists, fought the protection of seasonally active waterways. The rule was stayed in federal court as lawsuits began piling up in states around the country, and the administration looked to adjust the rule in response.  

The statutory intent of CWA was then entirely turned upside down with the Trump administration. In a 2019 reversal of Obama-era protections, the Trump administration maintained that justices led by Scalia in the Rapanos case had gotten it right, limiting protections to tributaries with a direct surface connection to larger waterways. 

In an attempt to compromise, the Biden administration set standards similar to those prior to 2015, falling between the broad protections of the Obama administration and the extremely limited protections of the Trump administration. This approach meshes “traditional navigable waters” with adjacent waterways, including “interstate waterways and upstream water sources that influence the health and quality of those waterways.” With this interpretation, a small land divide does not render two nearby wetlands separate. Environmentalists generally support this effort and affirm that this rule is “central to efforts to restore the health of impaired waterways and fragile wildlife habitats because it gives federal and state governments powers to limit the flow of pollutants, including livestock waste, construction runoff and industrial effluent.” 

Present-Day Supreme Court Case 

So now for the case at hand: Chantell and Michael Sackett, a couple beginning construction of a house on an area of wetlands near Priest Lake in Idaho, were alerted by EPA that their land fell under the protection of CWA. The Sackett’s disagreed with the EPA’s stance and took the issue to court. After the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the justices concluded that the Sacketts’ land did not fall under the protections granted by CWA and then curtailed the reach of the law by limiting CWA to larger bodies of water, such as lakes and oceans.   

Objecting to the perspective of the majority, Justice Elena Kahan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Brett M. Kavanaugh, compares this case to one last year limiting EPA’s authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. In both cases, the Court voted to vastly limit the EPA’s jurisdiction, with dangerous implications for the future health and safety of people and the planet. 

Consequences of the Ruling 

The dissenting justices highlight the destructive effects this ruling will have on nationwide water quality and flood control, as EPA is now drastically limited in its “ability to extend protections to upstream waters in order to protect downstream water quality for drinking and wildlife.” Wetlands are a filtration system, trapping many pollutants and preventing them from traveling downstream into major waterways. Advocates say that this will cause broad adverse effects, from the Everglades to maintenance on the levee systems along the Mississippi River to cleanup projects along the Chesapeake Bay. According to some estimates, about 50% of wetlands will lose federal protection. The environmental law firm Earthjustice estimates that federal protections will be withheld from 118 million acres of wetlands. 

President Biden has warned that the Supreme Court decision “will take our country backwards,” and assured the public he will continue to fight for clean water. In his statement, the President continued, “Today’s decision upends the legal framework that has protected America’s water for decades. It also defies the science that confirms the critical role of wetlands in safeguarding our nation’s stream, rivers, and lakes from chemicals and pollutants that harm the health and wellbeing of children, families, and communities.” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said that the ruling has “ripped the heart out of the law.” The Natural Resources Defense Council cited the “incalculable harm” that will come of the decision. 

Multiple legal observers predict that the two court rulings in the past year regarding the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts may be the start of a pattern of restrictions on federal authority in the environmental sector. At a time when an immediate response to climate change and chemical pollution is more urgent than ever, these decisions are seen by environmentalists and public health advocates as undermining action necessary for a sustainable future by opening the door to widespread and unrestricted contamination of wetlands and waterways necessary to support life.  

If you want to learn more about the dangers of water contamination, take a look at Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Threatened Waters: Turning the Tide on Pesticide Contamination. Click here and here to read past articles Beyond Pesticides has written on the issue.  

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

Sources: Supremecourt.gov  

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2023) A study published in Scientific Reports finds a link between pesticide exposure and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) through oxidative stress and apoptosis (cell death) in the placenta. Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is the loss of three or more successive pregnancies before 24 weeks of gestation (pregnancy) and signifies an underlying reproductive health issue. The study highlights that pesticides’ endocrine-disrupting (ED) properties can have varying adverse impacts on biological processes, including immunology, metabolism, and reproduction.

Pregnant women experience frequent exposure to environmental pollutants that pose serious health risks to both mother and newborn. Many known pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyl, and pesticides) are chemicals with ED properties that can move from the mother to the developing fetus at higher exposure rates. Additionally, pregnant women are experiencing exposure to an increasing number of dangerous industrial chemicals. With a range of scientific data highlighting chemical exposures during pregnancy as a critical window of vulnerability, public awareness of these threats is growing. The study notes, “They are associated with an increasing placental OS [oxidative stress] and placental apoptosis. Specific measures should be taken to decrease maternal exposure to these pollutants’ sources, especially in underdeveloped and developing countries.”

For RPL, the research investigated pesticide components in blood plasma, specifically polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dieldrin (organochlorine), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE, organochlorine), ethion (organophosphate), malathion (organophosphate), and chlorpyrifos (organophosphate). The research tested plasma to determine the associations between chemical exposure, oxidative stress (OS) biomarkers, and apoptotic/antiapoptotic indices in the placenta. OS markers include the presence of nitric oxide (NO.), thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), reduced glutathione (GSH), and superoxide dismutase (SOD). Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analyzed pesticide levels in plasma. Levels of PCBs, DDE, dieldrin, and ethion are higher in the plasma of individuals in RPL cases. The concentration of these chemicals also reflects a significant association between OS and apoptosis in the placenta and a decrease in human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) levels, which are biomarkers for RPL risk.

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. 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. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse effects on human health (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.) and wildlife and biodiversity. With the increasing ubiquity of pesticides, current measures safeguarding against pesticide use and exposure must adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants.

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. 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 POPs. 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, increasing the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even common household pesticides 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.

Not only does pesticide exposure poses a risk to mothers and their subsequent offspring, but also to future generations. Current-use pesticides and metabolites (or breakdown products) of many long-banned pesticides still impart adverse effects on human health. These negative effects can continue into childhood and adulthood and may have multigenerational consequences. 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 most 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 how pesticides affect mothers and their offspring. Like this study, past research highlights that pesticide exposure during pregnancy negatively affects the mother’s metabolism, promoting genotoxicity and oxidative stress among fetuses. Occupationally, pregnant veterinarians who have work-related exposures to pesticides, anesthetic gases, or radiation may have twice the risk of miscarriage. Furthermore, consuming foods with high pesticide residues lowers the probability of live births. An imbalance in reactive oxygen species (ROS) or the antioxidant system can lead to oxidative stress. Additionally, many chemicals that cause OS are EDs that detrimentally affect the fetus during pregnancy. But this type of health problem that individuals live with is only one example. Exposure can likewise result in a range of health impacts.

Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is associated with a range of long-term health hazards. Research finds that early exposure to pesticides in the womb increases the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Pesticides can result in early births and low birth weight, and evidence is growing that pesticides, like glyphosate in particular, are primary contributors to this phenomenon. Overwhelming data links prenatal pesticide exposure to an increased risk of cancer. Whether acute childhood leukemia (see coverage of another study on this health outcome here), nephroblastoma (kidney cancer), or brain tumors, the data is consistent and concerning. Exposure during pregnancy can increase the probability of childhood ear infections, risking hearing loss that can set back childhood development and change an individual’s future life. ADHD is another example, with pregnant mothers who have used insecticides at 98% increased odds of having children with ADHD scores in the 90th percentile.

While peer-reviewed science continues to sound the alarm, federal regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continue to allow harmful exposures, permitting increases in application rates of chemicals linked to prenatal and early childhood health impacts in some cases. Hence, prenatal exposure to these chemicals may increase the prevalence of birth-related health consequences like natal abnormalities and learning/developmental disabilities. Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of pesticide exposure as their developing bodies cannot adequately combat exposure effects. Moreover, a mother’s pesticide exposure can have a stronger association with health disorders than childhood exposure, and a potential newborn can still encounter pesticides. Therefore, it is essential to understand how pesticides impact the health and well-being of individuals during critical developmental periods.

A strong consensus among pediatricians highlights that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical development periods. Therefore, policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on Birth/Fetal Effects, Learning/Developmental Disorders, Endocrine Disruption, Body Burdens, and other diseases. To learn more about the inadequacy of pesticide regulations and how they 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 buying, growing, and supporting organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticide metabolites in urine drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and agro-industry workers can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic choice is the right choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2023) The specific compounds that comprise one’s scent influence how attractive one is to mosquitoes finds research published in the journal Current Biology by scientists at Johns Hopkins University. Although the findings focus solely on a species of malaria mosquito primarily distributed throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, the results could provide insight into broader concerns over mosquito disease transmission and public health. As it currently stands, personal protective measures and the use of least-toxic repellents are the best methods to address most mosquito problems in the United States.

Scientists utilized a mixture and semi-field trials to understand first how mosquitoes became attracted to human hosts. For the field trial, a large facility the size of a college lecture hall was utilized to mimic the sort of open space mosquitoes have available to them in the wild. Eight landing boards were placed in a ring and either heated to human temperature, “baited” with carbon dioxide, or both. Researchers then released 200 mated female mosquitoes that had been starved of food. Scientists tracked the mosquitoes through infrared cameras to determine their trajectory.

Only when both heat and carbon dioxide were present did scientists witness high levels of landings on the platforms provided. Neither alone appeared to attract significant mosquito attention.

Researchers then compared the attractiveness of the warmed carbon dioxide platform against that of human odor. Individuals participating in this study were asked to bathe with unscented shampoo, not apply any other scented materials, and refrain from alcohol and tobacco prior to joining the experiment, in order to prevent confounding factors. The results of this process found that malaria mosquitoes strongly sought out the platform with human odor.

The next step was then to compare the mosquito attractiveness of two different humans. In doing so, scientists observed that for six of the seven nights, one human received twice the number of landings than the other. This did not change based on wind currents or the objects’ position. 

To further delve into the details as to why the mosquitoes seek out one individual over another, scientists established a cohort of six humans. Over the course of this experiment, one human was found to be more attractive to mosquitoes than any others. At the same time, a different human in the experiment received relatively few mosquito landings.

The body odor of each human in the experiment was then collected by air sampling and evaluated for its chemical breakdown. Scientists found over 1,000 individual chemicals – primarily comprised of volatile compounds released from human skin. In a comparative analysis, carboxylic acids were found to be the class of chemicals that differed most between human subjects. It follows that researchers found that the most attractive human contain the most abundant number of these molecules, while the least attractive human have the least amount. Interestingly, the least attractive human contains significantly higher levels of one specific carboxylic acids – eucalyptol. As readers may recognize, this is a compound that is also found in many aromatic plants that are known to repel mosquitoes.

The final results appear to buttress the assumptions many people have about mosquitoes – that this or that person is more attractive to mosquitoes than others. However, U.S. readers should be cautious with these results since the study focused on a mosquito that is not found in the U.S.

Scientists are keen on further research that expands the size of the experiment to better understand inter-individual variability in attractiveness. There is also an interest in these results eventually leading to new traps, repellents, or other nontoxic methods of mosquito management.

If you are someone that knows mosquitoes love to feed on you, personal protection is even more important. See Beyond Pesticides factsheet on least-toxic mosquito repellents for information on how to repel these dangerous pests safely. Toxic pesticides and genetic modification should never be the first line of defense for mosquitoes -an ecological approach that focuses primarily on public education and source reduction is the best way to address community mosquito problems. Read more about the benefits of safer mosquito management here.

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

Source: Current Biology

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2023) In view of the urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (VT) and U.S. Representatives Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) and Alma Adams (NC-12) have introduced Senate and House versions of the Opportunities in Organic Act to reduce cost-barriers, expand access to new markets and resources, and provide support and training.

>>Tell your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators to cosponsor H.R. 3650 and S. 1582, the Opportunities in Organic Act. Thank those who are current cosponsors.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors. The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

The Opportunities in Organic Act has three major components:

• Organic Certification Cost-Share. The Opportunities in Organic Act will modernize reimbursements for organic certification, to ensure cost does not deter producers. Cost-share payments will cover up to $1,500 in certification costs. USDA will have discretion to exceed that cap to ensure that certification costs are not a barrier to certification for underserved producers and regions.
  
  
• Transition and Resilience Funds. The bill will provide support for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to build capacity to support organic transition, particularly for smaller scale and socially disadvantaged producers and underserved regions. The program will also pass-through funding from NGOs to producers to offset costs and reduce barriers associated with organic transition.
  
  
• Technical Assistance.  The bill will provide resources for organic capacity and partnerships at public institutions and NGOs, including support for education, outreach, and market expansion so producers in any part of the country will have access to professional assistance with building healthy soil, natural pest management, and protecting ecosystems and natural resources.

A wide range of environmental, organic agriculture, and organic research organizations support the Opportunities in Organic Act. Our thanks to the sponsors and cosponsors:

• S. 1582: Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI], Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ], Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA], Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA], Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY], Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM], Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME], Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM], Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA], Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR], Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT], Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA], Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT], and Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN].
  
  
• H.R. 3650: Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18], Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Payne, Donald M., Jr. [D-NJ-10], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], and Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2].

>>Tell your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators to cosponsor H.R. 3650 and S. 1582, the Opportunities in Organic Act. Thank those who are current cosponsors.

Letter to U.S. Senators who are not currently co-sponsors of S. 1582:

There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity. U.S. Senator Peter Welch (VT) has introduced S. 1582, the Opportunities in Organic Act to reduce cost-barriers, expand access to new markets and resources, and provide support and training.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors.  The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

The Opportunities in Organic Act has three major components:

Organic Certification Cost-Share. The Opportunities in Organic Act will modernize reimbursements for organic certification, to ensure cost does not deter producers. Cost-share payments will cover up to $1,500 in certification costs. USDA will have discretion to exceed that cap to ensure that certification costs are not a barrier to certification for underserved producers and regions.

Transition and Resilience Funds. The bill will provide support for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to build capacity to support organic transition, particularly for smaller scale and socially disadvantaged producers and underserved regions. The program will also pass-through funding from NGOs to producers to offset costs and reduce barriers associated with organic transition.

Technical Assistance.  The bill will provide resources for organic capacity and partnerships at public institutions and NGOs, including support for education, outreach, and market expansion so producers in any part of the country will have access to professional assistance with building healthy soil, natural pest management, and protecting ecosystems and natural resources.

A wide range of environmental, organic agriculture, and organic research organizations support the Opportunities in Organic Act.

Will you please cosponsor the Opportunities in Organic Act?

Thank you.

Letter to Senators who are currently co-sponsors of S. 1582:

Thank you for sponsoring S. 1582, the Opportunities in Organic Act. There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors. The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representatives not currently cosponsors of H.R. 3650:

There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity. U.S. Representatives Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) and Alma Adams (NC-12) have introduced H.R. 3650, the Opportunities in Organic Act to reduce cost-barriers, expand access to new markets and resources, and provide support and training., the Opportunities in Organic Act to reduce cost-barriers, expand access to new markets and resources, and provide support and training.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors. The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

The Opportunities in Organic Act has three major components:

Organic Certification Cost-Share. The Opportunities in Organic Act will modernize reimbursements for organic certification, to ensure cost does not deter producers. Cost-share payments will cover up to $1,500 in certification costs. USDA will have discretion to exceed that cap to ensure that certification costs are not a barrier to certification for underserved producers and regions.

 Transition and Resilience Funds. The bill will provide support for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to build capacity to support organic transition, particularly for smaller scale and socially disadvantaged producers and underserved regions. The program will also pass-through funding from NGOs to producers to offset costs and reduce barriers associated with organic transition.

Technical Assistance. The bill will provide resources for organic capacity and partnerships at public institutions and NGOs, including support for education, outreach, and market expansion so producers in any part of the country will have access to professional assistance with building healthy soil, natural pest management, and protecting ecosystems and natural resources.

A wide range of environmental, organic agriculture, and organic research organizations support the Opportunities in Organic Act.

Will you please cosponsor the Opportunities in Organic Act?

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representatives who are currently cosponsors of H.R. 3650:

Thank you for sponsoring H.R. 3650, the Opportunities in Organic Act. There is an urgent need to enact a transformation to organic agriculture in order to address existential threats to human health, climate, and biodiversity.

Although some existing programs support organic agriculture, transition, and research, they do not level the playing field for organic producers and do not adequately or holistically meet their needs. Organic certification costs and processes remain a barrier for many, and most producers have limited access to organic-specific technical assistance or mentorship – especially in regions with smaller organic sectors. The Opportunities in Organic Act will expand the existing National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to reduce these barriers and better serve organic producers.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2023) Glyphosate, usually marketed as the herbicide Roundup, has long been the poster child for shoddy regulation by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In a study published June 1, 2023 in Environmental Health by Axel Mie and Christina Rudén, PhD, of Stockholm University and the Centre for Organic Food and Farming in Uppsala, the authors followed up on earlier work that documented deficiencies in information provided to European Union (EU) regulators by manufacturers. They identified nine studies on developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) that had been submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) but were not disclosed to EU authorities. According to the research, seven of these studies would have “actual or potential regulatory impact.”

According to the authors: “Of the nine undisclosed DNT studies, three were sponsored by Bayer and performed in their own laboratory. Three studies were sponsored by Syngenta and performed in their Central Toxicology Laboratory. One study each was sponsored by Nissan Chemicals and Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha (ISK), and these were performed at Huntingdon Life Sciences. For the remaining study, the sponsor and laboratory are unknown to us.”

This study is a new example of regulatory capture, following up on the authors’ 2022 research that identified an unreported study performed more than two decades ago on glyphosate trimethylsulfonium salt, also known as “glyphosate trimesium,” which showed developmental neurotoxicity in rats. This study from 2001—prior to EFSA’s overall approval of glyphosate—was never reported to the agency; in fact, EFSA knew nothing about it until the Swedish team notified the agency of its existence.

A further extension of approval for glyphosate is currently being evaluated by EFSA, according to Mr. Mie and Dr. Rudén. But the researchers stress that EFSA is still not following EU law because it has not contemplated any developmental neurotoxicity studies for glyphosate, and the 2001 study at minimum identifies the need to commission further studies because other forms of the chemical than trimesium may also produce such neurotoxicity.

Beyond Pesticides, along with many investigative journalists such as Sharon Lerner, Carey Gillam, and the late Elizabeth Grossman, has delineated numerous instances of regulatory malfeasance in the entire system of registering chemicals, including the checkered history of glyphosate.

In both the U.S. and the E.U., companies registering pesticides must provide evidence from toxicological studies to support their marketing plans. But in both countries there is a built-in conflict of interest in the way the science is used to justify commercial ends, and the fox should not be the party rationalizing its presence in the henhouse.

There is certainly evidence of it in that early trimesium study. In the two highest-dose groups, the testing company observed decreased motor activity in pups up to 72% at two weeks after birth. This was despite the highest doses having no effect on their mothers. However, the testing company dismissed those results as incidental. Curiously, EPA did evaluate the study in 2005 and concluded that trimesium does cause behavioral effects in offspring from exposed mother rats. It then set “no adverse effect” and “adverse effect” thresholds for the U.S. at the second and third exposure levels, respectively. These were lower than the EU acceptable daily intake levels of glyphosate. However, EPA has dismissed studies reporting glyphosate’s developmental neurotoxicity.

The Swedish researchers note that EU law requires companies to report all results of all toxicological screenings and notify regulators as soon as any adverse effect is observed. They add that there is “no systematic way of knowing what information the applicants have access to but did not include in the dossier. The regulatory system therefore relies on trust that companies abide by the rules and submit all relevant information that is available to them. Therefore, this case has impact beyond glyphosate: It reduces our confidence that the pesticide industry submits all data on risks and hazards of their products.”

This lacuna is a form of willful ignorance on the part of regulators and industry, which is compounded by the refusal of regulators to consider scientific evidence outside the very narrow strictures of regulatory toxicology. In 2022 French academics analyzed two European expert panels and concluded that “processes of producing ignorance have been structurally embedded in the evaluation and regulation procedures of the tens of thousands of hazardous chemicals present on the market…the routine functioning of regulatory science tends to favor industry-sponsored studies, while obscuring other knowledge that could have been useful for regulation.” The internal conflicts within the EPA during glyphosate’s first round of registration as far back as 1974 are emblematic of how evaluations by agency experts are easily papered over by higher-ups with political preferences in order to produce official ignorance.

None of this is really a surprise. Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly called for reform of pesticides regulation, but much of the scaffolding is still occupied by industry influencers. The notorious “revolving door” between government jobs and lucrative consultancies for the chemical industry remains intact. For example, Beyond Pesticides reported in 2017 on the Trump Administration’s nomination of Michael L. Dourson, PhD, to be EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety. He worked at the EPA in the 1980s and formed the private consultancy Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) in 1995. More than half of TERA’s clients are industry groups; TERA tends to see low risks from chemical exposures to its clients’ products, such as in a study for Burger King and Frito-Lay finding little risk from acrylamide in fast-food wrappers. Other clients range from the Koch Brothers to Dow Chemical.  Congress refused to confirm Dourson for the EPA post but he remains active in attempts to downplay chemical health effects.

The problem of industry influence on pesticide regulation extends deep into the scientific literature. In the early 2000s, the groundbreaking work of Tyrone Hayes, PhD, on endocrine-disrupting effects of atrazine triggered heavy resistance from the manufacturer, Syngenta. Dr. Hayes subsequently investigated the effect of funding source on study conclusions, reporting in 2004 that “financial sponsorship was a very strong predictor” of finding no chemical effects, and “100 percent of the negative studies [on atrazine] were funded by Syngenta.”

Beyond Pesticides has noted that “[n]ecessary change will not and has not come with campaigns and lawsuits against individual chemicals. Rather, the representative industry and resulting agency corruption must be purged in order to address a systemic problem. The transformation requires a focus on eliminating toxics in favor of ecosystem-compatible practices and products that are now available, but undermined by weak statutes, regulations, and ongoing corruption.”

There is mounting evidence that scientists and regulators themselves want to see reform. A 2022 survey of agricultural scientists found that many—especially university researchers—believe that EPA underestimates risk significantly, and they support regulation of inert ingredients as well as active pesticide ingredients, along with better labeling. As reported by Sharon Lerner in The Intercept, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has supported several whistleblowers inside the agency who disclosed pressure from political appointees in the Office of Pesticide Protection’s New Chemicals Division to remove language about toxic effects of pesticides and otherwise interfere with scientific evaluations.

But the pesticide industry is nothing if not wily, and it has no qualms about inventing new forms of disinformation. Last year, a team of Syngenta authors actually tried to make the case that climate change, biodiversity crashes, economic failures, and other disasters make it necessary to continue using pesticides, and assured that, “The current U.S. EPA’s pesticide regulatory framework is comprehensive, science-based, rigorous, continuously improving, transparent and is unlikely to underestimate risk to ensure the protection of human health.”

Advocates say this is patently untrue and call for urgent action by policymakers.

What can you do?

• Encourage federal elected officials to support the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act of 2023 (PACTPA), Senate Bill 269 re-introduced in February by Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.)
• Browse Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week campaigns, including how to prevent local ordinances from being pre-empted by Congress in the next Farm Bill
• Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change pages
• Check out Preparing for a Campaign advice

And beware of claims that climate change, wildfires, economic crunches, and biodiversity crises require the use of pesticides. They do not. Just the opposite: as we reported this week, melting permafrost will release hundreds of chemicals trapped in the ice, including DDT and chlorpyrifos. Refusing to acknowledge reality–willful ignorance—is not powerful and will not solve our pressing biological problems.

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

Source: “Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union,” and “What you don’t know can still hurt you – underreporting in EU pesticide regulation.”

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2023) A study published in Nature Communications finds that climate-induced thawing of permafrost (a ground that remains completely frozen for two or more years) threatens approximately 4,500 industrial sites in regions of the Arctic. These thousands of industrial sites used to store hazardous substances have an estimated 13,000 to 20,000 contaminated locations. Not only do these regions pose a grave ecological risk to the Arctic, but they threaten the entire globe.

Many studies warn that thawing permafrost in the Arctic region can prompt the reemergence of greenhouse gases (e.g., methane and carbon dioxide), microbes, and hazardous chemicals (e.g., banned pesticides like DDT, heavy metals, etc.). Gases, microbes, and chemicals can drift near the poles, becoming entrapped in ice under the accumulating snowfall. As the global climate continues to rise and the climate crisis worsens, studies like this heed warning of potential adverse effects as ice encapsulating these toxic chemicals melt. Upon melting, some chemicals can volatilize back into the atmosphere, releasing toxicants into the air and aquatic systems, with the ensuing consequences. Microbes frozen for thousands to millions of years can also emerge from thawing permafrost, with unknown implications on human, animal, and ecosystem health. The melting permafrost is already beginning to impact infrastructure, creating sinkholes that damage roads, trees, and utility poles. Moreover, mixtures of hazardous chemicals, microbes, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in permafrost are difficult to assess. Therefore, studies like this highlight the need to evaluate the health and ecological effects of melting arctic permafrost (and glaciers) from anthropogenic (human)-induced climate change. 

The study forewarns, “Ongoing climate warming will increase the risk of contamination and mobilization of toxic substances since about 1100 industrial sites and 3500 to 5200 contaminated sites located in regions of stable permafrost will start to thaw before the end of this century. This poses a serious environmental threat, which is exacerbated by climate change in the near future. To avoid future environmental hazards, reliable long-term planning strategies for industrial and contaminated sites are needed that take into account the impacts of climate change.” [For related pieces, see Silent Snow: The unimaginable impact of toxic chemical use and DDT in Glacial Melt Puts Alaskan Communities at Risk.]

The study compiles numerous pan-Arctic (throughout the Arctic) industrial sites in permafrost-dominated regions to determine how many contaminated areas are within these industrial sites. Using the Northern Hemisphere Permafrost Map, researchers determined only areas with a permafrost occurrence probability of over 50 percent are viable study domains. Data from Alaska’s industrial regions established possible types of toxic substances within the regions. Climate prediction scenarios estimate the number of contaminated areas within the industrial sites that will experience direct effects from thawing permafrost. Thus, the study results demonstrate that melting permafrost poses a significant risk to the environment through the release of toxic substances. More than half of all existing contaminated sites are from the energy and industrial product processing and use sector. However, these sectors only account for 20 percent of all industrial sites. A majority of known industrial sites have been in the agriculture, forestry, and other land (AFOLU) use sectors that employ synthetic, petroleum-based pesticide management.

Many scientists consider Arctic environments “pristine,” void of chemicals used in more temperate and industrial climates. However, the Arctic has become a sink for these toxic chemicals, as studies find evidence that airborne Arctic chemical concentrations are comparable to industrialized regions in the U.S., Europe, and Asia.

Other investigations have found the presence of chemicals and microbes in soil and ice samples taken from Arctic regions. The Arctic is highly susceptible to global pollution, as warmer air contaminated with industrial and agricultural chemicals from manufacturing regions moves poleward toward cooler air. Environmental pollutants can condense into snowflakes high in the atmosphere and deposit onto the Arctic surface. Although deposition of these chemicals via long-range atmospheric transport and condensation are significant contributors to Arctic contamination, the chemical properties allowing these substances to persist in the environment for so long are concerning. Some of these long-lived chemicals include regionally banned pesticides like DDT, heptachlor, and lindane, which are highly toxic to humans and animals, causing a range of adverse effects, from respiratory issues to nervous system disorders and birth deformities to various common and uncommon cancers. Banned chemicals remain a global issue, as much of the developing world still report usage. However, banned/past-use compounds are not the only Arctic contaminants. Current-use chemicals, like chlorpyrifos, dacthal (DCPA), and trans-nonachlor (a component of the banned insecticide chlordane) readily contaminate the Arctic, and continued use will result in an increased probability of atmospheric transportation and deposition of chemicals on Arctic glacier tops via precipitation. According to Brettania Walker, Ph.D., toxics officer at World Wildlife Fund’s Arctic Program, “Not only is chemical contamination increasing in the Arctic but also modern chemicals are now appearing in many Arctic species alongside older chemicals, some of them banned for [over 50] years.”

The climate crisis adds another level of concern, especially regarding passive pesticide and microbial exposure from snowmelt. Pesticide contamination is already an issue in the U.S., as results of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) and National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) show that pesticides and their breakdown products are present in all U.S. streams and widespread in groundwater throughout the country. For instance, a Chicago-based 2020 study shows black women who consume more tap water daily have higher bodily residues of the DDT metabolite (DDE). Permafrost and glacial melting will only add to water source contamination as volatile chemicals can enter waterways at the same concentration levels prior to ice entrapment, even after several decades. Moreover, several banned chemicals are not soluble in water (e.g., DDT, lindane, chlordane) but bioaccumulate in the fatty tissue of many Arctic species, such as polar bears, seals, whales, and some fatty fish like salmon, herring, and catfish. The level of DDT in Arctic penguins’ blubber is similar to levels during the initial banning more than 30 years ago. Unfortunately, some indigenous tribes in Arctic regions rely on these very mammals and fish for sustenance, and ingesting these pollutants is inevitable, putting their health at risk. Higher bodily concentrations of chemicals are evident in those who consume contaminated meat with associated health risks, including immune system disorders, increased susceptibility to disease, central nervous system disorders, learning disabilities among children, reproductive issues, and cancer. Studies find that adults and children who regularly consume fish from contaminated streams are at increased risk of disease from dietary and cumulative exposure, in many cases above EPA thresholds.

This study adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating disproportionate warming in arctic regions. Arctic thawing has implications for carbon release and landscape changes that are difficult to predict, including alternations in arctic vegetation and density. This study further highlights that permafrost’s bearing capacity (capability of the soil to support above-ground infrastructure) loses integrity close to 0 °C or 32 °F. Earth’s polar regions are warming the fastest, approximately two to four times faster than average, and these changes can have a cascading adverse impact on lower and higher latitudes. The scientists note that the polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) stabilize Earth’s climate and drive heat transfer, powering jet streams and other fluxes/currents. Thus, polar warming has future consequences that threaten regular weather, climate, and chemical exposure patterns. According to Beyond Pesticides, which covers pesticide (and other kinds of) chemical pollution, “These results underscore a grim twin reality to the human-caused climate emergency and should be a dire warning on the state of our shared environment and a time for a systemic movement to eliminate fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers.”

The climate crisis will lead to the melting of permafrost at both old and new pan-Arctic industrial sites through the discharging of hazardous contaminants, posing a threat to ecosystem services. The study notes, “The effects of thawing permafrost, with all its consequences, such as loss of hydrological barriers, improved hydrological connectivity, reduced soil stability, and strongly impeded site accessibility for clean-up measures, will often occur after the operating period of industrial sites. This [issue] underscores the need to avoid leaving environmentally hazardous substances at the sites, as permafrost can no longer be considered a reliable barrier to their containment. Furthermore, long-term remediation strategies will be necessary for contaminated legacy sites that have already been closed if they still contain hazardous substances.”

As global warming progresses, exposure concerns will increase significantly, especially for those more vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemical exposure. To mitigate the risks associated with chemical exposure from pesticides, advocates say the manufacturing and use of pesticides need addressing, first and foremost. Global leaders must curtail the continued manufacturing of chemical pollutants that readily contaminate polar regions. Recently, agrochemicals like pesticides and fertilizers overtook the fossil fuel industry as the leading contributor to environmental sulfur emissions. If pesticide use and manufacturing are amplifying the impacts of the climate crisis, advocates argue that it is essential to incite change by enhancing pesticide policy and regulation that eliminates use. 

A switch from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis by eliminating toxic, petroleum-based pesticide use, building soil health, and sequestering carbon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that agriculture, forestry, and other land use contribute about 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. However, organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters carbon in the soil. Learn more about switching to organic management practices by reading Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming. For more information about organic food production, visit the Beyond Pesticides Keep Organic Strong webpage. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure.

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

Source: Nature Communications

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2023) A systematic review of scientific literature published in Environmental Research on the development of mood disorders among pesticide applicators (farmers, landscapers, etc.) finds an increased risk of depression symptoms over the last decade. The evidence in the review highlights the presence of pesticide-specific biomarkers and biomarkers of depression that determine the positive association between pesticide exposure and the development of depressive symptoms. With more high-quality longitudinal studies to control sociocultural variables, researchers can directly pinpoint risks of developing depression, especially among agricultural workers and landscapers who use pesticides.

Research on pesticide-induced diseases commonly investigates pesticide exposure concerning the development of various physical illnesses. However, previous studies show that occupational (work-related) risks of developing depression are high in agriculture, where pesticide use is rampant. Acute exposure to chemicals, including organophosphate, organochlorine, triazine, and carbamate pesticides, tends to put farmers at greater risk of suicide than the general population. There is a lack of information connecting pesticide exposure to the subsequent psychological (psychiatric) effects on the general population. Additionally, household pesticide exposure varies from occupational exposure via exposure frequency, duration, intensity, and type. 

 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), depression affects 322 million people globally, with the number of diagnosed patients increasing by 18.4% from 2005 to 2015. Although the etiology of depression—and many other psychiatric disorders—is often genetic, studies suggest that other etiological factors, like pesticide exposure, play a role in depression incidents. Poor mental health has a tangible influence on physical health (e.g., depression and cardiovascular disease); therefore, the combination of pesticide exposure and mental illness worsens the adverse effects on human health. If pesticide exposure exacerbates psychiatric disorder symptoms, it is important to evaluate how pesticide exposure affects mental health, in addition to physical health. This research highlights the significance of researching potential mental health detriments resulting from pesticide exposure, especially as society tends to rank mental health risks second to physical health. The study notes, “Given the rise in pesticide use in agriculture, the low adherence of farmers to safety training, and the health risks associated with depression, it is recommended to implement stricter surveillance measures on agricultural companies and monitor the mental health of exposed workers. It is also important to actively involve the community in prevention and intervention efforts.”

The review conducted a thorough scientific literature search on occupational pesticide exposure and depression symptom development in the PubMed and Scopus databases from the last ten years (2011 to September 2022). Using guidelines recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Population, Exposure, Comparison, and Outcomes (PECO) strategy, researchers examined the association between occupational exposure to pesticides and symptoms of depression in agricultural workers. Among the reviewed articles, 78 percent indicate a link between exposure to pesticides and the prevalence of depression symptoms. Most pesticides associated with depressive symptoms include organophosphate insecticides, general herbicides, and pyrethroid insecticides.

For over two decades, research concerning pesticide exposure and psychiatric disorders, such as depression, focused on occupational hazards, especially for agricultural farmworkers. Exposure to agricultural pesticides puts farmers at a six times greater risk of exhibiting depressive symptoms, including chronic anxiety, irritability, restlessness, and sadness. Specifically, exposure to organochlorines and fumigants (gaseous pesticides) heighten an individual’s risk of depression by 90% and 80%, respectively. Organochlorines are chemicals of concern as they can induce a myriad of health problems, including reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, cancer, and fetal defects. Though the U.S. bans the use of many organochlorines, these chemicals can still expose individuals to volatile concentrations as they are highly persistent in the environment. Fumigants are a human health concern as many fumigants are gases that can cause acute toxicity upon inhalation and ingestion. Linear models reveal an association between lifelong pesticide poisoning episodes and the increased risk of developing mental disorders among tobacco farmers. Tobacco farmers using organophosphate pesticides have a higher prevalence of minor psychiatric disorders. Organophosphates are a family of insecticides derived from World War II nerve agents. They are cholinesterase inhibitors, meaning they bind irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme.

Individuals suffering from occupational pesticide exposure face a disproportionate risk of developing depression. However, pesticide exposure from nearby agricultural fields remains a threat to residential (nonoccupational) human health. Previous studies found that populations living near farms are more likely to have high depressive symptoms. Similarly, a 2019 study found that teens and adolescents living in agricultural areas, where organophosphate exposure is prevalent, are at higher risk of depression. Uniquely, gender (female), physical health, and age (young adult) indicate likely of having depressive symptoms, with the most adverse effects on women, those in poor physical health, and children under 14. 

Understanding the mental health implications of conventional pesticide exposure can help identify the various physiological mechanisms attributed to psychiatric disorders. Like this review, past research finds that organophosphates have significant associations with depressive symptom development, including disturbing normal nerve impulses. So, scientists can analyze information to determine if the lack of normal nerve impulses contributes to non-pesticide-induced depression.

Whether pesticide exposure is occupational or residential, the development of depression symptoms is of concern. Annually, only half of Americans with a depression diagnosis seek treatment for symptoms. Untreated symptoms of depression can increase the risk of suicide, a severe sign of depression. Commonalities between occupational and household pesticide exposure are suicidal thoughts and pesticide provocation as a suicide agent. A study published in the WHO Bulletin found that people storing organophosphate pesticides in their homes are more likely to have suicidal thoughts as the exposure rate is higher. The study found an association between suicidal thoughts and ease of household pesticide accessibility. Geographic areas with more frequent home storage of pesticides have higher rates of suicidal thoughts than the general population. WHO scientists recognize pesticide self-poisoning as one of the most significant global methods of suicide, as increases in pesticide toxicity make them potentially lethal substances. Robert Stewart, Ph.D., a researcher for the WHO Bulletin, stated that: “Organophosphate pesticides are widely used around the world. They are particularly lethal chemicals when taken in overdose and are a cause of many suicides worldwide.” With that in mind, researchers say it is vital to recognize how pesticide exposure and accessibility can influence mental illnesses. 

To address health issues regarding pesticide exposure and mental health incidents, health care providers must have sufficient information on signs and symptoms of chemical exposure. Farmers, landscapers, and other individuals encountering chemical exposure through ingestion, inhalation, and skin (dermal) contact are unaware of the non-physical side effects. Considering depression related to acute pesticide exposure may persist long after initial exposure, those working with toxic pesticides must have adequate protective equipment to minimize exposure. Therefore, government agencies should assess the provocation of psychiatric disorders accompanying acute and chronic pesticide exposure to protect human health. Given the rise in mental health problems among agricultural workers and the potential health risks, including depression and other severe conditions that can affect their well-being, analyzing existing studies is crucial. Accordingly, this review aims to organize the scientific evidence from the last decade regarding the impact of occupational exposure to pesticides on the development of depression symptoms among agricultural workers.

The study concludes “[…] that governments worldwide bear greater responsibility in addressing this matter, which could help control the various systemic sources of exposure to pesticides and other environmental pollutants and lessen the harm to the health of workers.”

Mental health is just as—if not more–important than physical health, and reviews such as this highlight the importance of knowing pesticide implications beyond physical ailments. Through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD), Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticides, see PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Our choices encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table every day by purchasing organic products. By buying and using organic products, you not only support an agricultural system that does not heavily rely on the widespread application of dangerous pesticides but also put a residential system. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Lastly, suicide is the tenth leading cause of death among adults (3rd for adolescents) in the U.S., with more than 34,000 individuals succumbing to the disease annually. Suicidal thoughts and behaviors are dangerous and harmful and are therefore considered a psychiatric emergency. An individual experiencing these thoughts should seek immediate assistance from a health or mental health care provider. If you or someone you know is in an emergency, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or 911 immediately.

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

Source: Environmental Research

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2023) Government agencies in Hawaii are making preparations to release a small parasitoid in an attempt to control infestations of coffee berry borer (CBB) in the state, according to a release published by the University of Hawaii.  “This biological control agent has the potential to make significant positive economic impacts in the Hawaiʻi coffee industry, and offers an environmentally safe way to manage CBB,” says Mark Wright, PhD, professor at UH. “The Hawaiʻi coffee industry is economically and culturally significant, and we hope that this work will improve the lives of many people associated with the industry.” The planned release comes at a time of increasing interest in nontoxic biological pest management as a means of reducing the harmful effects of industrially produced pesticides.

As early as fall 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service (USDA ARS) and UH’s Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Services plan to release thousands of parasitic wasps throughout coffee growing areas in Maui, O’ahu and the Big Island. The parasitoid in question is Phymastichus coffea, a wasp that lays its eggs in the abdomen of coffee berry borers. According to researchers, the wasp becomes attracted to the coffee berry borer based on a chemical signal the pest releases when it digs into coffee fruit.

Scientists have been researching the parasitoid since 2018, bringing in quarantined shipments into the state to test on native insects with similarities to the coffee berry borer to ensure there are no unintended side effects. As it currently stands, the coffee berry borer is found in all coffee growing regions except for Nepal and Papua New Guinea. “CBB arrived in Hawaiʻi without the natural enemies that keep populations in check in its native range in Africa,” said Peter Follett, PhD, of Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. “The introduction of the African parasitoid wasp Phymastichus coffea will reunite CBB with its most significant natural enemy from home. Releases of this wasp in coffee in Colombia against CBB have been shown to limit populations to subeconomic levels.”

To date, testing has shown the parasitoid to be highly specific to the coffee berry borer. The wasps will be brought from Columbia and bred for two generations prior to release, and in order to ensure the colony is without any foreign diseases or contamination.

Coffee berry borer is the most harmful pest a coffee farm is likely to encounter, able to work its way through a crop and destroy up to 80% of produce. The pest can result in the premature fall of young berries, yield and quality reductions, and increased vulnerability to fungal or bacterial infection. This is particularly problematic as Hawai’i coffee growers are also dealing with the impact of coffee leaf rust, a devastating disease that can result in long term-yield reductions to coffee crops. In 2019, the pest was responsible for over $7.5 million in crop damage.

“If all goes according to plan, it’ll make a massive impact,” said Dr. Wright of the parasitoid’s introduction. A study published in 2020 in Nature Ecology and Evolution found that biological pest management has added billions of benefits to agricultural economies over the last century, larger than the apparent benefits of the so-called ‘green revolution’ that enabled the spread of industrial agriculture.

New biocontrols are on the horizon for a range of problematic pests, including the ‘tree of heaven’ (Ailanthus altissima), the spotted wing drosophila (SWD) (Drosophila suzukii), and fire ants.

Humans armed with chemical weapons that indiscriminately kill broad swaths of life over artificial, monoculture landscapes are poor replacements for the sort of specificity and efficiency that natural predators can provide. It is critical that more research and investment be placed into this safer, natural approach to pest management.

Readers at home can employ their own form of biological control for many common yard and outdoor pest problems through online retailers, such as Arbico Organics. Make certain that the use of any pest management fits within a broader, structured, ecological approach to pest management. Use Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage to assist.

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

Source: University of Hawaii press release, Hawaii Public Radio