(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2023) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a proposed rule this month to update the way farmers, farmworkers, and bystanders are protected from toxic pesticide applications. The rule, which governs “Application Exclusion Zones” (AEZs), is being put forth to reinstate an Obama-era rule with the addition of some new industry-friendly provisions. EPA characterizes a return to the past with the adoption of former protections, after a period of deep deregulation under the Trump Administration, as a step forward in protecting farmworkers from toxic exposure. “EPA’s top priority is to protect public health and the environment, and today’s proposal is a significant step forward to further protect the farmworkers, farmers and pesticide handlers who deliver the fuel, fiber and food that runs America,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “Farmworker justice is environmental justice, and we’re continuing to take action to make sure these communities are protected equally under the law from pesticide exposure.” However, within the historical context of this proposal, it appears as though the agency will end up with rules that are weaker, and more industry-friendly than those currently in place before the Trump Administration.

AEZs are buffer zones where individuals are not allowed to enter during the course of a pesticide application. The rules governing these areas are part of EPA’s Worker Protection Standards (WPS) for farmworkers, laws that govern labor safety standards within federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA). Farmworkers are not covered for toxic chemical exposure by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and WPS have long been criticized by farmworker, labor, and health advocates for providing insufficient protections for farmworker communities.

In 2015, the Obama administration made the first revisions to the larger (WPS) for farmworkers in 25 years, including some expansion no-entry buffer zones. Those changes aimed to improve farmworker and farm family protections, including from significant off-site drift of aerially sprayed pesticides. After these rules were finalized, the pesticide industry launched an aggressive lobbying campaign to reverse the protections. Finding traction in the Trump administration, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced plans in 2017 to revisit the rules, reconsidering AEZ buffer zone sizes, provisions that prohibit children under 18 from spraying toxic pesticides, and the ability for farmworkers to have a ‘designated representative’ obtain information about the pesticides being applied around them. Most of these changes were mitigated by negotiations with U.S. Senators in 2019, but alterations to AEZs remained on the table.

The Trump administration released provisions that i) shrunk the size of AEZ buffer zones from 100 ft around a pesticide application to 25ft; ii) apply AEZs only to a farm owners property, not all sites where pesticides are applied; iii) exempt family members living on farms from requirement to leave the area during a pesticide application; and iv) allow a suspended pesticide application to continue when an individual leaves an AEZ. Alongside industry associations like the American Farm Bureau, EPA focused on how these weaker standards provided “greater flexibility for farmers.”

While the Trump EPA rule was finalized in 2020, a lawsuit brought by the groups Farmworker Justice and Earthjustice was filed shortly after, and ultimately successful in blocking the rule’s implementation. This restraining order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York set the stage for the incoming Biden administration to determine whether to defend the industry friendly proposal or allow it to fall by the wayside.

It appears the Biden EPA has tried to split the issues of concern–retaining some of the protective measures, while reproposing certain industry friendly provisions. Advocates say it is disingenuous for the agency to bill this proposal as “reinstating” and strengthening protections,” when the status quo of no action would maintain the stronger protections from the 2015 Obama WPS.

Specifically, the Biden EPA plans to “reinstate” (in other words, keep) protections maintaining 100 ft buffer zones, and provisions applying AEZs to all sites where a pesticide is sprayed. Yet, it is reproposing measures that allow a suspended pesticide application to resume after people leave an AEZ, and exempt family members living on farms from a requirement to leave the area during a pesticide application.

Shifting the status quo and compromising with more industry-friendly approaches, while characterizing them as “modernizing” protections, cannot be viewed as the Biden Administration moving strong environmental justice policy. Allowing the start and stop of a pesticide application raises serious issues of enforceability and increases the risk of misuse and improper applications and allowing family members to stay on site while toxic chemicals are sprayed places them at significant risk; it amounts to a dereliction of the agency’s duty to inform farmers and the public about the inherent hazards of pesticide use, and the real hazards associated with pesticide exposure.  

It is clear that farmworkers need more protections, not industry-friendly compromises. Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. This is similar to the life expectancy of individuals living in the 1850s and represents a completely unacceptable data point for any industry today.

Take action today to tell Congress to reform pesticide law in a way that meaningfully protects farmworkers, and get further involved to make sure governments take environmental justice seriously.

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

Source: EPA press release

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2023) California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is asking for comments on its “Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) Roadmap” by 5 pm (PST) March 13, 2023. While recognizing problems inherent in traditional integrated pest management (IPM), DPR’s roadmap is directing us to a destination that includes another generation of exposure to the worst of the worst pesticides—while failing to embrace the elimination of farm inputs harmful to ecosystems and the capacity of soil biology to cycle nutrients and draw down the maximum amount of atmospheric carbon. The Roadmap’s off-handed rejection of organic practices, rather than building on organic systems, creates a lost opportunity for adopting a holistic and serious solution to the current crises of health threats from pesticides, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency.

Tell DPR to revise its destination to immediately eliminate the worst pesticides and implement wide scale transition to organic practices.

DPR’s Roadmap states these goals:

• By 2050, eliminate the use of Priority Pesticides by transitioning to SPM.
• By 2050, SPM will be adopted as the de facto pest management system in California.

DPR says “The criteria for classifying pesticides as “Priority Pesticides” include, but are not limited to, hazard and risk classifications, availability of effective alternative products or practices, and special consideration of pest management situations that potentially cause severe or widespread adverse impacts. . .. Priority Pesticides are a subset of high-risk pesticides. We define ‘high risk’ pesticides as active ingredients that are highly hazardous and/or formulations or uses that pose a likelihood of, or are known to cause, significant or widespread human and/or ecological impacts from their use.” [Grammar and spelling are corrected.]

To set as a goal elimination of these pesticides—by definition the worst of the worst—by 2050 is to accept another generation of their use. This is another generation of using “groundwater contaminants, toxic air contaminants, and restricted products as well as carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive and developmental toxicants, and environmental toxicants, such as those toxic to pollinators, mammals, birds, and fish.” A roadmap to this destination is clearly inadequate because the destination does not fully address the existential threats we are facing, in significant part created by petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use.

The second goal is the adoption of SPM as the de facto pest management system in California. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a 60-year-old approach to agricultural practice that, when first conceived and implemented, had among its goals a significant reduction of synthetic pesticide use, and the health, environmental, and ecosystemic benefits that would flow from that. However, as a study published in 2021 concluded, IPM has overall been unsuccessful in achieving those goals. DPR recognizes shortcomings of IPM, but its substitute, SPM, does not address the crucial deficiencies of IPM.

DPR describes SPM as “a holistic, whole-system approach applicable in agricultural and other managed ecosystems and urban and rural communities that builds on the concept of integrated pest management (IPM) to include the wider context of the three sustainability pillars: human health and social equity, environmental protection, and economic vitality.” This “evolution of the IPM concept,” however, does not address the key deficiency of IPM—defining the conditions under which pesticide use is “necessary” or warranted.

In addition, SPM shows no signs of being rooted in the health of soil and people. Organic agriculture, on the other hand, is a systems approach to building healthy soils, plants, and animals, in which “pests” become minor factors. The result is healthy people and a healthy ecosystem. Similarly, strong IPM in urban systems focuses on building healthy systems that prevent pest problems. Both organic agriculture and strong, defined IPM seek to eliminate all toxic chemicals, while working with and respecting nature.

The Organic Trade Association reports that organic sales now exceed $63 billion per year, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finds that organic producers in the U.S. produced $11.2 billion worth of organic food on 4.9 million acres in 2021. California has long been a leader in organic production. DPR must immediately undertake a comprehensive effort to transition California agriculture to organic. Similarly, the explosive growth in organic parks and least-toxic building management shows that a slow, piecemeal transition will unnecessarily expose a whole generation of Californians to highly toxic chemicals.

Tell DPR to revise its destination to immediately eliminate the worst pesticides and implement wide scale transition to organic practices.

Letter to DPR:

While recognizing problems inherent in traditional integrated pest management (IPM), DPR’s roadmap is directing us to a destination that includes another generation of exposure to the worst of the worst pesticides. While recognizing problems inherent in traditional integrated pest management (IPM), DPR’s roadmap is directing us to a destination that includes another generation of exposure to the worst of the worst pesticides—while failing to embrace the elimination of farm inputs harmful to ecosystems and the capacity of soil biology to cycle nutrients and draw down the maximum amount of atmospheric carbon. The Roadmap’s off-handed rejection of organic practices creates a lost opportunity for adopting a holistic and serious solution to the current crises of health threats from pesticides, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency.

DPR’s Roadmap states these goals:

By 2050, eliminate the use of Priority Pesticides by transitioning to SPM.

By 2050, SPM will be adopted as the de facto pest management system in California.

To set as a goal elimination of these pesticides—by definition the worst of the worst—by 2050 is to accept another generation of their use. This is another generation of using “groundwater contaminants, toxic air contaminants, and restricted products as well as carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive and developmental toxicants, and environmental toxicants, such as those toxic to pollinators, mammals, birds, and fish.” A roadmap to this destination is clearly inadequate because the destination does not fully address the existential threats we are facing, in significant part created by petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use.

The second goal is the adoption of SPM as the de facto pest management system in California by 2050. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a 60-year-old approach to agricultural practice that, when first conceived and implemented, had among its goals a significant reduction of synthetic pesticide use, and the health, environmental, and ecosystemic benefits that would flow from that. However, IPM has overall been unsuccessful in achieving those goals. DPR recognizes shortcomings of IPM, but its substitute, SPM, does not address the crucial deficiencies of IPM.

DPR’s “evolution of the IPM concept,” does not address the key deficiency of IPM—defining the conditions under which pesticide use is “necessary” or warranted.

In addition, SPM shows no signs of being rooted in the health of soil and people. Organic agriculture, on the other hand, is a systems approach to building healthy soils, plants, and animals, in which “pests” become minor factors. The result is healthy people and a healthy ecosystem. Similarly, strong IPM in urban systems focuses on building healthy systems that prevent pest problems. Both organic agriculture and strong, defined IPM seek to eliminate all toxic chemicals, while working with and respecting nature.

The Organic Trade Association reports that organic sales now exceed $63 billion per year, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finds that organic producers in the U.S. produced $11.2 billion worth of organic food on 4.9 million acres in 2021. California has long been a leader in organic production. DPR must immediately undertake a comprehensive effort to transition California agriculture to organic. Similarly, the explosive growth in organic parks and least toxic building management shows that a slow, piecemeal transition will unnecessarily expose a whole generation of Californians to highly toxic chemicals.

DPR’s roadmap is inadequate. Please revise the destination to immediately eliminate the worst pesticides and implement wide scale transition to organic practices.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 24, 2023) Among the solutions to the dire state of global biodiversity is, Civil Eats reports, perennial agriculture, which improves biodiversity both on- and off-farm. Increased adoption of perennial cropping provides critical on-farm habitat for many kinds of pollinators, insects, birds, and myriad additional creatures. Below ground, where plant roots remain active year-round, perennials create far-richer ecosystems for microbial communities and fungal networks. Planting annual crops — and often, the same ones year after year across huge swaths of acreage, as conventional agriculture generally does — leads to multiple bad outcomes: intensive synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use and the harms that flow from them; poor soils; erosion; inefficient holding and use of water; depleted carbon capacity; and a denuded above-soil landscape and diminished microbial, fungal, and nutrient environment below. Thus, perennial cropping boosts on-farm biodiversity as noted, and benefits off-farm biodiversity by reducing the unsavory impacts, on the broader environment, of traditional, chemically intensive, monoculture farming.

Biodiversity loss has emerged in the past decade as yet another crisis humanity faces — one that continues to go unaddressed at the level the loss requires. Beyond Pesticides has written extensively about the crisis and the central solution of ending the use of toxic, synthetic pesticides ASAP, and certainly within the next decade. Doing so would eliminate one of the chief contributors to the diminution of biodiverse populations, and of pollinators, in particular.

Speaking to the capacity of perennials to impact species, a chief scientist at the Kansas-based The Land Institute (TLI) — which has conducted extensive and foundational work on perennial agriculture — Tim Crews, cuts to the chase: “A vegetated landscape is going to accommodate species that a tilled, denuded landscape as far as the eye can see does not. There are going to be a lot of species that take advantage of it.”

The Land Institute website notes, “Many fruit, forage, and some vegetable crops, including fruit trees, alfalfa, grapes, asparagus, and olive trees, are perennials that have been grown for thousands of years. The Land Institute is working to add perennial grains, legumes, and oilseed crops to the list.” Among the perennial crops the institute is investigating and promoting are: Kernza®, a wheatgrass whose seeds provide grain, and whose foliage, post-harvest, can be forage for livestock.

Research in 2022 in Frontiers in Plant Science concludes that, “Perennial grain crops could make a valuable addition to sustainable agriculture, potentially even as an alternative to their annual counterparts. . . . Presently, perennial grain crops are not grown at large scale, mainly due to their early stages of domestication and current low yields.” Yet TLI has made significant headway, especially with Kernza, which has successfully moved into small, niche markets as a viable grain crop. The TLI researchers note that the roots of this plant can extend as much as 10 feet into the soil, “delivering atmospheric carbon to the soil and efficiently taking up nutrients and water.” They also say that its slender, long seed heads can, under good growing conditions, actually contain more seeds than a typical annual wheat head. The researchers are working, with each breeding cycle, to increase Kernza’s seed size, which achievement would enhance its marketability.

Agricultural perennials can include orchards (fruit and nut trees), row crops, agroforestry, and integrated pasture lands (silvopasture). In addition to the biodiversity benefits, perennials yield multiple soil, food security, and climate benefits. For the agricultural producer, they also, compared with annual crops:

• do not have to be reseeded or replanted every year
• do not require annual plowing/tilling
• do not need pesticides to help get them established
• protect soil from erosion
• improve soil structure
• increase ecosystem nutrient retention, carbon sequestration, and water infiltration
• reduce farmers’ costs via lowered need for pricey inputs (e.g., synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) and laborious tilling and planting

The Land Institute website asserts that increased use of perennials “stands to catalyze a rich culture around food production and supply chain development. Research is emerging to understand the social and economic strategies needed to support these new agricultural systems. . . . Given that grains make up over 70% of our global caloric consumption and over 70% of our global croplands, transitioning from an extractive annual model to a perennial model is the best chance we have to create a truly regenerative food future.”

A primary ethos in perennial agriculture is learning from Nature and using approaches that mimic or reproduce what works in the natural world. For instance, “monocrops” are not generally found growing naturally; rather, diverse plant species grow together and in relationship. (The dominant use of monocropping in conventional agriculture, in fact, contributes to pollinator decline and biodiversity loss.) TLI conducts ecological intensification research that seeks to find optimal combinations of perennial species — polycultures that mimic the benefits found in native and natural ecosystems.

A chief TLI scientist, Ebony Murrell, explains: “The idea with perennial crops is that you want them to stay in the ground for many years, which means you’re not rotating anymore. So how do you take that diversity in time and move it to diversity in space?” One important answer: planting together different perennial plant crops that will benefit one another. Examples of such a strategy might include:

• planting silflower (a perennial sunflower) with a perennial groundcover as a natural weed barrier
• alternating rows or areas of Kernza and alfalfa; the alfalfa provides nitrogen, and prevents Kernza from clumping together, which can result in lowered production; without its companion, Kernza will tend to produce less after a few years
• supporting pollinators by growing together two flowering species that bloom at slightly different times
• incorporating into a farm system trees or shrubs that generate fruits and/or nuts, edible leaves, and/or mushrooms that help support growth of other species

Polycultures have a lot to offer re: restoring biodiversity. The title of 2022 research published in Environmental Entomology reveals its conclusions: Native Flowering Border Crops Attract High Pollinator Abundance and Diversity, Providing Growers the Opportunity to Enhance Pollination Services. The research found that non-crop plantings, as borders, hedgerows, buffer strips, or crop strips, diversify landscapes and offer more habitat in heavy production areas. The research found that such plantings, with various combinations of natives — silflower, cup plant, sanfoin (a forage legume), Kernza, white alfalfa, and a mix of “prairie” species (including liatris, helianthus, mints, native grasses, and asters) — yielded “a significant, positive relationship between pollinator abundance and floral resource amount and bloom duration.”

The title of another bit of research from 2022, published in Ecosphere, is similarly revealing of its findings: Woody Perennial Polycultures in the U.S. Midwest Enhance Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions. The paper points to the potential, saying “Concepts from ecology and complex adaptive systems suggest that persistent structural heterogeneity and functional diversity are key for supporting biodiversity, ecosystem services, and resilience, but these concepts have not been extensively applied in agriculture, which is still dominated by annual monocropping systems. Perennial agriculture seems to embody these ecological concepts.”

The paper continues, “We found that perennial fields had (1) more diverse soil fungal, invertebrate, plant, and bird communities . . .; (2) less compacted soil; (3) denser ground cover; (4) more active carbon, organic carbon, and nitrogen and the same available phosphorus in the top layer of soil; and (5) more species of predatory, detritivorous, and herbivorous insects, and approximately fourfold higher abundance of herbivorous insects. . . . [T]hese findings indicate that woody perennial polyculture fields in the U.S. Midwest are characterized by higher biodiversity and ecosystem functions than adjacent conventional fields.” 

Research published early in 2023 in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems emphasizes not only the many benefits of perennial agriculture, but also, the need for changes in federal policy and “a range of support structures. Federal policymakers should support perennial agriculture by establishing safety nets like those available for annual crops, centering perennial practices in cost-sharing conservation programs, facilitating market opportunities, and investing in perennial agriculture research and development.”

There has been some increasing governmental support to advance aspects of the perennial agriculture movement. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) awarded “$10 million to a coalition of farmers, scientists, educators, policymakers, and food industry players to help scale up Kernza production. The five-year Kernza CAP initiative, spearheaded by The Land Institute and the University of Minnesota, recently released its year-two annual report.” Civil Eats identifies the Savanna Institute as a nonprofit that works on advancing agroforestry and perennial agriculture in the Midwest. The organization will use some of the $60 million allocated by USDA in 2022 to ramp up its work to “catalyze the development and adoption of resilient, scalable agroforestry.”

To the argument for the transition off of synthetic chemical inputs should be added those for the transformation of what and how farmers grow. The biodiversity benefits of using more perennial crops, as noted above, are one part of the story, but expanding the profoundly narrow range of food crop varieties currently grown is another biodiversity issue.

The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) asserts that most agriculture across the world is focused on a very small number of varieties designed for intensive production. Indeed, IDRC notes that the food supply depends on roughly 150 plant species. Of those, a mere 12 provide three-fourths of the world’s food, and more than half of the world’s caloric food energy comes from rice, wheat, and maize. This reduced diversity, coupled with increased industrialization, leads to dramatically reduced genetic diversity, aka, genetic erosion, which can spell trouble for the future of successful and sustainable food production.

In the 2022 research paper Perennials as Future Grain Crops: Opportunities and Challenges, researchers highlight some of the risks of our current agricultural modus operandi. “For millennia, the repeated selection and breeding of plants has led to the development of multiple, high-yielding annual grain crops finely tuned for growth under specific environmental regimes. In the twentieth century, cropping systems were developed that took advantage of readily available resources and agrichemical development, with the focus primarily on grain yield. However, considering the current range of complex challenges that agriculture faces, including climate change, pandemics, [biodiversity loss], and war, the focus must now be on ensuring food security in a more environmentally friendly and socially robust way. Continued climate change is rendering our existing cultivars increasingly vulnerable to stress, and ultimately unfit for many regions of the world, serving as another impetus for reinventing agriculture.”

Research published in 2020 by the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine reinforces the role of perennials in a revisioned agricultural landscape. “Greater adoption of a wider array of perennial vegetables could help to address some of the central, interlocking issues of the 21^st century: climate change, biodiversity, and nutrition. The great diversity of PVs [perennial vegetables] is a powerful tool to address the loss of crop biodiversity. As perennials, PVs sequester carbon, particularly the woody species. Many PVs are high in the key nutrients needed to remedy nutrient deficiencies that impact billions of people.”

The Savanna Institute’s Fred Iutzi sees, in perennial agriculture, powerful potential for solving multiple problems, including biodiversity loss. Civil Eats cites his conviction that “[W]e need to think of agricultural productivity in a more holistic way that includes factors like biodiversity. ‘One of the biggest challenges in front of humanity is how we get both ample food while providing a stable climate, healthy soil, clean water, and biodiversity. . . . We have to expect both from our agricultural landscapes.”

Source: https://civileats.com/2023/02/16/perennial-crops-boost-biodiversity-farms-habitat-science-kernza/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 23, 2023) A father’s exposure to occupational (work-related) chemicals, including pesticides, around the time of his partner’s pregnancy, has an association with a higher risk of infant congenital heart defects (CHDs), according to a Japanese study published in Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine. The prevalence of infant CHDs is one of the most common genetic (congenital) diseases worldwide. However, the etiology of CHD includes both genetic and environmental factors. Heart diseases are among the leading causes of death worldwide, and heart conditions are one leading cause of disability in the U.S. Research, including this study, demonstrates 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. Therefore, researchers are “suggesting the importance of the management of paternal occupational exposures for the prevention of infant CHDs. Further studies using biomarkers of occupational exposure are warranted.”

To investigate the risk of CHDs in infants, researchers in this study examine fathers’ work-related exposure to toxic chemical compounds, frequency of pesticide use, and synergetic mixtures of chemical compounds. Using data from the Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS), researchers examined 28,866 participants and estimate an odds ratio in a logic regression to demonstrate the association with paternal occupational exposures during the three months until pregnancy. The researchers gathered CHD diagnoses for infants from medical records.

There are 175 diagnoses of CHD in infants with the number of fathers exposed to the following substances at least once a month: “11,533 for photocopying machine/laser printer, 10,326 for permanent markers, 8,226 for soluble paint/inkjet printer, 6,188 for kerosene/petroleum/benzene/gasoline, 4,173 for organic solvents, 3,433 for chlorine bleach/germicide, 2,962 for engine oil, 2,931 for insecticide, 2,460 for medical sterilizing disinfectant, 1,786 for welding fumes, 1,614 for dyestuffs, 1,247 for any products containing lead-like solder, 986 for herbicide, 919 for radiation/radioactive substances/isotopes, 837 for lead-free solder, 341 for microbes, 319 for formalin/formaldehyde, 301 for an agricultural chemical not listed above or unidentified, 196 for general anesthetic for surgery at a hospital, 171 for an anti-cancer drug, 147 for chromium/arsenic/cadmium, 88 for mercury and 833 for other chemical substances.” Thus, paternal exposure to compounds in occupation may heighten the risk of infant CHDs.

Numerous occupational hazards are associated with chemical exposure, especially among individuals with occupations that involve regular exposure to xenobiotic (foreign substance) compounds. For instance, the agricultural sector has a long-standing history of synthetic chemical use, which disproportionally affects farmworkers’ health. Furthermore, farmworkers’ children are at greater risk as their immune system response is immature and especially vulnerable to stressors from pesticide exposure. Synthetic chemicals present in pesticides can accumulate in bodies, causing an amalgamation of health effects. These effects can range from heightened risks of various cancers (i.e., prostate, hepatic, liver, etc.) and endocrine disruption to mental health problems (i.e., depression), respiratory illnesses (asthma), and many other pesticide-induced diseases. However, pesticide exposure is ubiquitous and not only confined to where applied. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals can enter homes from the workplace via clothes, shoes, and home-based personal protective equipment (PPE) and accumulate residues on laundry, on carpets, and in art/house dust. Some cases demonstrate that when levels of chemicals transported into the house are high enough to cause an adverse health effect in a resident child or spouse. Although pesticide exposure through the skin or inhalation is most prevalent among individuals working around these toxic chemicals, the general population also experiences pesticide exposure through residues in food and water resources. 

This study is one of the few studies to investigate the association between paternal occupational exposures and the risk of infant CHD and adds to the growing body of research demonstrating occupational exposure and disease risk. Additionally, this study reinforces concepts around “critical windows of exposure,” which suggests that in addition to prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants, even the period right before pregnancy can increase susceptibility to adverse health impacts. Thus, a parent’s exposure to pesticides during these critical periods is indicative of increased childhood disease risk. The etiology or cause of childhood diseases involves the interaction of multiple components, including lifestyle and genetics. However, emerging evidence indicates that environmental contaminants like pesticides (e.g., occupational exposures, air pollution, pesticides, solvents, diet, etc.) play a role in disease etiology. Pesticide contamination is widespread in all ecosystems, and chemical compounds can accumulate in human tissues resulting in chronic health effects. 

Although occupational and environmental factors, like pesticides, adversely affect human health, there are several limitations in defining real-world poisoning. Heart diseases are becoming increasingly prevalent and are the leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2022, followed by cancer. Therefore, understanding the risk that pesticide exposure plays in disease development is essential to consider since these chemicals can cause disproportionate health effects in individuals working in occupations like firefighters, farmworkers, and landscapers. With numerous diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, reducing pesticide use is a critically important aspect of 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. 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 birth/fetal effects and cardiovascular (heart) disease, among others. Solutions like buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management and regenerative organic agriculture eliminate the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. Furthermore, given the wide availability of nonpesticidal alternative strategies, families and the occupational chemical industry can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both 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: Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine

(Beyond Pesticides, February 22, 2023) Combining neonicotinoid insecticides with other commonly used pesticides can result in synergistic effects on honey bees, increasing toxicity more than any individual chemical could, according to research published in Scientific Reports earlier this month. The data highlight the grave inadequacy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) process for evaluating pesticide risks. Under current regulations, EPA requires chemical manufacturers to submit data only on singular active ingredients. Yet, pesticide products may be packaged or ‘tank mixed’ with other, equally toxic pesticides without any obligation to determine the toxicity of the material that is actually being applied. Independent research is left to fill in these gaps, and the data increasingly shows that toxicity with pesticide mixtures amounts to a roll of the dice: sometimes combinations are less toxic, sometimes their toxicities are merely additive. But more often than not, pesticide mixtures result in synergistic effects that make the product significantly more toxic than either individual chemical alone.

To understand how pesticide combinations are harming pollinators, scientists began with baseline data on the individual toxicity range  that common pesticides pose to honey bee colonies. Research was conducted on honey bees reared in the Stoneville Wildlife Management Area in Mississippi, with each colony containing a healthy egg-laying queen and nine frames of comb with honey, pollen, larvae, and pupae. Toxicity was measured by the lethal concentration that killed more than 50% of exposed pollinators after two days of treatment in a sugar solution. Among the eight pesticides tested, honey bee toxicity was as follows from most to least toxic: the neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam, the organophosphate insecticide dimethoate, the carbamate insecticide methomyl, the synthetic pyrethroid insecticides permethrin, and then cypermethrin, the triazole fungicide tetraconazole, and the synthetic pyrethroids cyfluthrin and then esfenvalerate. These results did change based on different treatment lengths, yet thiamethoxam was found to remain the most toxic throughout all studies.

In the study, scientists evaluate a total of 98 different mixtures, from binary combinations of two different chemicals to octonary combinations of all eight different pesticides. Within these tests, approximately 30% of these were found to be synergistic to honey bees, exhibiting toxicity greater than each individual material in the mixture. Only 18% of these combinations were antagonistic, and presented lower risks to the pollinators.

Perhaps the most concerning interaction came from combinations that included thiamethoxam and the fungicide tetraconazole. Any variation of pesticide combinations that include these two chemicals have a roughly 55% chance of exhibiting synergistic toxicity to honey bees. “In other words, the synergistic interaction between THI [thiamethoxam] and TET [tetraconazole] could transcend the effect of the additive or antagonistic interactions among other pesticide combinations,” the study notes.

This is not the first time tetraconazole has been implicated in generating synergistic toxicity. A study by the same authors of another neonicotinoid, acetamiprid, found similar results when combining that neonicotinoid with tetraconazole.

It is also important to note that this study focuses on the acute toxicity of these pesticide combinations to pollinators; it does not capture chronic or sublethal impacts, on which there is a broad body of scientific literature showing harm that can eventually result in the deaths of individual pollinators or even the collapse of entire colonies. The authors note this limitation in their discussion, indicating that, “Apart from lethal effects, some reports have demonstrated that exposure to field-realistic concentrations of neonicotinoids can exert sub-lethal effects on the bees. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct chronic determinations for pesticide exposure in the pollination insects…some studies have shown that neonicotinoids have time-dependent and time-cumulative effects, so that the risk of foraging bees feeding on small levels of residues becomes an unignorable issue. This means that these pesticides can cause effects at any level if the exposure duration is sufficient. Therefore, the traditional risk assessment method can not predict the influences of neonicotinoids on the environment.”

It is indeed the traditional risk assessment process that is now failing pollinators. Beekeepers and managed honey bees continue to experience devastating losses, while wild pollinators like the American bumblebee and Monarch butterfly flirt with extinction. It is clear that neonicotinoids are harming pollinators; as DDT was to birds of prey neonicotinoids are to pollinators. These species are the bald eagles and osprey of our time. It is now commonly knowledge that the reason why we now see increasing populations of these animals are because we protected them from toxic pesticides when it was most needed.

Join in telling Congress that the nation’s pesticide law needs real reform. Not only must we stop the ongoing use of neonicotinoids, we must prevent the next DDT, and the next neonicotinoids from ever coming to market in the first place.

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

Source: Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, February 21, 2023) The recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, should be a reminder to all of us that problems with our reliance on toxic chemicals go beyond broadcasting them on fields. In order to get pesticides to their point of use, toxic precursors and ingredients must be transported. Toxic waste products are also delivered to a location where they may be burned or deposited in a landfill. In weighing the hazards of toxic pesticides, these ancillary hazards should also be considered.

Tell EPA and Congress that all impacts of toxic chemicals—from cradle to grave—must be considered before allowing their use.     

The freight train that derailed February 3, 2023 in East Palestine was carrying a number of toxic chemicals. EPA notified the railroad, “EPA has spent, or is considering spending, public funds to investigate and control releases of hazardous substances or potential releases of hazardous substances at the Site. Based on information presently available to EPA, EPA has determined that Norfolk Southern Railway Company (Norfolk Southern or “you”) may be responsible under CERCLA [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act–Superfund] for cleanup of the Site or costs EPA has incurred in cleaning up the Site.”

But what are the toxic chemicals, and why were they being transported?

As of February 10, EPA says, “[V]inyl chloride, butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate, and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether are known to have been and continue to be released to the air, surface soils, and surface waters.”

The toxic chemicals on the train include vinyl chloride, ethylhexyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, isobutylene, and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE). The first four are all precursors in plastic manufacture. All except butyl acrylate are pesticide “inert” ingredients, and EGBE is an antimicrobial active ingredient as well. So, the manufacture of pesticides and plastics requires that toxic chemicals be transported.

Looking a little deeper, vinyl chloride has justly received prominence in news reports. Vinyl chloride is a highly flammable chlorinated hydrocarbon that may emit toxic fumes of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride and phosgene when heated to decomposition. Although it is a gas under normal conditions, it is shipped under pressure as a liquid. Exposure affects the nervous system and causes liver damage. Prolonged exposure can result in joint and muscle pain and skin damage. Vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen that is associated with liver cancer, brain and lung cancer, and cancers of the lymphatic and hematopoietic system. Phosgene itself is a major industrial chemical used to make plastics and pesticides. It can damage the skin, eyes, nose, throat, and lungs and has been used as a chemical warfare agent. Exposure to hydrogen chloride can cause serious respiratory damage (depending on the amount of exposure), as well as irritation or burns to eyes or skin.

Ethylhexyl acrylate is highly irritating to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. It can cause corneal lesions, and breathing high concentrations of the vapors can lead to pulmonary edema. IARC classifies it in Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans. Butyl acrylate is irritating to the eyes, skin and respiratory tract. Inhalation can result in toxic pneumonitis. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) puts it in Group 3, not classifiable for carcinogenicity to humans. Isobutylene is a neurotoxin and asphyxiant. EGBE is neurotoxic. It causes damage to the liver and kidneys. Exposure can result in hemolytic anemia and damage to the reproductive system. IARC puts it in Group 3, not classifiable for carcinogenicity to humans.

All these toxic chemicals are being transported over roads and rails that run through the most densely populated parts of the country. According to the Federal Rail Administration, at least one train derails every day in the United States, and reports have warned of risks of similar accidents across the country. Although trains are considered the safest way to transport hazardous materials, train accidents resulted in releases of hazardous chemicals 11 times in 2022, down from 20 times in 2018 and 2020. Although hazardous materials account for only 7-8% of the 30 million shipments delivered by rail every year, at least a couple cars of hazardous materials can be found on most trains. The train that derailed in East Palestine, for example, also carried medical cotton balls, automobiles, and frozen vegetables.

The worst railroad disaster in recent history occurred in 2013 when the brakes failed on an unattended train carrying 72 tankers of petroleum crude oil, which ended its 65 mph descent into the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic by derailing and erupting in flames. Most of the town’s downtown core, including dozens of homes, were destroyed. Forty-seven people died, and 26,000 gallons of oil seeped into nearby Chaudiere river. Soil and structures took years to clean up.

In 2013, just outside the town of Casselton, ND, a crude oil train collided with several cars from a grain train that had derailed, sending fireballs into the air. Residents were saved by the fact that the collision occurred outside of town.

In 2005, nine people died and more than 250 were injured in Graniteville, SC, when a train carrying chlorine gas ran into a sidelined train due to a misplaced switch.

In 1991, California’s worst hazardous chemical spill resulted from a train derailment just outside of Dunsmuir as the train was crossing the Sacramento River near Mt. Shasta. About 19,000 gallons of metam sodium, a highly toxic pesticide still used as a fungicide and herbicide, flowed into the river. Residents of the town of Dunsmuir were evacuated. The chemical killed fish, other aquatic organisms, and plants in the river and seeped into the soil, contaminating the shallow ground water aquifers. Wildlife was affected by the contamination of their water supply and by the gases in the air.

The examples above are a small sample of transportation accidents that released toxic chemicals, killing people and contaminating the environment. In assessing blame, attention is typically focused on those running the trains (or ships or trucks). But why are those toxic chemicals being transported through cities, towns, and sensitive environments? They are on their way to be turned into products.

When those products are pesticides—also toxic chemicals that will be transported to the sites where they will be used—EPA, as the agency responsible for allowing pesticides to be used, must, but does not, take into account the potential for death and destruction from transportation accidents. In applying the legal standard of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—of no unreasonable adverse effects—EPA must look at those adverse effects from manufacture to disposal, from cradle to grave, and weigh them against measured “benefits” of using the pesticides.

Tell EPA and Congress that all impacts of toxic chemicals—from cradle to grave—must be considered before allowing their use.     

Letter to EPA Administrator:

The recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, should be a reminder that problems with reliance on toxic chemicals goes beyond their use. To get pesticides to their point of use, toxic precursors and ingredients must be transported. Toxic waste products are also delivered to a location where they may be burned or deposited in a landfill. In weighing the hazards of toxic pesticides, these ancillary hazards should also be considered.

The freight train that derailed February 3, 2023 in East Palestine was carrying toxic chemicals. But what are the toxic chemicals, and why were they being transported?

The toxic chemicals on the train include vinyl chloride, ethylhexyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, isobutylene, and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE). The first four are all precursors in plastic manufacture. All except butyl acrylate are pesticide “inert” ingredients, and EGBE is an antimicrobial active ingredient as well. The manufacture of pesticides and plastics requires that toxic chemicals be transported.

Vinyl chloride is a highly flammable chlorinated hydrocarbon that may emit toxic fumes of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride and phosgene when heated to decomposition. Exposure affects the nervous system and causes liver damage. Prolonged exposure can result in joint and muscle pain and skin damage. Vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen that is associated with liver cancer, brain and lung cancer, and cancers of the lymphatic and hematopoietic system. Phosgene itself is a major industrial chemical used to make plastics and pesticides. It can damage the skin, eyes, nose, throat, and lungs and has been used as a chemical warfare agent. Exposure to hydrogen chloride can cause serious respiratory damage (depending on the amount of exposure), as well as irritation or burns to eyes or skin.

Other toxic chemicals on the train are known to have health effects including corneal lesions, pulmonary edema, reproductive toxicity, and neurotoxic effects.

All these toxic chemicals are being transported over roads and rails that run through the most densely populated parts of the country. According to the Federal Rail Administration, at least one train derails every day in the United States. Train accidents resulted in releases of hazardous chemicals 11 times in 2022, and 20 times in 2018 and 2020. At least a couple cars of hazardous materials can be found on most trains.

The 2013 derailment of an unattended train carrying 72 petroleum crude oil destroyed the core of the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic, killing 47 people and releasing 26,000 gallons of oil into the Chaudiere river.

In 2005, nine people died and more than 250 were injured in Graniteville, SC, when a train carrying chlorine gas ran into a sidelined train.

In 1991, a train derailment just outside of Dunsmuir, CA dumped about 19,000 gallons of metam sodium, a highly toxic pesticide still used as a fungicide and herbicide, into the Sacramento River, resulting in evacuation of Dunsmuir and environmental contamination.

This small sample of transportation accidents that released toxic chemicals, causing death and destruction, causes me to ask, “Why are those toxic chemicals being transported through cities, towns, and sensitive environments?” Many are on their way to be turned pesticides—also toxic chemicals that will be transported to the sites where they will be used. In applying FIFRA’s standard of no unreasonable adverse effects, EPA must look at those adverse effects from manufacture to disposal, from cradle to grave, and weigh them against measured “benefits” of using the pesticides, given the availability of alternatives.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

The recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, should be a reminder that problems with reliance on toxic chemicals goes beyond their use. To get pesticides to their point of use, toxic precursors and ingredients must be transported. Toxic waste products are also delivered to a location where they may be burned or deposited in a landfill. In weighing the hazards of toxic pesticides, these ancillary hazards should also be considered.

The freight train that derailed February 3, 2023 in East Palestine was carrying toxic chemicals. But what are the toxic chemicals, and why were they being transported?

The toxic chemicals on the train include vinyl chloride, ethylhexyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, isobutylene, and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE). The first four are all precursors in plastic manufacture. All except butyl acrylate are pesticide “inert” ingredients, and EGBE is an antimicrobial active ingredient as well. The manufacture of pesticides and plastics requires that toxic chemicals be transported.

Vinyl chloride is a highly flammable chlorinated hydrocarbon that may emit toxic fumes of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride and phosgene when heated to decomposition. Exposure affects the nervous system and causes liver damage. Prolonged exposure can result in joint and muscle pain and skin damage. Vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen that is associated with liver cancer, brain and lung cancer, and cancers of the lymphatic and hematopoietic system. Phosgene itself is a major industrial chemical used to make plastics and pesticides. It can damage the skin, eyes, nose, throat, and lungs and has been used as a chemical warfare agent. Exposure to hydrogen chloride can cause serious respiratory damage (depending on the amount of exposure), as well as irritation or burns to eyes or skin.

Other toxic chemicals on the train are known to have health effects including corneal lesions, pulmonary edema, reproductive toxicity, and neurotoxic effects.

All these toxic chemicals are being transported over roads and rails that run through the most densely populated parts of the country. According to the Federal Rail Administration, at least one train derails every day in the United States. Train accidents resulted in releases of hazardous chemicals 11 times in 2022, and 20 times in 2018 and 2020. At least a couple cars of hazardous materials can be found on most trains.

The 2013 derailment of an unattended train carrying 72 petroleum crude oil destroyed the core of the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic, killing 47 people and releasing 26,000 gallons of oil into the Chaudiere river.

In 2005, nine people died and more than 250 were injured in Graniteville, SC, when a train carrying chlorine gas ran into a sidelined train.

In 1991, a train derailment just outside of Dunsmuir, CA dumped about 19,000 gallons of metam sodium, a highly toxic pesticide still used as a fungicide and herbicide, into the Sacramento River, resulting in evacuation of Dunsmuir and environmental contamination.

This small sample of transportation accidents that released toxic chemicals, causing death and destruction, causes me to ask, “Why are those toxic chemicals being transported through cities, towns, and sensitive environments?” Many are on their way to be turned pesticides—also toxic chemicals that will be transported to the sites where they will be used.

Please ensure that in applying the standard of no unreasonable adverse effects, EPA looks at those adverse effects from manufacture to disposal, from cradle to grave, and weighs them against measured “benefits” of using the pesticides, given the availability of alternatives.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 17, 2023) The February 3 derailment of a Norfolk Southern train in Ohio has been huge news. Less well known perhaps is that 20 of the 50 cars involved were carrying hazardous materials, defined by the National Transportation Safety Board as “cargo that could pose any kind of danger ‘including flammables, combustibles, or environmental risks.’” The incident resulted in a huge fire, evacuations, and worries about explosions and discharge of toxic chemical gases; on February 6, officials conducted “controlled releases” of some of the chemicals. Some of the toxic chemicals involved are precursors to production of synthetic pesticides.

[Eds. Note: We are deeply concerned for the victims of this terrible crisis who are asking legitimate questions about contaminated drinking water and the effects of both the initial acute exposure after the derailment, resulting in the release of toxic chemicals, and long-term exposure to low levels of toxic residues in homes and the environment.]

Among the compounds on board those 20 cars were “inert” pesticide ingredients (vinyl chloride, ethylhexyl acrylate, and isobutylene), an antimicrobial compound (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether [EGBE]), benzene (a carcinogenic solvent), and butyl acrylate. This event brings into high relief the cradle-to-grave issues that travel with pesticide (and broad chemical) dependency, including disasters such as this one, and subsequent threats to health and the environment — which are never part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) calculus in registering pesticides. The Ohio derailment also adds to the case for getting off the toxic pesticide treadmill, which would reduce transport of such compounds.

Air quality readings within a mile of the site were begun soon after the event. Evacuation orders were lifted on February 8 because officials indicated that air quality was safe enough for people to return to their homes. The Washington Post reports that environmental officials, as of February 14, were saying that ongoing “air monitoring done for the railroad and by government agencies — including testing inside nearly 400 homes — hasn’t detected dangerous levels in the area since residents were allowed to return. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has shared air monitoring results online.”

Nevertheless, some residents continue to have concerns not only about contaminated air, but about potential contamination of their drinking water; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency officials insist the water has been protected and is safe. Yet, others, including Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, delivered a different message, leading to heightened confusion and frustration among residents. As The New York Times (NYT) reported, “State officials have continued to recommend that some residents drink bottled water as testing continues in private wells, municipal water, and streams, and fears have percolated over the possible dangers of long-term exposure to the chemicals.”

Understandably, area residents are worried about toxic chemicals in their air or water or soils. And as with many concerning public events, social media has spread both sound information and some that is decidedly not. In speaking to The Washington Post, one resident summed up what many people are feeling and thinking: “For a small town, we have to trust them [i.e., officials], because what else do we have to do? We have to trust that they are not lying to us.” The paper quoted Peter DeCarlo, an environmental health professor at Johns Hopkins University: “The biggest question remaining is what, if anything, is still being released from the site, first and foremost. If there are still residual chemical emissions, then that still presents a danger for people in the area.”

Indeed, just prior to publication of this Daily News Blog article, the NYT reported that hundreds of residents gathered in a school gym on the evening of February 15 for what had been billed as a “town hall” meeting about the disastrous event. But Norfolk Southern officials failed to show up, and the format was changed to one of state, county, and local agency officials sitting at separate tables around the room and fielding individual questions so that the whole group was not privy to the questions or answers. None of this went over well with the crowd, which was animated in demanding answers to their concerns and angry at railroad officials’ absence; the mayor ultimately switched back to a town hall format.

The NYT elaborated: “We have become increasingly concerned about the growing physical threat to our employees and members of the community around this event stemming from the increasing likelihood of the participation of outside parties,’ a spokesman for the railroad company said, though the nature or origin of the threats was unclear. The spokesman added: ‘We are not going anywhere. We are committed to East Palestine and will continue to respond to community concerns.’ On Wednesday, that was clearly not enough to satisfy the throngs of people gathered in the gym, who shouted demands to know where the company was. Citing the statement from the company, one man stood up and declared, ‘We’re scared, too.’”

Possibly caused by an overheated wheel bearing, the derailment in East Palestine, Ohio (near the Pennsylvania border) has been described by some experts as a potentially huge, unfolding environmental disaster, with much about the health and environmental impacts still to be determined via ongoing investigations. The incident looms as even more alarming, given that at least one train derails every day in the U.S. Although most trains carry multiple kinds of cargo — the Norfolk Southern had, e.g., frozen vegetables, autos, and medical cotton balls on board — they also typically have one or more hazardous materials in tow. According to The Guardian, “About 4.5m tons of toxic chemicals are shipped by rail each year and an average of 12,000 rail cars carrying hazardous materials pass through cities and towns each day, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.” In 2022, train accidents resulted in releases of hazardous chemicals 11 times, down from 20 times in 2018 and 2020.

Perhaps the most-memorable recent rail disaster was the 2013 explosion and fire from 72 rail tankers of petroleum crude oil that erupted in Lac-Megantic, Quebec (near the western Maine border). In that event, 47 people died and 26,000 gallons of oil contaminated the Chaudiere River. Also in 2013, a crude oil train exploded on collision with a derailed train full of grain; luckily, this happened in a relatively unpopulated North Dakota area. 2005 saw the crash, in South Carolina, of a train carrying chlorine gas (a chemical highly poisonous to skin and the respiratory tract).

California’s worst train debacle happened in 1991 near Dunsmuir, when roughly 19,000 gallons of metam sodium, a highly toxic pesticide still used as a fungicide and herbicide, flowed into the Sacramento River near the iconic Mt. Shasta. Nearly every living organism in a 38-mile stretch of the river died from the chemical’s toxicity; fortunately, the river and its inhabitants were largely restored within three to four years, according to California Department of Fish and Game spokesperson Mark Stopher. These are just a handful of transportation accidents that released toxic chemicals, harming (and sometimes killing) people, and contaminating the environment.

The menu of toxic chemicals on board the Norfolk Southern train was an unsavory one. Of greatest concern has been vinyl chloride, a highly flammable compound used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics; when exposed to sunlight, it generates toxic gases, including formaldehyde. When burned, vinyl chloride becomes hydrogen chloride and phosgene; the latter is a deadly gas that was used in World War I chemical warfare, and is used in the manufacture of plastics and pesticides.

To boot, any vinyl chloride that seeped into the trench soil can persist for long periods and continue to volatilize, and can migrate into groundwater. Exposure to it has acute effects on people, and can lead to cardiovascular, developmental, hepatic, and immune problems, and to some nasty cancers. After three rounds of evacuation efforts, the five cars carrying it were breached by emergency responders who discharged the chemical to a trench and burned it.

Northeast University environmental toxicologist Kimberly Garrett explained the extreme concern about phosgene: “It disrupts the interaction between the lungs and the bloodstream. It makes it so oxygen can’t get into the blood and carbon dioxide can’t get out.” The wildlife deaths in the area, including fish, squirrels, turtles, and foxes, were likely caused by phosgene. She added, “The risk of exploding was so high and the consequences so severe that it’s better to do it under controlled conditions,” and suggested that, because of the potential for long-term effects of vinyl chloride (with its carcinogenic impacts) migrating into groundwater (where it is notoriously difficult to clean up), officials likely opted for one of two bad options — a controlled burn rather than the explosive and migratory risks of leaving it alone.

Butyl acrylate is an explosive and flammable liquid used in manufacturing sealants, adhesives, and paints; it can lead to skin, eye, and respiratory irritation. Ethylhexyl acrylate is used similarly, and can cause the same kinds of irritation, as well as gastrointestinal problems if ingested; it is also a potential human carcinogen. Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) is neurotoxic; it can lead to irritation of the skin, nose, and throat, damage to red blood cells, hepatic, renal, and reproductive harms, and vomiting after exposure. Isobutylene is used in many industrial applications, is highly flammable, and is neurotoxic.

One might reasonably wonder why such dangerous chemicals (some of which are on their way to becoming pesticides) are allowed to be transported by rail through populated areas and vulnerable environments alike. The reality is that this is the chemically dependent state of the world (and for pesticides, of most agriculture and land management). The manufacture of pesticides and plastics (and many other products) requires that toxic chemicals be transported . . . somehow.

Rail has often been considered preferable to (and cheaper than) trucking or flying. Long-haul trains, after all, do much of their travel through non- or less-populated areas, whereas trucks on crowded highways present their own significant safety risks, and planes filled with toxic chemicals would be, more or less, flying bombs (and a very pricey form of transport). In the wake of this tragic derailment, some public health advocates say it should be a wake-up call on the potential for far-more-deadly freight rail accidents, particularly in light of the petrochemicals (e.g., ethanol and other fuels) and their chemical derivatives that are transported by rail.

The Guardian reports, “By one estimate, 25 million Americans live in an oil train blast zone, and had the derailment occurred just a few miles east, it would be burning in downtown Pittsburgh, with tens of thousands of residents in immediate danger. Ineffective oversight and a largely self-monitoring industry that has cut the nation’s rail workforce to the bone in recent years as it puts record profits over safety is responsible for the wreck, said Ron Kaminkow, an Amtrak locomotive engineer and former Norfolk Southern freight engineer.

‘The Palestine wreck is the tip of the iceberg and a red flag,’ said Kaminkow, who is secretary for the Railroad Workers United, a nonprofit labor group that coordinates with the nation’s rail unions. ‘If something is not done, then it’s going to get worse, and the next derailment could be cataclysmic.’”

These toxic chemicals are generally deemed necessary to “modern life.” But there are, at least for pesticides and their precursor and ingredient compounds, other and better options. One would be for EPA to take into account, in its evaluation of pesticides for registration, the very real cradle-to-grave issues related to pesticide use — including transportation disasters that seriously threaten health and the environment. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — the base federal statute that controls pesticide regulation — requires that pesticide use “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” The statute defines “unreasonable adverse effects,” in part, as “any unreasonable risk to man [sic] or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.”

A protective reading of this statute and definition would cause EPA to evaluate such risks from “cradle to grave,” meaning from the sourcing of chemical ingredients through their manufacture, transportation, use, and ultimate disposal. The disaster in Ohio is a glaring example of EPA’s failure to use a protective and precautionary approach; instead, the agency’s history often shows an industry-friendly, conservative reticence to do so.

Another, and far more systemic, effective, and sustainable, way to resolve our toxic chemical morass is known, doable, and scalable: a transition to organic, regenerative agricultural practices that would remove synthetic pesticides and fertilizers — synthesized from many of the dangerous chemicals that get transported by rail every day — from the materials stream, as well as curtail their ongoing impacts on human health, the food system, ecosystems and habitats, and the biodiverse living organisms that are so at risk now. Everything we value — safety, life, health, environment, biodiversity, and more — demands that we get off this toxic chemical treadmill.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/05/east-palestine-ohio-train-derailment/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 15, 2023) Areas designated to protect insects fail to do so for over 75 percent of global species, according to a study, “Three-quarters of insect species are insufficiently represented by protected areas,” published in the online journal One Earth. Protected Areas (PAs) act as a safeguard for biodiversity. However, PAs in North America, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and Australia do not meet the minimum coverage requirements to safeguard global insect species assessed in the study. PAs are discussed in the 2020 Nature article, “Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century,” in which the authors state that, in view of the global biodiversity crisis, national governments must do much more to increase protected areas with “coverage across different elements of biodiversity (ecoregions, 12,056 threatened species, ‘Key Biodiversity Areas’ and wilderness areas) and ecosystem services (productive fisheries, and carbon services on land and seas).” The authors write, citing the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (to which the United States is not a signatory), “To be more successful after 2020, area-based conservation must contribute more effectively to meeting global biodiversity goals—ranging from preventing extinctions to retaining the most-intact ecosystems—and must better collaborate with the many Indigenous peoples, community groups and private initiatives that are central to the successful conservation of biodiversity.” [Note that Beyond Pesticides’ community-based program, Parks for a Sustainable Future, eliminates petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers and develops land management programs in sync with nature and biodiversity.]

The lack of coverage in PAs underestimates global insect distributions. The study reports, “Given this substantial local variation, the extent to which insect species are covered by PAs globally remains obscure, meaning we are unable to track the progress of insect conservation globally.”

All insects encounter multiple stressors besides pesticides, including parasites and poor nutrition, that act together to increase the risk of mortality. Despite being the driver of many ecosystem processes and functions/services, insects lack adequate consideration in global conservation assessments. Additionally, insects only constitute eight percent of the assessed species in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of threatened species. Therefore, reviews like these highlight the need to address all factors that can exacerbate adverse impacts on insects, especially when threatened by uninhibited chemical pollutants. Lead researcher Shawan Chowdhury (Ph.D.) cautions, “Many insect species are declining within protected areas because of threats such as rapid environmental change, loss of corridors, and roads inside protected areas.”

Using the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), researchers measure global insect representation, mapping the distribution of all existing insect species that appeared at least three times in GBIF records (89,151 species). Study researchers compare insect coverage in protected areas to the geographical range of species to determine:

1. “[t]he extent of occurrence (EOO; area within the shortest continuous boundary encompassing all known occurrence records) and,
2. area of occupancy (AOO; the area within the EOO estimated to be occupied [by said species].”

The resulting map shows designated protected areas for species shows that “76% of 89,151 insect species assessed globally do not meet minimum target levels of PA coverage.” inadequately protecting at least 76 percent of global insect species. Thus, the researchers caution this study as a call for the expansion of PAs for insects to ensure worldwide biodiversity.

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, research finds that many insect populations are in decline, including managed and wild pollinators. Monarchs are near extinction, and commercial beekeepers continue to experience declines that are putting them out of business. The continued loss of mayflies and fireflies disrupts the foundation of many food chains. Additionally, the decline in many bird species has links to insect declines. Since the 1970s, three billion birds have vanished.

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. Research shows that residues from neonicotinoids (including seed treatments) and sulfoxaflor accumulate and translocate to pollen and nectar of treated plants. Both 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.

The geographical range of species varies from small to large. Thus, some species can have high coverage within PAs, while others have little to no coverage in PAs, depending on range size. Despite the growth in PAs for endangered species, insects still face existential risk factors like habitat destruction, chemical exposure, and food insecurity. The study researchers link the lack of data on surveying insect species and an underestimation of geographical range size attributes to gaps in PAs conservation. Even animals in larger protected areas, like U.S. wildlife refuges, experience similar health risks from chemical pesticide exposure. Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routinely finds widespread pesticide contamination of surface waters throughout the U.S. Scientists warn that neonicotinoids, and other pesticides, pose a direct threat to both insect and non-insect wildlife, including birds, aquatic animals, and other wildlife, which absorb pesticide sprays and vapors through respiration, as well as ingestion via food. Pesticide spraying in or around PAs threatens the survivability and recovery of species that reside there, as many pesticides are highly toxic to human and animal health. Therefore, studies like these are significant, especially since the globe is going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk of extinction.

Most animals on this Earth are insects, which play a significant role in sustaining the ecosystem despite their size. Insects found in nature preserves are consistently contaminated with over a dozen pesticides, calling into question the ability for these areas to function as refuges for threatened and endangered species. With rampant pesticide use and ubiquitous contamination, it is imperative that lawmakers and regulators embrace stronger measures to reverse the ominous trajectory society continues to follow, especially with the ongoing global insect apocalypse.

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. However, ending toxic pesticide use can alleviate the harmful impacts of these chemicals on species and ecosystem health. Beyond Pesticides captured the bigger picture in its introduction to its 2017 National Pesticide Forum, Healthy Hives, Healthy Lives, Healthy Land: “Complex biological communities support life.” Learn more about the science and resources behind pesticides’ impact on pollinators, including bee pollinator decline, and take action against the use of pesticides. To find out more about what you can do to protect bees and other pollinators, check out information on the BEE Protective Campaign, pollinator-friendly landscapes, pollinator-friendly seeds, pesticide-free zones, bee-friendly habitats, and what you, or your state representative, can do to protect our pollinators. For more information on the insect apocalypse, see the Beyond Pesticides article in our Pesticides and You journal, Tracking Biodiversity: Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse.

Furthermore, buying, growing, and supporting organic agriculture can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management eliminates the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. 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. 

Spring is around the corner, so get ready to grow your spring garden the organic way by Springing Into Action, pledging to eliminate toxic pesticide use.

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

Source: ScienceDaily, One Earth

(Beyond Pesticides, February 15, 2023) Glyphosate use in grassland pastures reduces crop yield and impedes climate change mitigation, finds two studies (1,2) published this month from the University of Turku, Finland. While massive public relations campaigns by the agrichemical industry have poured in millions of dollars to convince politicians and the public that pesticides are necessary to ‘feed the world’ and address the climate crisis, the data does not support these claims. “Only in recent years, we have started to realise that intensive agriculture and agrochemical pollution in fact contribute to a reversal of the intended purpose. Soils are polluted with pesticides and at the same time, extreme weather events erode soil nutrients,” says study coauthor Benjamin Fuchs, PhD.

Researchers approached their investigation through two separate experiments on the grass Festuca pratensis, an important forage crop grown for grazing animals throughout the world. The first experiment was conducted in an enclosed greenhouse, while the second took place in a field setting. For both experiments, plots were separated between glyphosate-sprayed and unsprayed controls. All plots received three different approaches to cutting the grass: one group that was intensely cut to two inches (5cm), the second group cut to six inches (15cm), and the third group remained uncut. To determine effects, scientists measured total root biomass and total yield. For the greenhouse experiment, plant chlorophyll and shoot (above-ground plant material, not including roots) biomass was also recorded separately.

For all experiments and plot variables, none saw glyphosate use have a positive impact on yield or biomass. For the greenhouse experiment, shoot biomass was lowest in grasses cut intensively and those growing in glyphosate-sprayed soils. In general, the more frequently the grass was cut, the larger the reduction in root biomass. However, even among uncut grasses, those grown in glyphosate-sprayed soils showed the lowest root biomass. Chlorophyll content also followed this pattern, with those in the most intensively cut grouping showing the lowest content if also grown in soils where glyphosate was applied.

The similarity of the greenhouse results to those of the field experiment add considerable weight to the study’s ultimate conclusions. Intensively cut grasses shows the lowest root biomass, and roots grown in glyphosate-sprayed soils are found to be six grams lighter than those grown in soils that have not been sprayed with the chemical.

The primary finding of these studies are surprising to researchers – regardless of cutting intensity and other factors, glyphosate use reduces the root growth of the grasses.

“This demonstrates a tremendous limitation to the potential carbon binding and storage belowground when soils are polluted by pesticide. Considering the vast amount of pesticides applied to agricultural fields yearly, we can conclude that the impact on soil quality is a major driver of limited root growth, carbon sequestration, and consequently plant resilience and productivity,” Dr. Fuchs says.

Fodder grasses are grown throughout the world, either for grazing, hay, or silage, and glyphosate is often used to treat these pasturelands. When these plants grow, they take in carbon from the atmosphere and bind it into soils through root growth. “[U]nderstanding how pesticide pollution in soil and intensive management limit plant productivity is the key to optimising intensive grassland-based agriculture in a sustainable and climate-friendly way,” says Dr. Fuchs.

It is becoming increasingly clear that addressing climate change means reining in all fossil-fuel based products, including the use of hazardous pesticides. As the pesticide industry continues to push claims that their products are the only solution for a growing population on a warming planet, the science shows the opposite. Less intensive, more ecologically friendly organic agricultural practices are better at combating climate change, while the use of toxic chemicals undermines the ability to embrace this more beneficial approach.

For more information on the dangers ongoing pesticide use poses to our ability to combat climate change, see talks from Beyond Pesticides recent climate change webinar, featuring Rachel Bezner Kerr, PhD, Cornell University professor and co-author of the definitive United Nations (UN) report on climate and food production and Andrew Smith, PhD, chief operating officer of the Rodale Institute and coauthor of several landmark reports on soil biology and carbon sequestration, including the just released Farming Systems Trial—40-Year Report.

Take the opportunity to express your concerns to USDA, EPA, and Congress by urging them to incorporate climate change considerations into all future policy decisions.

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

Source:  University of Turku press release, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, February 14, 2023) The waterways that flow into the Great Lakes are experiencing year-round pesticide contamination that exceeds benchmarks meant to protect aquatic life, according to research published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). “What you use makes it into the water,” study coauthor Sam Oliver, PhD, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. These data buttress growing calls from pesticide reform advocates that new laws are needed to protect the nation’s increasingly threatened waters.

USGS scientists conducted their analysis on 16 tributaries that feed into the Great Lakes, including sites that correspond to urban, agricultural, and undeveloped land. Samples were taken at locations closest to the lake the tributary flowed into over a period of roughly one year from October 2015 to September 2016. Each sample was tested for 231 pesticides and their breakdown products. Researchers used aquatic life benchmarks set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and created a relative hazard index (RHI) for the study to evaluate whether specific sites should be prioritized for further protections.  

Across every sampled tributary, pesticides were found. Accordingly, 96% (190 out of 198) of samples taken contained pesticides or their breakdown products. Scientists detected 104 of the 231 pesticide and breakdown products analyzed, with 80% of samples containing at least 10 different compounds. Herbicides represented the most frequently detected chemicals, with the hormone disrupting weed killer atrazine and its breakdown products (deethylatrazine and hydroxyatrazine) the most common of the bunch, detected in more than 75% of samples. Among insecticides, the neonicotinoids imidacloprid and clothianidin were most frequent, in 44% of samples. The most commonly detected fungicide was carbendazim, found in 51% of test samples. Notably, researchers detected 31 breakdown products that were of unknown hazard that are not captured by current EPA toxicity databases.

The presence of pesticide compounds exceeding aquatic life thresholds was found to occur throughout the entire year. This speaks to the dangers of pesticide breakdown products. The study notes, “For some individual parent pesticides, transformation products extended the ‘exposure season,’ or the proportion of the year that aquatic biota are exposed to pesticides at a given site.” Based on analysis of the samples collected, the toxicity of breakdown products extends exposure hazards an average of nearly two months after the detection of the parent pesticide.

Researchers indicate that human disturbance in the form of urban and agricultural pesticide use represents the most polluted sites, but even samples in undeveloped land along the St. Louis River experience several instances where aquatic toxicity benchmarks are exceeded. The most contaminated site is along the Maumee River that flows into Lake Erie, where 72 different chemicals were detected during the study’s duration.

Prior research shows the Maumee River to be particularly contaminated, with evidence that pesticide use is affecting the fertility of minnows in the stream, though this finding is likely just the tip of the iceberg.  Likewise, Lake Erie is perhaps the Great Lake with the most sickened ecology, subject to a long history of contamination and toxic algae blooms.

While agricultural practices appear to correlate with peaking pesticide contamination during the growing season, urban runoff represents a larger overall proportion of the contamination flowing into waterways. With little to no natural soils to filter contamination, and impervious surfaces creating massive outflows of polluted water, this finding is unsurprising. Research conducted by USGS and EPA on urban runoff across the country in 2019 found 215 of 438 sampled toxic compounds present in the water. The sheer number of different chemicals and thus potential for even more toxic mixtures presents significant risks to health and the environment.  

It is evident that the toxic soup that many U.S. waterways are carrying is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage.

To combat ongoing contamination of our critical waters, we need an all of the above approach to pesticide reform. The passage of the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act, introduced by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), is an important step toward these reforms, as it not only addresses EPA malfeasance, but opens up the ability for local communities to pass laws that can protect their unique and threatened landmarks and waterways. Take action today to urge your U.S. Senator to support these commonsense reforms.

Source: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

(Beyond Pesticides, February 13, 2023) As more and more communities across the country outlaw pesticides on their public land, parks, and playing fields, most states prohibit (or preempt) localities from restricting hazardous use on private property. As a result, pesticides used on landscapes—uses that can be replaced by organic management practices—result in chemical drift and runoff, putting the community in harms way and people involuntarily exposed. The Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act of 2023 (PACTPA), S.269, includes a provision that grants communities under federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—FIFRA) local authority to restrict pesticides on all property, public and private, within their jurisdiction. While the U.S. Supreme Court (in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier) in 1991 found that FIFRA does not preempt local governments’ authority to restrict pesticide use in their town, cities, or counties, state governments have taken that authority away in 44 states at the behest of the pesticide lobby.

Urge your Senators to co-sponsor PACTPA and reforms to the toxic core of FIFRA, including upholding the right of local governments to restrict pesticides.

As local governments debate the hazards associated with pesticide use in their communities, many have decided to transition their public lands to organic land management. In Maine and Maryland, where the state legislatures have upheld the right of local governments to restrict pesticides on all land in their jurisdictions, localities—including, for example, Ogunquit, South Portland, and Portland in Maine, Montgomery County in Maryland, and Maui County in Hawaii—have restricted materials in landscape management on all land to those listed on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under federal organic law (Organic Foods Production Act). South Portland, Portland, and Maui have prohibited synthetic fertilizers as well.

The adoption of organic land management has met with great success across the country. Beyond Pesticides has collaborated with dozens of communities in the adoption of organic through its Parks for a Sustainable Future program and collaborates with companies including Stonyfield Organic and Natural Grocers, a retail grocery chain that operates 160 stores in 20 western and midwestern states. In adopting organic practices and eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, communities are contributing to efforts that seek to mitigate health crises (as captured by Beyond Pesticides Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database), biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency. (See Retrospective 2021—A Call to Urgent Action)

At the same time that members of Congress are advancing local authority that upholds the democratic process to protect health and safety at the community level, the pesticide lobby (including the chemical industry, the chemical lawn care industry, and other groups with vested economic interests in producing and selling petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers) is working with members of Congress to preempt local authority to restrict pesticides through federal law. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have been pushing for preemption of local authority. In the last Congress, H.R. 7266 was introduced to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal rules. While the bill did not get adopted, It is expected that the pesticide lobby and their collaborators in Congress will push to incorporate the preemption language of H.R. 7266 into the 2023 Farm Bill.  

Urge your Senators to co-sponsor PACTPA and reforms to the toxic core of FIFRA, including upholding the right of local governments to restrict pesticides.

Letter to 2021 Sponsors: Senators Booker (D-NJ), and cosponsors: Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Brian Schatz (D-HI)

Thank you for your sponsorship of the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act of 2021 (PACTPA), S.269. I am looking forward to the reintroduction of PACTPA, which would provide some desperately-needed improvements to the pesticide law (FIFRA) to better protect people and the environment, including:

* Bans some of the most damaging pesticides scientifically known to cause significant harm to people and the environment:

– Organophosphate insecticides, which are designed to target the neurological system and have been linked to neurodevelopmental damage in children;

– Neonicotinoid insecticides, which have contributed to pollinator collapse around the world (the European Union and Canada have significantly restricted or banned their use to protect pollinators and other wildlife) and have recently been shown to cause developmental defects, heart deformations, and muscle tremors in unborn children;

– Paraquat, which is one of the most acutely toxic herbicides in the world —according to the EPA, just “one sip can kill.” Science has shown that chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by 200% to 600%. It is already banned in 32 countries, including the European Union.

* Removes dangerous pesticides from the market by:

– Creating a petition process to enable individual citizens to petition the EPA to identify dangerous pesticides so that the EPA would no longer be able to indefinitely allow dangerous pesticides to remain on the market;

– Closing dangerous loopholes that have allowed the EPA to issue emergency exemptions and conditional registrations to use pesticides before they have gone through full health and safety review by the agency;

– Enabling local communities to enact protective legislation and other policies without being vetoed or preempted by state law;

– Suspending the use of pesticides deemed unsafe by the E.U. or Canada until they are thoroughly reviewed by the EPA.

* Provides protections for frontline communities that bear the burden of pesticide exposure by:

– Requiring employers of farmworkers to report all pesticide-caused injuries to the EPA, with strong penalties for failure to report injuries or retaliating against workers;

– Directing the EPA to review pesticide injury reports and work with the pesticide manufacturers to develop better labeling to prevent future injury;

– Requiring that all pesticide label instructions be written in Spanish and in any language spoken by more than 500 pesticide applicators.

Despite this impressive list of refoms, PACTPA does not touch the toxic core of FIFRA, which permits the unnecessary dispersal of toxic chemicals in the environment. To eliminate this toxic core, please consider introducing legislation to:

* Prohibit the registration and use of pesticides that do not meet these criteria:

– Necessary to prevent harm to humans and the environment based on an analysis of all alternatives;

– Cause no harm to humans and the environment; and

– Protect against the existential crises of biodiversity collapse, runaway climate change, and chronic and acute health threats.

* Require all supporting data to be submitted and examined by the public before registration (including the elimination of conditional registration).

* Deny and cancel all pesticide registrations not supported by studies demonstrating a lack of endocrine-disrupting effects.

* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to life in the soil—and hence threatening the climate.

* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to any endangered species.

Thank you.

Letter to all other Senators:

I am writing to urge you to cosponsor Senator Booker’s Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act (PACTPA), S.269. PACTPA would provide some desperately needed improvements to the pesticide law (FIFRA) to better protect people and the environment, including:

* Bans some of the most damaging pesticides scientifically known to cause significant harm to people and the environment:

– Organophosphate insecticides, which are designed to target the neurological system and have been linked to neurodevelopmental damage in children;

– Neonicotinoid insecticides, which have contributed to pollinator collapse around the world (the European Union and Canada have significantly restricted or banned their use to protect pollinators and other wildlife) and have recently been shown to cause developmental defects, heart deformations, and muscle tremors in unborn children;

– Paraquat, which is one of the most acutely toxic herbicides in the world —according to the EPA, just “one sip can kill.” Science has shown that chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by 200% to 600%. It is already banned in 32 countries, including the European Union.

* Removes dangerous pesticides from the market by:

– Creating a petition process to enable individual citizens to petition the EPA to identify dangerous pesticides so that the EPA would no longer be able to indefinitely allow dangerous pesticides to remain on the market;

– Closing dangerous loopholes that have allowed the EPA to issue emergency exemptions and conditional registrations to use pesticides before they have gone through full health and safety review by the agency;

– Enabling local communities to enact protective legislation and other policies without being vetoed or preempted by state law;

– Suspending the use of pesticides deemed unsafe by the E.U. or Canada until they are thoroughly reviewed by the EPA.

* Provides protections for frontline communities that bear the burden of pesticide exposure by:

– Requiring employers of farmworkers to report all pesticide-caused injuries to the EPA, with strong penalties for failure to report injuries or retaliating against workers;

– Directing the EPA to review pesticide injury reports and work with the pesticide manufacturers to develop better labeling to prevent future injury;

– Requiring that all pesticide label instructions be written in Spanish and in any language spoken by more than 500 pesticide applicators.

Despite this impressive list of reforms, PACTPA does not touch the toxic core of FIFRA, which permits the unnecessary dispersal of toxic chemicals in the environment. To eliminate this toxic core, please consider introducing legislation to:

* Prohibit the registration and use of pesticides that do not meet these criteria:

– Necessary to prevent harm to humans and the environment based on an analysis of all alternatives;

– Cause no harm to humans and the environment; and

– Protect against the existential crises of biodiversity collapse, runaway climate change, and chronic and acute health threats.

* Require all supporting data to be submitted and examined by the public before registration (including the elimination of conditional registration).

* Deny and cancel all pesticide registrations not supported by studies demonstrating a lack of endocrine-disrupting effects.

* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to life in the soil—and hence threatening the climate.

* Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to any endangered species.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 10, 2023) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced, on February 1, new measures to protect 28 endangered salmon species (including steelhead trout) from the use of four pesticides that threaten them and their critical habitats. Those compounds comprise three herbicides — metolachlor, bromoxynil, and prometryn, and one soil fumigant, 1,3-Dichloropropene. The protections, aimed at salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, and California, are meant to reduce impacts from pesticide runoff and spray drift, and to minimize potential “take.” (Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), “take” means, essentially, the unintentional harming or killing of an individual of a protected species — in this case, harm or death from exposures to these toxic pesticide compounds.) Beyond Pesticides and other advocates have for years warned that multiple pesticides are threats to Northwest salmon and other species at risk. This EPA announcement is the second of two, recently, that offer slight redress to the agency’s historical failures to act (see more below).

Indeed, advocates have engaged in multiple litigation efforts over the years to try to force EPA to take action; EarthJustice in 2001 noted some early instances. As Chemical and Engineering News says pointedly, “Environmental groups, which have been suing the EPA for decades to protect endangered species from pesticides, say the new restrictions are long overdue. ‘But there are still more than 1,000 species that don’t have any protection against these four pesticides or hundreds of others that are devastating to imperiled species,’ Lori Ann Burd, environmental health program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, says in a statement. ‘The EPA needs to move quickly to ensure all species are protected from pesticides, before it’s too late.’”

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as it relates to pesticide use, EPA is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to determine whether a pesticide may adversely affect an ESA listed species (or its critical habitat). If that consultation indicates jeopardy for members of a species or that habitat, EPA must then generate protective regulations to limit use of the pesticide.

In the case of these four pesticides (metalochlor, bromoxynil, 1,3-D [aka telone], prometryn), the final EPA–NMFS finding was that these compounds were “likely to adversely affect” at least one member of the target populations. Although NMFS issued biological opinions in 2021 that “found that registered uses of these pesticides do not jeopardize listed salmon and steelhead species or adversely modify their critical habitats,” those opinions also set out measures to minimize the potential for “take” and any impacts thereof. EPA, sensibly, chose to act on the statutory requirements of ESA for these compounds.

The EPA announcement for the four pesticides describes geographically specific use limitations for them, and lists planned mitigation measures, such as no-spray buffers (between waterways and agricultural fields), retention ponds, and vegetated ditches — all intended to keep the pesticides from migrating into waterways. The new rules also amend labeling requirements (for the pesticides’ containers) that aim to increase education and compliance among applicators, including how to report any related ecological incidents associated with pesticide applications that are observed or experienced.

As Beyond Pesticides lists in its Gateway on Pesticide Hazards (a compendium of information on hundreds of pesticides), these four compounds share several features, chief among which is their toxicity to fish and aquatic organisms. In addition, three of the four are potentially carcinogenic; three likely cause endocrine disruption; all are sensitizers/irritants; three are detected in groundwater (metalochlor, frequently); and Beyond Pesticides rates all but prometryn as toxic.

Agricultural runoff and drift from pesticide applications — the two primary vectors for contamination of Northwest rivers and streams, and the coastal Pacific — are the central targets of the new EPA constraints on the use of the subject pesticides. Beyond Pesticides notes that the drift of pesticides from target application sites — even when applied according to label instructions — can travel significant distances and end up in waterways (as well as on nontarget soils, plants, and organisms). Pacific salmon species are exposed to the compounds in the fresh water ways where they hatch and develop, and to which — after maturing in ocean waters that may also harbor some of these chemical pollutants — they return to reproduce and then die. Not insignificantly for the food web, their decaying carcasses furnish nutrients back to the ecosystem, providing food for other members.

Studies have shown that well more than 100 wildlife species depend on salmon as food, according to the organization, American Rivers. In 2021, it wrote, “Let the salmon disappear, and you threaten the existence of all life up and down the food chain, including people, economies, and the Indigenous cultures that orbit these irreplaceable fish.” Many experts have noted a particular “food chain” threat represented by pesticide impacts on salmon — endangered salmon are the central prey of the iconic orca whales, found from Alaska to Washington to Oregon, and even sometimes off California. Dwindling salmon populations spell trouble for the orcas.

Yet some salmon species have been brought to the edge of extinction for want of effective and timely action on their exposures to a large menu of pesticides. Just last March, EPA finally — after a series of flip-flops and failures on regulating several organophosphate pesticides — released findings that reflected to some extent the risks of malathion, chlorpyrifos, and diazinon, and the need to ramp up protections. A revised EPA–NMFS biological opinion found that use of those compounds is likely to jeopardize some listed species and adversely modify some critical habitats, and recommended protective measures similar to those in the new rules on the subject pesticides.

Yes, this is welcome news. But, these mitigation measures will presumably be enacted under the assumption that they will manage sufficiently the exposures of salmon species to these toxic chemicals. Whether that proves true is, clearly, to be determined. Salmon populations through the coastal West will require critical monitoring in coming years to determine whether the measures are having protective effects; whether that happens also remains to be seen.

Beyond the specifics of these salmon species and these particular synthetic pesticides lies the central issue: EPA continues to allow, and non-organic producers and land managers continue to use aplenty, toxic chemicals that harm people, other organisms, and the environment. This decades-long deluge of the planet with pesticide (and other chemical) compounds represents — apart from the contributions of fossil fuels to the climate crisis — arguably the most extensive experiment ever conducted on Planet Earth. And it happens generally without participants’ knowledge, and virtually never with their permission. By any definition of “valuing life,” this is unconscionable.

Beyond Pesticide Executive Director Jay Feldman notes, “Again, EPA operates with the assumption that these chemicals are needed to achieve pest management goals. But, the agency has not asked the most basic question: is there another way to achieve pest management goals without toxic pesticides? Of course, the answer is ‘yes.’”

The solution is the broad transition to organic agricultural and land management systems that respect, mimic, and cooperate with natural systems. The shift to organic approaches would end the worldwide chemical experiment, and pull land management out of its current, entropic pattern, which is the antithesis of regenerative, organic approaches.

In December 2022, Beyond Pesticides wrote that its “bold goal is to transition off of synthetic, petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers within the next decade, and transition to a society and world committed to organic practices. This will require massive public engagement — and, as Executive Director Jay Feldman says, ‘outrage’ — that we are not moving fast enough to embrace that goal. . . . Everyone — consumers, producers, advocates, legislative and executive government branches, federal and state agencies businesses, and others — has a part to play. We must advance, rapidly, on-the-ground work to make the transition to organic regenerative practices a mainstream expectation” — and a reality.

Please join this effort by becoming a member, signing up for action alerts, supporting this work, and/or organizing at the local or state level to advance organic. Contact us with questions, thoughts, or needs for assistance: [email protected] or 1.202.543.5450.

Source: https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/Organophosphate-insecticides-restricted-protect-salmon/100/web/2022/07

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 9, 2023) Business Insider India reports over 100 infant deaths from pesticide exposure in breast milk. A study by Lucknow’s Queen Mary Hospital links pesticides in breast milk to the death of 111 newborns over the past ten months in the Maharajganj district of northern India. The study is a testament to the effects pesticides can have on the health of individuals, especially vulnerable populations like infants and shows that there is a long way to go before our bodies are void of any bioaccumulated toxic residues. Multiple studies on breast milk throughout the years confirm that toxic chemicals build up in our bodies as breast milk can bioconcentrate or accumulate, a natural phenomenon dubbed chemical “body burden.” Hundreds of chemicals are in blood, urine, breast milk and umbilical cord blood, entering our bodies through diet, personal care product use, and inhalation from air.

Many known pollutants (i.e., heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyl, and pesticides) are chemicals that can move from the mother to the developing fetus at higher exposure rates. 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 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.

[Beyond Pesticides has covered a variety of pregnancy risks from pesticides and other toxic chemicals, including these in just the last three years: pesticides and children’s sleep disorders; prenatal exposures to a multitude of chemicals; insecticides and childhood leukemia; insecticides and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.]

The researchers at Queen Mary Hospital evaluated breast milk samples in 130 women whose infant had died within the past ten months to determine the cause of death. Women were further separated based on diet (i.e., vegetarian and non-vegetarian). Regardless of diet, pesticides are present in maternal breast milk samples. However, non-vegetarian women have three times the number of pesticides in milk samples than vegetarian women. Researchers note, “Different types of pesticides and chemicals are put in green vegetables and crops. Animals are also injected with supplements and chemicals, which have led to pesticide formation in the milk of a woman who eats non-vegetarian food.”

Despite the discrepancy in pesticide concentrations through diet, any amount of pesticide in milk samples poses a severe health risk to newborns. Therefore, researchers attribute the increase in infant mortality to the transfer of pesticides from mother to fetus.

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. Thus, the transfer of chemical contaminates from mother to fetus is not a new phenomenon. Studies find pesticide compounds in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. A 2021 study finds pregnant women already have over 100 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 period of fetal development, exposure to toxicants can have much more severe implications. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates, increasing the risk of neonatal abnormalities like acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Many of these chemical compounds remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Therefore, individuals still encounter pesticide compounds at varying concentrations, adding to the toxic body burden of those toxic chemicals currently in use.

This study supports the long-known concept regarding the hazards of pesticides for children’s health. Early life exposures during “critical windows of vulnerability” can predict the likelihood or otherwise increase the chances of an individual encountering a range of pernicious diseases. Even before birth, people can carry body burdens inherited from their mothers. Scientists believe a human may host nearly 500 chemicals in various parts of the body, mainly in fatty tissue. Many chemicals break down in the human body, and while some metabolites clear the body, others remain in the body for a lifetime and can increase the risk of certain diseases. Thus, a parent’s exposure to pesticides during these critical periods indicates an increased risk of childhood disease. 

Doctors and pediatricians strongly agree that pregnant mothers should avoid pesticide exposure during critical development periods. Many contaminants are subject to regulatory standards that do not fully evaluate disease implications from exposure. Advocates say that addressing the manufacturing and use of pesticides is essential to mitigate risks from chemical exposure to toxic pesticides. Therefore, advocates urge that policies strengthen pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through its Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on Body Burdens, Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, and other diseases.

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is by buying, growing, and supporting organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticide metabolites in urine significantly 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 is the right choice for consumers, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Business Insider India, Science Direct

(Beyond Pesticides, February 8, 2023) Spraying pesticides around one’s garden negatively impacts local bird populations, according to research published by scientists at the University of Sussex, UK in Science of the Total Environment. Although this reasoning sounds common sense to those versed in the works of Rachel Carson, it underscores the immense importance of carrying on the legacy of her work and continuing to educate the public about the ongoing dangers posed by modern pesticides. As the study authors write, “Overall, our study shows that garden bird abundance and richness is strongly influenced by both extrinsic and intrinsic factors, and suggests that garden management, particularly regarding pesticide use, has a significant effect on bird life.”

Researchers collected data by partnering with the British Trust for Ornithology, which conducts annual citizen-science counts of bird populations in UK gardens. Nearly 24,000 residents participate in the survey, which also includes information about the urbanization level surrounding their gardens, and other habitat characteristics. A group of these volunteers were provided with a questionnaire about their pesticide practices between 2020-2021, recording information on how often the pesticides were applied, as well as the pesticide brand name. After removing incomplete or unusable data, 615 individual gardens were incorporated into the study.

To determine the factors impacting bird populations, researchers created a garden quality index (GQI) and surrounding quality index (SQI). GQI scores included factors such as the type and number of trees, the proportion of the garden planted with flowers, shrubs, vegetables, or allowed to be wild, the quality of shrubs and hedges, and the presence of water features. SQI scores included aspects like the type of nearby habitat (ex. woodland, scrubland, marsh) or nearby water body. To determine impacts to birds, researchers analyzed both bird abundance (total number of birds) and richness (total number of bird species) per recorded bird counts.

In general, bird abundance was found to be highest in rural areas when compared to urban and suburban areas. Gardens that had higher GQI scores also recorded more bird abundance and richness, while SQI appeared to only affect richness.  

Among study participants, 34.1% indicated they applied pesticides, with over 60% of that use being herbicides, followed by molluscicides (slug killing products) around 35%, insecticides at roughly 30% and fungicides at 10%. Pesticide spraying impacted the effect a positive SQI factor had on bird richness. Specifically, “species richness increases with the surrounding quality, both for gardens that do not use pesticides and for gardens that applied pesticides, but this effect is significantly less strong when pesticides are applied,” the study indicates. Scientists zeroed in on three active ingredients: the weed killer glyphosate, the neonicotinoid insecticide acetamiprid, and the synthetic pyrethroid deltamethrin as resulting in the most damaging pesticide impacts to bird species’ richness.

While abundance was not impacted on an overall basis, individual species did show negative relationships with the use of specific pesticides. The house sparrow, for example, although perhaps the most established invasive pest in the United States, is in steep decline in the UK. Results showed that house sparrow abundance declines by 12% in gardens applying any pesticide, but is nearly 25% lower in gardens specifically using glyphosate.

The study authors, including world renowned entomologist Dave Goulson, PhD, say their results support restrictions on pesticide use. “The UK has 22 million gardens, which collectively could be a fantastic refuge for wildlife, but not if they are overly tidy and sprayed with poisons. We just don’t need pesticides in our gardens. Many towns around the world are now pesticide free. We should simply ban the use of these poisons in urban areas, following the example of France,” Dr. Goulson told The Guardian.

As Beyond Pesticides reported in 2022, France enacted sweeping restrictions on both public and private use of toxic pesticides in sensitive landscaped areas. The policy implemented throughout populated areas in France generally tracks with similar restrictions enacted in most Canadian provinces, but only by a very few U.S. cities like South Portland and Portland, ME.

That pesticides are locally harming bird populations should come as no surprise; what is perhaps most concerning to advocates is that over 1 in 3 well-intentioned gardeners regularly applied toxic pesticides that put the birds they undoubtedly appreciate at risk.

In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson in the first chapter writes “A Fable for Tomorrow:”

“There was a strange stillness. The birds, for example—where had they gone? Many people
spoke of them, puzzled and disturbed. The feeding stations in the backyards were deserted. The
few birds seen anywhere were moribund; they trembled violently and could not fly. It was a
spring without voices. On the mornings that had once throbbed with the dawn chorus of robins,
catbirds, doves, jays, wrens, and scores of other bird voices there was now no sound; only
silence lay over the fields and woods and marsh.”

Already, data show that the U.S. has lost 3 billion birds since the 1970s – 29% of the abundance seen during that decade. This study and its authors have a loud and clear message to all readers to relay to their friends and family: stop the home and garden use of pesticides. The choices we make whether to address a pest through chemical or ecological pest management has a major impact on the health of the wildlife in our immediate area; wildlife that many residents come to know well, and care about, as they watch their comings and goings through their window.

In the absence of meaningful action by U.S. federal or state governments to address rampant pesticide use in a way similar to France or many Canadian provinces, individual localities have filled the gap. However, in most states, this action is limited to restrictions on property owned by the local government, due to regressive, anti-democratic pesticide preemption laws. However, in the few states without these laws, like Maine and Maryland, local community policies that apply to both public and private property are showing immense success. Help fight back against pesticide industry efforts to roll back those victories and support a policy that would allow all communities to address pesticide use in a way that best reflects their resident’s values and unique local environment.

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

Source: The Guardian, Science of the Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, February 7, 2023) U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced legislation last week to increase protections against exposure to toxic pesticides. The Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act of 2023 (PACTPA), S.269, addresses many of the controversial issues with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which governs the registration and use of pesticides in the U.S. This major reform legislation tackles some of the documented deficiencies in the regulation of pesticides and removes a number of loopholes in the law. The legislation, introduced with Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Brian Schatz (D-HI), also includes a ban on all organophosphate and neonicotinoid insecticides, as well as  the weed killer paraquat, which is known to cause Parkinson’s disease and lung fibrosis. Despite these reform provisions, the legislation does not touch the core of FIFRA’s pesticide registration process and chart a path for the systemic, transformative change that Beyond Pesticides says is essential to meet the existential challenges of current times—devastating health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate crisis.

FIFRA, which is under the jurisdiction of the agriculture committees of Congress, has long been criticized for failing to protect the public and workers because of a host of problems that are viewed as untouchable in Congress: a failed risk assessment and risk mitigation process; lack of pesticide essentiality reviews in light of the availability of nontoxic and organic alternatives; incomplete U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews that do not consider a wide range of public health diseases caused by pesticides and synergistic effects from multiple chemical exposures; incomplete ecological assessments and protection of threatened and endangered species; and, disproportionate harm to people of color, those with pre-existing health conditions, and workers with cumulative exposure to pesticides in their workplace, community, and home. Beyond Pesticides is calling for a 10-year phase out of petrochemical pesticides and the national transition to organic land management and pest preventive building management practices.

PACTPA proposes important changes to FIFRA to better protect frontline farmworkers, children and agricultural communities from harmful, potentially lethal, pesticide exposure.

“We work with farmworkers who are afraid to report exposure incidents due to fear of retaliation, and more often pesticide handlers aren’t receiving training on just how dangerous their mixing and spraying jobs are,” said Jeannie Economos, coordinator of the Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project for the Farmworker Association of Florida.

The bill would also ensure that state and local governments retain the authority to implement stronger measures to protect against pesticide exposure, including phase-outs and bans. This is crucial because each year the United States uses over one billion pounds of pesticides — nearly one-fifth of worldwide use.

Once they are approved, pesticides often remain on the market for decades, even when scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows a pesticide is causing harm to people or the environment. Approximately one-third of annual U.S. pesticide use — over 300 million pounds from 85 different pesticides — comes from pesticides that are banned in the European Union.

“This legislation upholds the basic democratic right of communities to adopt safety standards that are more protective than federal or state law,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides.

Specifically, PACTPA would provide some critically-needed improvements to FIFRA to better protect people and the environment, including:

Bans some of the most damaging pesticides scientifically known to cause significant harm to people and the environment:

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

“Science has shown that exposure to paraquat increases risk for Parkinson’s disease,” said Ted Thompson, senior vice president for public policy at The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. “In addition to this human toll, allowing this chemical to remain on the market carries with it a serious financial cost to the federal government and American families. The United States is long overdue in banning paraquat, and this bill brings about necessary reform.”

“Keeping paraquat on the market is endangering human health and sending the wrong message to farmers that need support for developing new strategies for weed management,” said Christina Stucker-Gassi, healthy food and farms manager at the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides.

Restores balance to protect ordinary citizens by removing dangerous pesticides from the market by:

• • Creating a petition process to enable individual citizens to petition the EPA to identify dangerous pesticides so that the EPA would no longer be able to indefinitely allow dangerous pesticides to remain on the market;

• • Closing dangerous loopholes that have allowed the EPA to issue emergency exemptions and conditional registrations to use pesticides before they have gone through full health and safety review by the agency;

• • Enabling local communities to enact protective legislation and other policies without being vetoed or preempted by state law;

• • Suspending the use of pesticides deemed unsafe by the E.U. or Canada until they are thoroughly reviewed by the EPA.

    Provides protections for frontline communities that bear the burden of pesticide exposure by:

• • Requiring employers of farmworkers to report all pesticide-caused injuries to the EPA, with strong penalties for failure to report injuries or retaliating against workers;

• • Directing the EPA to review pesticide injury reports and work with the pesticide manufacturers to develop better labeling to prevent future injury;

• • Requiring that all pesticide label instructions be written in Spanish and in any language spoken by more than 500 pesticide applicators.

“America’s farmworkers and children are being sickened by dangerous pesticides, including many banned in other countries,” said J.W. Glass, an EPA policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Sen. Booker’s bill proposes common-sense solutions that target the most harmful pesticides and close egregious loopholes in pesticide law. They’ll ensure people’s health comes before the pesticide industry’s greed.”

“PACTPA represents a tremendous step toward fixing our broken pesticides laws and better protecting people and pollinators from toxic chemicals,” said Jason Davidson, senior food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “Congress must finally address egregious loopholes that have allowed dangerous pesticides to poison our communities and environment.”

In the context of  systemic, transformative change and in order to eliminate this toxic core, Congress must:

• Prohibit the registration and use of pesticides that do not meet these criteria:
  • Necessary to prevent harm to humans and the environment based on an analysis of all alternatives;
  • Cause no harm to humans and the environment; and
  • Protect against the existential crises of biodiversity collapse, runaway climate change, and chronic and acute health threats.
• Require all supporting data to be submitted and examined by the public before registration (including the elimination of conditional registration).
• Deny and cancel all pesticide registrations not supported by studies demonstrating a lack of endocrine-disrupting effects.
• Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to life in the soil—and hence threatening the climate.
• Deny and cancel registrations of all pesticides posing a threat to any endangered species.

At a time of increasing public health threats, biodiversity collapse, and climate crisis, it is critical to advance legislation that is truly protective of health and the environment. As the widespread success of natural, organic land care practices has shown, toxic pesticides are not needed to maintain agricultural productivity, beautiful landscapes, or quality of life.

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

Source: Senator Booker Press Release; Endorsements; Center for Biological Diversity press release

(Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2023) During Black History Month, it is of note that on January 10, the Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced funding of approximately $100 million for “projects that advance environmental justice in underserved and overburdened communities across the country” through its Environmental Justice Government-to-Government (EJG2G) program. While viewed as assistance for those communities “disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change,” it is important to recognize that the same communities are also disproportionately impacted by activities that produce pollution and climate change.

Tell EPA, Governors (Mayor in DC), and Congress to support environmental justice by eliminating activities leading to pollution and climate change.

EPA must reverse its historical bias against preventive action to ensure the protection of those disproportionately poisoned by toxic chemicals. While critically important to clean up contaminated communities, EPA must stop the flow of toxic pesticides at the front end because of the disproportionate poisoning effects of use, handling, transportation, and disposal. We live in an age of practices and products that make toxic pesticides unnecessary and their use unconscionable. Yet, EPA insists on the acceptability of harm (which it calls risk), despite its failure to (i) recognize comorbidities and preexisting health conditions, (ii) consider a combination of multiple chemical exposure interactions, and (iii) cite extensive missing health outcomes information (e.g., on endocrine disruption) and a resulting high level of uncertainty.

On the community level addressed by this funding project, EPA could assist communities to transition to organic land management. The EJG2G program must assist communities to manage local parks, playing fields, and greenways without unnecessary toxic pesticides.

 But EPA’s assistance must go beyond funding. EPA’s pesticide registration decisions promote contamination of communities where pesticides are manufactured, stored, used, and disposed of. By ignoring impacts of pesticides on soil health, EPA’s pesticide registration decisions promote the climate crisis. EPA’s pesticide program must incorporate in all of its registration decisions an analysis of impact on the climate crisis, with particular attention to the protection of soil health.

A recent report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country’s pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by EPA, while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers. EPA must eliminate systemic racism in its pesticide program.

Tell EPA, Governors (Mayor in DC), and Congress to support environmental justice by eliminating activities leading to pollution and climate change.

Letter to EPA:

During Black History Month, it is of note that 0n January 10, the Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced funding of approximately $100 million for “projects that advance environmental justice in underserved and overburdened communities across the country” through its Environmental Justice Government-to-Government (EJG2G) program. While viewed as assistance for those communities “disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change,” it is important to recognize that the same communities are also disproportionately impacted by activities that produce pollution and contribute significantly to the climate crisis.

EPA must reverse its historical bias against preventive action to ensure the protection of those disproportionately poisoned by toxic chemicals. While critically important to clean up contaminated communities, EPA must stop the flow of toxic pesticides at the front end because of the disproportionate poisoning effects of use, handling, transportation, and disposal. We live in an age of practices and products that make toxic pesticides unnecessary and their use unconscionable. Yet, EPA insists on the acceptability of harm (which it calls risk), despite its failure to (i) recognize comorbidities and preexisting health conditions, (ii) consider a combination of multiple chemical exposure interactions, and (iii) cite extensive missing health outcomes information (e.g., on endocrine disruption) and a resulting high level of uncertainty.

On the community level addressed by this funding project, EPA could assist communities to transition to organic land care. The EJG2G program must assist communities to manage local parks, playing fields, and greenways without unnecessary toxic pesticides.

 But EPA’s assistance must go beyond funding. EPA’s pesticide registration decisions promote contamination of communities where pesticides are manufactured, stored, used, and disposed of. By ignoring impacts of pesticides on soil health, EPA’s pesticide registration decisions promote climate change. EPA’s pesticide program must incorporate in all its registration decisions an analysis of impact on the climate crisis, with particular attention to the protection of soil health.

A recent report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country’s pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by EPA, while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers. EPA must eliminate systemic racism in its pesticide program.

Please show that EPA is serious about environmental justice by refocusing the pesticide program on eliminating serious consequences of pesticide policy and registration decisions.

Thank you.

Letter to Governor (Mayor of DC):

During Black History Month, it is of note that on January 10, the Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced funding of approximately $100 million for “projects that advance environmental justice in underserved and overburdened communities across the country” through its Environmental Justice Government-to-Government (EJG2G) program. While viewed as assistance for those communities “disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change,” it is important to recognize that the same communities are also disproportionately impacted by activities that produce pollution and contribute significantly to the climate crisis.

It is important to reverse the historical bias against preventive action to ensure the protection of those disproportionately poisoned by toxic chemicals. While critically important to clean up contaminated communities, EPA must stop the flow of toxic pesticides at the front end because of the disproportionate poisoning effects of use, handling, transportation, and disposal. We live in an age of practices and products that make toxic pesticides unnecessary and their use unconscionable. Yet, EPA insists on the acceptability of harm (which it calls risk), despite its failure to (i) recognize comorbidities and preexisting health conditions, (ii) consider a combination of multiple chemical exposure interactions, and (iii) cite extensive missing health outcomes information (e.g., on endocrine disruption) and a resulting high level of uncertainty.

On the community level addressed by this funding project, EPA could assist communities to transition to organic land care. The EJG2G program must assist communities to manage local parks, playing fields, and greenways without unnecessary toxic pesticides. I encourage you to request funding for transitioning to organic land care.

 But EPA’s assistance must go beyond funding. EPA’s pesticide registration decisions promote contamination of communities where pesticides are manufactured, stored, used, and disposed of. By ignoring impacts of pesticides on soil health, EPA’s pesticide registration decisions promote climate change. EPA’s pesticide program should incorporate in all its registration decisions an analysis of impact on the climate crisis, with particular attention to the protection of soil health.

A recent report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country’s pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by EPA, while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers. EPA must eliminate systemic racism in its pesticide program.

Please promote environmental justice in your communities by encouraging the transition to organic land management and purchasing organic food in all public institutions in the state.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

During Black History Month, it is of note that on January 10, the Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced funding of approximately $100 million for “projects that advance environmental justice in underserved and overburdened communities across the country” through its Environmental Justice Government-to-Government (EJG2G) program. While viewed as assistance for those communities “disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change,” it is important to recognize that the same communities are also disproportionately impacted by activities that produce pollution and contribute significantly to the climate crisis.

EPA must reverse its historical bias against preventive action to ensure the protection of those disproportionately poisoned by toxic chemicals. While critically important to clean up contaminated communities, EPA must stop the flow of toxic pesticides at the front end because of the disproportionate poisoning effects of use, handling, transportation, and disposal. We live in an age of practices and products that make toxic pesticides unnecessary and their use unconscionable. Yet, EPA insists on the acceptability of harm (which it calls risk), despite its failure to (i) recognize comorbidities and preexisting health conditions, (ii) consider a combination of multiple chemical exposure interactions, and (iii) cite extensive missing health outcomes information (e.g., on endocrine disruption) and a resulting high level of uncertainty.

On the community level addressed by this funding project, EPA could assist communities to transition to organic land care. The EJG2G program could assist communities to manage local parks, playing fields, and greenways without unnecessary toxic pesticides.

But EPA’s assistance must go beyond funding. EPA’s pesticide registration decisions promote contamination of communities where pesticides are manufactured, stored, used, and disposed of. By ignoring impacts of pesticides on soil health, EPA’s pesticide registration decisions promote climate change. EPA’s pesticide program must incorporate in all its registration decisions an analysis of impact on the climate crisis, with particular attention to the protection of soil health.

A recent report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country’s pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by EPA, while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers. EPA must eliminate systemic racism in its pesticide program.

Please ensure that EPA is serious about environmental justice by refocusing the pesticide program on eliminating serious consequences of pesticide policy and registration decisions.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 3, 2023) On January 26, California’s Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), and Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) announced a new “roadmap” for sustainable pest management (SPM). The plan is promoted by the agencies as an accelerator of the state’s commitment to transitioning away from “high-risk pesticides” and toward “adoption of safer, sustainable pest control practices,” and to eliminating “priority [high-risk] pesticides” by 2050. Although Sustainable Pest Management: A Roadmap for California obviously recognizes the state (and federal) failure of current pesticide policies and land management practices to restrict pesticides sufficiently, advocates say that even this plan does not “meet the moment.” Its relative ambition (compared to what most states are doing), still does not, according to those advancing transformative change, adequately address the current existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises.  With these crises being especially urgent, advocates identify meaningful change as the adoption of approaches predicated on ensuring healthy soil biology. This calls for the deployment of a plan for the wholesale transition to organic systems that eliminate all materials/inputs that are harmful to soil health, ecosystems, natural resources, and the health of humans and all living organisms.

The California roadmap was developed by a team of 33 people — 25 members of the Sustainable Pest Management Work Group and eight comprising the Urban Subgroup. The designation of the Urban Subgroup was a wise move, according to Beyond Pesticides, because although public perception is that “pesticides” are related to agriculture — and certainly agriculture is the central focus of much discussion about pesticides — the reality is that pesticide use in urban areas is real and not insignificant. In fact, studies have documented that the poundage of pesticide use per acre is often higher in nonagricultural areas, such as golf courses and lawns. These urban uses happen in residences, businesses, and institutions, and have been evidenced through studies that focus on wastewater, surface waters, and stormwater.

The plan defines SPM as an “evolution” of the IPM (Integrated Pest Management) concept — defined by the University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program (UCIPM) as an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage, using strategies such as habitat manipulation, biological controls, resistant plant varieties, and modified horticultural practices. But UCIPM goes on to add, “Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment.”

Beyond Pesticides has been critical of IPM as it has generally been executed in agriculture because IPM has largely failed to achieve the goals of its original conceit — significant reduction of synthetic pesticide use. Researchers on IPM have noted that over the decades since the inception of the IPM concept some 60 years ago, deployment of strategies has focused far more on reducing negative environmental impacts than on using ecological processes to replace chemical pesticides — an approach that would advance sustainability. Other factors mitigating against the original ideal have included: poor education of practitioners on the concept, multiple and competing definitions of IPM, lack of understanding of ecological concepts that were to underlie IPM, inadequate research and funding, and agrochemical industry lobbying against IPM programs.

The roadmap document describes SPM as a “a process of continual improvement that integrates an array of practices and products aimed at creating healthy, resilient ecosystems, farms, communities, cities, landscapes, homes, and gardens. SPM examines the interconnectedness of pest pressures, ecosystem health, and human wellbeing.” It identifies its goals as (1) eliminating the use of Priority Pesticides by transitioning to sustainable pest management practices, and (2) adopting SPM as the de facto pest management system in California, all by 2050. Beyond Pesticides considers 2050 far, far too late in the game for meaningful changes in the faces of the above-referenced crises.

Those Priority Pesticides are defined as “pesticide products, active ingredients, and groups of related products within the context of specific product uses or pest/location use combinations that have been deemed to be of greatest concern and warrant heightened attention, planning, and support to expedite their replacement and eventual elimination. The criteria for classifying pesticides as ‘Priority Pesticides’ includes . . . hazard and risk classifications, availability of effective alternative products or practices, and special consideration of pest management situations that potentially cause severe or widespread adverse impacts.”

The keystone actions the plan sets out are these:

• prioritize prevention of pest problems: prevent the establishment of new invasive pest species, and proactively eliminate pest-conducive conditions both in agricultural and urban settings
• coordinate state-level leadership: create an accountable and connected leadership structure to champion SPM in the field, effectively embed SPM principles across agencies, and improve coordination
• invest in building SPM knowledge through research and outreach, for both agricultural and urban sectors: invest in SPM-focused research and outreach so that all pest management practitioners have equal and adequate access to the support and resources necessary to develop and implement their own SPM system
• enhance health and environmental monitoring and data collection: expand and fully fund health and environmental monitoring infrastructure, data collection, and interpretation
• improve the state’s pesticide registration and continuous evaluation processes, and bring alternative products to market: create mechanisms to improve DPR’s registration review process and to prioritize and expedite safer, more sustainable alternative products to high-risk pesticides, and improve processes for evaluating currently registered pesticides

Those actions all sound great . . . until that last one, according to Beyond Pesticides. Improving a pesticide registration process is, in the view of Beyond Pesticides, somewhat akin to the storied rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks. As Executive Director Jay Feldman commented, “We are no longer in a period of environmental and health challenges, associated with chemical-intensive agriculture and land management, that permits us simply to ‘minimize reliance on the use of toxic pesticides.’ We must eliminate all petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers in the context of agricultural systems.”

He continued, “An example of good intentions gone awry is that the SPM document contains the word ‘fertilizer’ exactly once, and then only in reference to consolidation in the chemical input (synthetic pesticide and fertilizer) sector. And ‘soil fertility’ is mentioned just once — in a sidebar on expanding non-pesticidal methods. An SPM program that is a genuinely holistic response to multiple crises — health, climate, and biodiversity — must proscribe the currently ubiquitous use of synthetic fertilizers, as well as pesticides, in dominant, chemically intensive land management systems.” Use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers represents the antithesis of sound efforts to build biologically healthy soil — the basis of any truly sustainable agricultural pest management system.

To its credit, the SPM plan includes important aspects of a truly sustainable approach. It asserts (p. 16), “In agricultural settings, SPM is rooted in an agroecological approach that considers the whole farm as well as the wider landscape in which it sits. . . . The practices and products together aim to build healthy, pest-resilient agroecosystems that reduce the need for external inputs. Agricultural SPM takes a systems approach to pest prevention and management, while considering environmental health, social equity, and economic viability each step of the way. Therefore, SPM facilitates, where possible, an enhancement of the following co-benefits:

• improving soil health, water quality, use efficiency, and supply; air quality; and biodiversity
• advancing climate mitigation and adaptation
• increasing nutrient density in crops while maintaining yields
• improving land management practices
• improving farmer and farmworker working conditions
• increasing community health and well-being”

The roadmap also includes proposed robust efforts to bring alternative (presumably, non–synthetic chemical) pest control products to market. But the plan continues to rest on an underlying assumption that “pesticides are here to stay,” at least in the short and medium term. The SPM document includes a section on “SPM and Pesticides” (see p. 79) that asserts, “There will no doubt be times when all other pest management options have been exhausted, and still a significant pest pressure remains. . . . In these cases, pesticides may still be employed, so long as the intention is to apply these products in a targeted way, as needed in order to eradicate the pest(s) and continue with a holistic, integrated pest management approach that aims to build overall system health. Pesticides and pesticide-related uses include but are not limited to a. fumigants, b. repellents, c. use of seeds that have been treated with pesticides, d. antibiotics, e. herbicides, f. fungicides, g. insecticides.” That is a very large “escape hatch” to a pesticide path of least resistance for producers.

Additionally, the proposed SPM action, Improve California’s Pesticide Registration and Continuous Evaluation (p. 19), begins with a focus on a transition to lower-risk chemicals — which presumably include perhaps less-risky, but nonetheless, synthetic compounds for which there is insufficient evaluation by the state or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The roadmap asserts, “DPR must . . . improve its processes for evaluating currently registered pesticides.”

But if the historical record offers any instruction, this would be, at best, a long-term process, and would be fought against aggressively by the agrochemical industry. A plan that would respond to the urgency of the moment would forward the principles of organic, regenerative, agroecological approaches, rather than the SPM approach of tweaking a broken pesticide regulatory system in which chemicals are not adequately evaluated for efficacy or essentiality. A public comment period on the roadmap document is open until March 13; comments can be sent to [email protected].

It should be noted that reform of California’s pesticide registration system (as well as the national EPA registration system) would appropriately require an analysis of nontoxic alternatives. Yet, to address the current crises, reform must also — given the limitations of the current state of pesticide risk assessment, which fails to integrate the range of vulnerabilities in the human population, data gaps, untested health outcomes, exposures to pesticide mixtures and potential synergistic effects, and a range of other complexities that go unaddressed through testing protocols — require adoption of the Precautionary Principle, with its built-in protective ethos.

Beyond Pesticides asserts that there is an urgent imperative to re-create agricultural policy and practices on the scaffolding of organic systems, as defined in the 1990 U.S. Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Organic is a framework with a ban on synthetic fertilizers and a National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances that is required to be established and updated on a five-year cycle with a cradle-to-grave analysis of allowed substances. This system should be continually improved, and expanded to become the dominant approach to agricultural and other land management in the U.S.

Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman concludes, “Decades ago, I would have said that the SPM plan was a good start. But with today’s realities, I would have to call this a false start that does not embrace the true changes that are required for our times and the crises we face. Now is the time to transform our approach to agricultural and nonagricultural land management. We can stop using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers; we need a plan — based on precautionary, organic, and regenerative principles — to move us forward to that goal, and we need it ASAP.”

Sources: https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/sustainable_pest_management_roadmap/spm_roadmap.pdf and https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/sustainable_pest_management_roadmap/spm_executive_summary_web.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2023) Honey bee declines in the United States are “primarily related” to pesticide exposure, parasitic mites, and extreme weather conditions, research published by Penn State scientists have determined. Publishing the results in Scientific Reports, the researchers aim to provide a national overview of the range of factors harming bee colonies. “Some previous studies have explored several potential stressors related to colony loss in a detailed way but are limited to narrow, regional areas,” said study co-author Luca Insolia, PhD. “The one study that we know of at the national level in the United States explored only a single potential stressor. For this study, we integrated many large datasets at different spatial and temporal resolutions and used new, sophisticated statistical methods to assess several potential stressors associated with colony collapse across the U.S.” The results reinforce calls from bee health advocates in the U.S. and around the world: eliminate toxic pesticide use, the lowest hanging fruit contributing to pollinator declines.

In order to create a more comprehensive national overview, geographers, entomologists, and statisticians all participated in the study, reviewing publicly available data on colony health, land use, weather, and other environmental factors over a five-year period from 2015-2021. “In order to analyze the data all together, we had to come up with a technique to match the resolution of the various data sources,” said Martina Calovi, PhD corresponding author of the study, and researcher at Penn State. “We could have just taken an average of all the weather measurements we had within a state, but that boils all the information we have into one number and loses a lot of information, especially about any extreme values. In addition to averaging weather data, we used an ‘upscaling’ technique to summarize the data in several different ways, which allowed us to retain more information, including about the frequency of extreme temperature and precipitation events.”

Results show spacio-temporal trends that are perhaps unsurprising to many beekeepers, but could help inform better beekeeping practices. For instance, colony losses from mites are found to be highest in the first quarter of the year, and then increase again during the third and fourth quarter in all regions of the country except the southeast. This generally follows the life cycle of Varroa destructor, which beekeepers aim to manage to low levels in the fall; failure to adequately manage fall mite populations increases risk of failure throughout the winter.

To better determine the primary factors resulting in colony declines, researchers consider a range of features, including weather related information, land use, climatic regions, years and quarters, as well as several stressors, such as mites, other pests and parasites, diseases, and pesticides. These factors are then weighted for their impact on colony loss to determine the primary contributing factors.

Factors like the year or time of year played a smaller role than researchers expected. “Our results highlight the role of parasitic mites, pesticide exposure, extreme weather events, and overwintering in bee colony collapse. We hope that they will help inform improved beekeeping practices and direct future data collection efforts that allow us to understand the problem at finer and finer resolutions,” said Francesca Chiaromonte, PhD, coauthor and professor of statistics at Penn State.  

This is the latest study to begin to separate out the contributing factors to colony collapse at larger spatial levels. Research published by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists earlier this month found somewhat similar results when reviewing the factors owing to the decline of the western bumblebee, finding climate change and pesticides to be the primary culprit.  

While the Varroa destructor is a serious, ongoing honey bee pest, it is important to emphasize that varroa levels themselves, and a colony’s fitness against their attack is a function not only of mite management but pesticide use in a surrounding region. Research published in Scientific Reports finds that realistic exposure to systemic neonicotinoid pesticides that bees are likely to encounter in the wild impairs the ability of honey bees to groom mites off their bodies, likewise increasing risk of viral infection.

A broad transformation of the food system is necessary to change the course of pollinator health. This includes not only eliminating the use of pesticides to prevent their direct and indirect harm to pollinator populations, but also the elimination of fossil fuels that contribute to extreme weather and the further spread of pests and diseases. 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 need to take climate change seriously in the context of pesticide registrations sending a letter to EPA, USDA, and Congress today.

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

Source:Scientific Reports, PSU press release

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2023) A study published in Environment International concurs with previous reports that agricultural pesticide treatment can contaminate nearby residential areas, resulting in indoor chemical exposure via concentrations of insecticide active ingredients in house dust.

Pesticide contamination in homes has ties to higher levels of pesticide residue in both human and pet bodies. Some pesticides, like organochlorine compounds, have poor elimination from the body, leading to accumulation over a lifetime. Pesticide exposure can heighten risks of various cancers (i.e., prostate, hepatic, liver, etc.), mental health problems (i.e., depression), respiratory illnesses (asthma), endocrine disruption, and many other pesticide-induced diseases. Extensive pesticide use can predispose human pathogenic to antibiotic resistance, bolstering bacterial virulence. Studies like this are concerning as it reveals that individuals do not have to be in close contact (e.g., chemical manufacturers, farmworker, gardener, custodian, etc.) with pesticides for risky, health-harming exposures to occur.

Despite stricter regulations and technological changes beginning to decrease air pollution from cars and other vehicles, scientists are finding that the use of pesticides and other household chemicals represents an increasing proportion of U.S. smog-forming air pollution. Personal care products, cleaning agents, perfumes, paints, printing ink, and pesticides warrant greater attention from regulators for their ability to form toxic fumes that can eventually make their way indoors. Additionally, this research underscores the critical need for homeowners, farmers, and other chemical manufacturers to shift away from chemical use as a line of defense against further indoor air pollution to safeguard children’s health.

The study notes, “Our findings demonstrated the utility of GIS-based metrics for quantifying potential exposure to fugitive insecticide emissions from cultivated agriculture but indicated that associations with measured levels of insecticides in homes varies depending on buffer size (i.e., defined proximity) and the time elapsed between application and house dust collection.”

Researchers collected carpet-dust samples from 598 California homes to measure the concentration of nine insecticides: carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, diazinon, permethrin, azinphos-methyl, cyfluthrin, malathion, and phosmet. To compare the buffer zone between residential and agricultural areas, researched using the California Pesticide Use Reporting (CPUR) database, researchers estimated pesticide use within the buffer zone of agricultural and residential areas (buffer zone radii = 0.5 to 4 km[kilometer]). During the 30-, 60-, 180-, and 365-day periods, researchers evaluate the relationship between the density of pesticide use and the presence of pesticide dust concentration. Chlorpyrifos applications within one km to four km buffer results in one to two times higher dust concentrations during the 60 and 365-day metric, while carbaryl uses within two to four km of homes 3- to 7-times higher dust concentrations during day 60. For 60-day metrics, diazinon concentrations are two times higher for household dust within the two km buffer and within four km on windy days. Cyfluthrin, phosmet, and azinphos-methyl applications within 4 km have 2-, 6-, and 3-fold higher odds of detection in household dust, respectively.

Although chemical dependency in agriculture is contributing to air pollution, measurements drastically underestimate the impact on air pollution. For instance, nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution, usually associated with energy and combustion, is a significant contributor to air pollution through the use of fertilizer on crop fields. Additionally, structural fumigants like sulfuryl fluoride, used for insect (i.e., termites, bedbugs, cockroaches, etc.) fumigation treatments, increases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while further increasing air pollution. Pesticides can drift from treatment sites to non-target areas like residential areas, indirectly exposing humans, animals, and plants to varying concentrations of chemicals. Scientific studies find significant pesticide residues inside homes due to drift through the air and chemicals tracked in, where they contaminate air, dust, surfaces, and carpets. Although higher levels of pesticides in dust samples taken from homes close to agricultural activities demonstrates these chemicals drift and carry indoors, general pesticide uses in and around the home can also allow chemicals to remain indoors.

Additionally, regular household chemical use (e.g., disinfectants, insect repellants, rodent repellants) can exacerbate the levels of chemical toxins in indoor air, further decreasing quality. Household pesticide use over the last decade has generally shifted away from the use of older organophosphate chemistries to the use of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides. But this switch has not resulted in safer exposures; a growing body of literature is finding that synthetic pyrethroids can cause a range of adverse health impacts, particularly in children. Pesticide exposure at a young age can have far-reaching effects. In addition to motor skills and learning development, young boys exposed to synthetic pyrethroids are more likely to experience early onset of puberty.

Chronic inhalation of agriculture-related dust in occupational areas and in residential areas increases the incidence of airway inflammatory diseases, including asthma, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. The particulates in dust play a part in disease development, in addition to various microbiota that may be part of a dusty agricultural environment. Pesticide exposures can alter the gut microbiome, which mediates a significant portion of human immune response. Alterations in microbial composition and mechanism processes involved in respiratory pathologies disrupt the human microbiome (known as dysbiosis), exacerbating diseases like asthma and other respiratory diseases. Currently, there is a lack of treatment that can reverse respiratory diseases arising from chronic agricultural dust exposures in and outside the home. The study concludes, “Our findings suggest inclusion of wind enhanced prediction for some, but not all insecticides studied. Taken together, our results imply that GIS-based exposure metrics used in epidemiologic studies should be tailored to the fate and transport characteristics of each insecticide.”

Current laws do not adequately protect local residents from toxic pesticide exposure from farms, mosquito control operations, and other sources of chemical exposure. Oftentimes, it can be difficult for individuals to obtain basic information about the pesticides sprayed near their homes and schools their children attend. As a respiratory pandemic continues to spread (COVID-19), it is critical that individuals avoid environmental factors that weaken individual immune systems, if possible. While personal protective measures are important, residents throughout the U.S. are encouraged to engage with their elected officials to rein in toxic pesticide use in their community. Through collective action, we can stop the regular use of hazardous, lung-harming pesticides in homes, on farms, and in mosquito management. Reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450 for assistance with your local advocacy efforts.

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

Source: Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, January 31, 2023) Glyphosate exposure induces oxidative stress in the body, a key biomarker known to heighten an individual’s risk of cancer, according to research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute by a team of scientists from the National Institutes of Health. The findings, which tracked study participants’ past use of glyphosate and exposure levels through urine, are particularly concerning in light of recent data showing that four out of five (81.6%) U.S. residents have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies. Despite these concerning data, evidence of widespread exposure to a carcinogen has so far failed to sway regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, necessitating meaningful change by elected officials to reform pesticide regulation.

Scientists began with the determination from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that there is epidemiological evidence associating glyphosate with blood cancers like non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and strong evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory animal research brought on by genotoxicity (DNA damage) and oxidative stress. “Oxidative stress occurs when the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and other free radicals exceeds the body’s antioxidant defense mechanisms, causing damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids,” the study explains. This process can occur naturally through age, but also because of exposure to external stressors like pesticides and other chemicals. Oxidative stress is likewise known to be associated with the development of blood cancers.

To better understand the risk borne by farmers, applicators, and the general public, researchers studied a cohort of individuals enrolled in the Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect in Agriculture (BEEA) study, part of the long-running U.S. Agricultural Health Study, which tracks how agricultural, lifestyle, and genetic factors affect the health of farming communities. A total of 369 BEEA participants took part, and four subgroups were established, determined by their reported glyphosate use. The first group included farmers that had used glyphosate within the week before urine collection; the second included farmers with the highest reported lifetime exposure to glyphosate, but had not used the chemical within the last week; the third included farmer controls with little to no occupational glyphosate use; and the fourth group included non-farming controls with no home or garden use of glyphosate within the last week. The urine of each of these groups were collected and tested for the presence of oxidative stress biomarkers. Variables such as age, lifestyle, and other pesticide use were incorporated and adjusted for.

Farmers using glyphosate within the prior week had the highest urinary glyphosate levels, with rates falling from lifetime exposed farmers, to farming and nonfarming controls. Concentrations of oxidative stress biomarkers rose alongside increasing urinary glyphosate levels. Oxidative stress levels were elevated among farmers with recent and high lifetime use of glyphosate.

Researchers note that a single previous study of Greek farmers found similar results with the biomarker 8-OHdG, showing those that recently sprayed glyphosate with the highest concentrations. “Given that 8-OHdG reflects oxidative stress-induced DNA damage, our findings for 8-OHdG also support the genotoxic potential of glyphosate in humans and strengthen existing evidence from studies that have reported associations between glyphosate exposure and increased DNA damage, assessed as DNA strand breaks or micronucleus formation,” the study explains.

While recent exposure appears to display the greatest evidence of oxidative stress, the study did find evidence that long-term exposure is likewise associated with this dangerous process, which can lead to the development of cancer. This adds considerable weight to the arguments put forth by the individuals suing Bayer over their cancer diagnosis, as the aggrieved cite long-term use as part of their legal challenge.  

In addition to blood cancer, there is evidence that glyphosate may prime breast cells for the development of cancer when combined with other oxidative stressors. “Showing that glyphosate can trigger tumor growth, when combined with another frequently observed risk, is an important missing link when it comes to determining what causes cancer,” Sophie Lelièvre, PhD, professor of cancer pharmacology in Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine indicated.

Beyond cancers, glyphosate-induced oxidative stress has also been implicated as the reason why high exposure to the chemical is associated with shorter pregnancy length and pre-term births.  

Despite glyphosate being nearly ubiquitous in the environment, the best way to lower levels and reduce risk of oxidative stress brought on by glyphosate exposure is to go organic. Multiple studies have shown that switching to an organic diet will reduce one’s urinary concentration of glyphosate and other toxic pesticides. Evidence shows that even eating a healthy, Mediterranean diet falls short on health benefits unless the food is organic and devoid of toxic synthetic pesticide sprays.

While individuals can go organic, we must collectively address the systems that perpetuate the use of glyphosate, and harm the farmers and farmworkers that grow our food, as well as the individuals who may casually purchase and apply toxic pesticides to their yard and garden without consideration. Glyphosate, and other toxic pesticides like it, have viable alternatives that can readily replace their use on both farms and landscapes. Help build the political will to take action by urging the Biden Administration, EPA, and Congress to adopt a new direction on pesticide regulation that challenges the so called “benefits” of pesticides, protects workers and children, and safeguards pollinators and broader biodiversity.

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

Source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

(Beyond Pesticides, January 30, 2023) Because antibiotics and fungicides are widely used in agriculture (except organic), they contribute significantly to the increasing efficacy problems with antimicrobial (antibiotic and antifungal medicines) use in health care, contributing to a growing crisis. According to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, World Health Organization Director-General, “Antimicrobial resistance undermines modern medicine and puts millions of lives at risk.”  Microorganisms—including bacteria, fungi, and viruses—are notoriously quick to evolve resistance to antimicrobial medicines. We know that selection for resistance is directly related to the frequency and intensity of antimicrobial use, so medical practitioners try to avoid using those medicines unless they are necessary.

Tell EPA to cancel all uses of a pesticide when resistance is discovered or predicted to occur. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA protects public health from deadly antifungal and antibiotic resistance.

Unfortunately, the medical profession lacks complete control over the use of antimicrobials. Many of the same chemicals used in human medicine are also used in agriculture. These may show up in or on treated food, but can also spread antimicrobial resistance through horizontal gene transfer. So, in addition to ingesting antibiotics in our food, the movement of resistant bacteria and fungi in the environment contribute to this escalating crisis.

Oral arguments began last week in a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of the antibiotic streptomycin as a pesticide on citrus crops. Brought forth by a coalition of farmworker, health, and environmental groups, the lawsuit aims to stop the use of a critical medical treatment for agricultural purposes. Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman commented on the filing of the lawsuit: “It is past time to take urgent action to transition away from practices in agriculture that are dependent on antibiotics, advance organic farm management, and avoid new deadly pandemics. This lawsuit is an important action to reverse the previous administration’s decision to ignore the science and allow expanded use of an antibiotic in agriculture.”

 Not all antimicrobial pesticides are registered for their antimicrobial action. For example, the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba are able to create resistance in Salmonella and E. coli. From another health perspective, antimicrobial pesticides may negatively affect the gut microbiome, which is essential for human nutrition and immune system function. EPA must cease registration of pesticides with antimicrobial effects (or potential antimicrobial effects) in human pathogens or beneficial human microbiota.

Tell EPA to cancel all uses of a pesticide when resistance is discovered or predicted to occur. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA protects public health from deadly antifungal and antibiotic resistance.

Letter to EPA

Because antibiotics and fungicides registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are widely used in agriculture (except organic), they contribute significantly to the increasing efficacy problems with antimicrobial (antibiotic and antifungal medicines) use in health care, contributing to a growing crisis. According to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, World Health Organization Director-General, “Antimicrobial resistance undermines modern medicine and puts millions of lives at risk. ”Microorganisms—including bacteria, fungi, and viruses—are notoriously quick to evolve resistance to antimicrobial medicines. We know that selection for resistance is directly related to the frequency and intensity of antimicrobial use, so medical practitioners try to avoid using those medicines unless they are necessary.

Unfortunately, the medical profession lacks complete control over the use of antimicrobials. Many of the same chemicals used in human medicine are also used in agriculture. These may show up in or on treated food, but can also spread antimicrobial resistance through horizontal gene transfer.

Meanwhile, litigation appears to be necessary to focus EPA on its responsibility to protect public health in the face of a growing crisis of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). As you know, oral arguments began last week in a lawsuit challenging the agency’s approval of the antibiotic streptomycin as a pesticide on citrus crops. Brought forth by a coalition of farmworker, health, and environmental groups, the lawsuit aims to stop the use of a critical medical treatment for agricultural purposes. Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman commented on the filing of the lawsuit: “It is past time to take urgent action to transition away from practices in agriculture that are dependent on antibiotics, advance organic farm management, and avoid new deadly pandemics. This lawsuit is an important action to reverse the previous administration’s decision to ignore the science and allow expanded use of an antibiotic in agriculture.” The good news is that we can grow crops without these chemicals with organic production systems, even in Florida on citrus, where organic citrus production is productive and profitable.

 Not all antimicrobial pesticides are registered for their antimicrobial action, which does not release EPA from its responsibility to assess their contribution to the escalating AMR problem. For example, the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba can create resistance in Salmonella and E. coli. From another health perspective, antimicrobial pesticides may negatively affect the gut microbiome, which is essential for human nutrition and immune system function.

EPA must cease registration of pesticides with antimicrobial effects (or potential antimicrobial effects) in human pathogens or beneficial human microbiota. Their continued use and associated hazards are “unreasonable” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Please do the right thing and uphold EPA’s responsibility to protect public health.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative

Because antibiotics and fungicides registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are widely used in agriculture (except organic), they contribute significantly to the increasing efficacy problems with antimicrobial (antibiotic and antifungal medicines) use in health care, contributing to a growing crisis. According to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, World Health Organization Director-General, “Antimicrobial resistance undermines modern medicine and puts millions of lives at risk. Microorganisms—including bacteria, fungi, and viruses—are notoriously quick to evolve resistance to antimicrobial medicines. We know that selection for resistance is directly related to the frequency and intensity of antimicrobial use, so medical practitioners try to avoid using those medicines unless they are necessary.

Unfortunately, the medical profession lacks complete control over the use of antimicrobials. Many of the same chemicals used in human medicine are also used in agriculture. These may show up in or on treated food, but can also spread antimicrobial resistance through horizontal gene transfer.

Meanwhile, litigation appears to be necessary to focus EPA on its responsibility to protect public health in the face of a growing crisis of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). As you may know, oral arguments began last week in a lawsuit challenging EPA’s approval of the antibiotic streptomycin as a pesticide on citrus crops. Brought forth by a coalition of farmworker, health, and environmental groups, the lawsuit aims to stop the use of a critical medical treatment for agricultural purposes. Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman commented on the filing of the lawsuit: “It is past time to take urgent action to transition away from practices in agriculture that are dependent on antibiotics, advance organic farm management, and avoid new deadly pandemics. This lawsuit is an important action to reverse the previous administration’s decision to ignore the science and allow expanded use of an antibiotic in agriculture.” The good news is that we can grow crops without these chemicals with organic production systems, even in Florida on citrus, where organic citrus production is productive and profitable.

 Not all antimicrobial pesticides are registered for their antimicrobial action. For example, the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba can create resistance in Salmonella and E. coli. From another health perspective, antimicrobial pesticides may negatively affect the gut microbiome, which is essential for human nutrition and immune system function.

Please co-sponsor and support S. 3291 (Strategies To Address Antibiotic Resistance Act or the STAAR Act), which is expected to be reintroduced in the 118^th Congress and will help ensure that antimicrobial resistance is monitored. Additionally, please ensure that EPA cease registration of pesticides with antimicrobial effects (or potential antimicrobial effects) in human pathogens or beneficial human microbiota. Their continued use and associated hazards are “unreasonable” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 27, 2023) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), announced on January 19 its final rulemaking, the Strengthening Organic Enforcement Rule (SOE). The new requirements aim to strengthen the integrity of the National Organic Program (NOP) through both enhanced oversight and enforcement of existing program regulations, and the introduction of new ones to address occurrences of fraud in organic supply chains. Beyond Pesticides welcomes this important step in increased rigor for the burgeoning organic sector; the organization has long advocated for strong enforcement of the provisions of the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), the statute that gave rise to the NOP.

It must also be noted that there is a significant difference between the (appropriate) attention being paid to oversight and enforcement in organic, and the long-standing lack of same in regard to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) pesticide regulations, weak as they are. Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman commented, “It is difficult to have a balanced conversation about any weaknesses in organic enforcement — which must be strengthened — without assessing the entire food system. The NOP provides the structure and the requirements for compliance with the OFPA. Not only does this far surpass anything that exists in the chemical-intensive food production sector, but also, advocates, government, and members of the agricultural community work continually to improve it. We must work to ensure that people can trust the USDA organic label, and know that the system is ‘wired’ to ensure its integrity.” To this end, those working in organic, believing in continuous improvement, have indicated that there must be vigilance in oversight and enforcement, as captured by Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of a 2010 USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report.

To the point about lack of rigor in the regulation and enforcement of conventional (chemical) agriculture: the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly identified flaws in federal oversight and enforcement related to pesticide restrictions, starting more than 40 years ago. See Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of an EPA Office of the Inspector General’s report on the agency’s inefficacy. Other coverage has included this report by Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program in 2020, and coverage of (1) a 2021 GAO report on poor protection of farmworkers from pesticides, (2) a GAO report on EPA’s “conditional” registrations practice, and (3) another GAO report finding that EPA “does not have sufficient chemical assessment information to determine whether it should establish controls to limit public exposure to many chemicals that may pose substantial health risks.”

The Federal Register publication of the SOE (which will be effective March 20, 2023) asserts that the rulemaking is designed to “strengthen oversight and enforcement of the production, handling, and sale of organic agricultural products. The amendments protect integrity in the organic supply chain and build consumer and industry trust in the USDA organic label by strengthening organic control systems, improving farm to market traceability, and providing robust enforcement of the USDA organic regulations.” The Washington Post reporting notes, “Key updates to the rules include requiring certification of more of the businesses, such as brokers and traders, at critical links in organic supply chains. It also requires organic certificates for all organic imports and increases inspections and reporting requirements of certified operations.”

Even deeper into the weeds, the AMS announcement includes a list of specific topics addressed: “applicability of the regulations and exemptions from organic certification; National Organic Program Import Certificates; recordkeeping and product traceability; certifying agent personnel qualifications and training; standardized certificates of organic operation; unannounced on-site inspections of certified operations; oversight of certification activities; foreign conformity assessment systems; certification of producer group operations; labeling of nonretail containers; annual update requirements for certified operations; compliance and appeals processes; and calculating organic content of multi-ingredient products.”

This new rulemaking finalizes the draft version proffered by USDA in 2020. USDA has taken some small steps to improve enforcement of the NOP requirements, including, for example, a memo to “put a stop to the practice of allowing organic certification for container systems produced on land managed with substances, such as the herbicide glyphosate, which are not permitted in organic production.”

Chief Executive of the Organic Trade Association, Tom Chapman, remarked that the new rulemaking represents “the single largest revision to the organic standards since they were published in 1990,” adding that it should help boost confidence in the organic label. According to The Washington Post, Mr. Chapman indicated that the move “raises the bar to prevent bad actors at any point in the supply chain.”

Executive Director of the National Organic Coalition, Abby Youngblood, commented that the organization “applauds the USDA for their sustained work to bring this rule to completion. Organic producers’ livelihoods depend on strong and consistent enforcement of organic regulations. For more than a decade, operations have been undercut by fraudulent products that have no business carrying the organic seal. NOC strongly supports provisions in this rule that will give USDA and certification agencies more authority to crack down on bad actors.”

Recent high-profile cases of “organic fraud” have brought increased attention to the issue of producers representing their products (e.g., non-organic grain, dairy, meat, or produce) as organic, and typically harvesting an undue premium price for the scheme. More recently, others in the organic supply chain have entered the fraudulent arena. And as the sector has grown, some “food manufacturers” source ingredients from abroad, which makes it more challenging to assure that such items are legitimately organic. Domestic producers recognize, and voice, that enabling such companies to market their products as organic — absent better oversight and enforcement — undermines trust in the label and makes a distinctly uneven playing field for “genuine Certified Organic” vs. “faux-organic.”

Both The Washington Post in 2017 and The New Yorker in 2021 covered such incidents. (That first article covers a shipment of soybeans from Ukraine, via Turkey, to California, during which trip the beans were miraculously transformed from conventionally grown/treated with pesticides, to “organic.”) Beyond Pesticides wrote an article in response to the somewhat “organic skeptical” coverage in The New Yorker article, “The Great Organic Food Fraud,” in which it was explained how the NOP operates, and provided fuller context for thinking about fraud in the organic sector, given the state of conventional, chemical-intensive agriculture and the massive harms it inflicts on public health and the environment.

Last year, a Minnesota farmer was federally indicted for fraud because of his scheme to sell what he claimed were organically grown grains — but were not, according to the FBI — to buyers in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. He netted some $46 million from those sales. A co-conspirator farmer in the case has also been charged in the scheme. Another example is that of several individuals and entities (out of Dubai and Turkey) being charged by the U.S. Department of Justice in the District of Maryland for a 2015–2017 multimillion-dollar scheme to export non-organic grain into the U.S. to be sold as Certified Organic.

Some in the organic sector note that the increased demand for organically produced foods in recent years may be contributing to the increase in such cases. The MinnPost writes, “The booming organic produce market is worth at least $63 billion per year. Increasing demands for organic grains have raised their prices to double or even triple the cost of grains grown conventionally with synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. But for those who purchase grain, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to tell organic grain from non-organic grain, making fraud hard to detect and prosecute. And the temptation to sell crops at a much higher price is difficult for some to resist.” USDA has indicated, according to MinnPost, that the growth of the organic industry, for example, “has attracted many businesses to the USDA organic label and increased the complexity of global organic supply chains,” perhaps overwhelming the capacity of organic industry watchdogs.

USDA said in its press release on the new rule, “Complexity makes oversight and enforcement of the organic supply chains difficult because organic products are credence goods, which means that their organic attributes, or ‘integrity,’ cannot be easily verified by consumers or businesses who buy organic products for use or resale. The elements needed to guarantee organic integrity — transparent supply chains, trusted interactions between businesses, and mechanisms to verify product legitimacy — are more difficult to achieve in the increasingly complex modern organic industry.” This reality explains the importance of “eternal vigilance” on the part of federal regulators, and evolution of the NOP to respond to the dynamism of the organic sector.

Representative Chellie Pingree (D) of Maine welcomes the new SOE regulations, saying in a statement from her office, “When rule-breakers cheat the system, it sows seeds of doubt about the organic label’s integrity and jeopardizes the future of the industry as a whole. As a longtime organic farmer, I know how expensive and time consuming it is to adhere to the required standards to earn a USDA [C]ertified [O]rganic label. It’s been a long wait, but I am pleased that the USDA and the Biden Administration are publishing a final rule that works to help consumers trust that the food they’re paying for was actually farmed in a way that supports soil health, minimizes synthetic material usage, and strengthens biodiversity, as the organic label suggests. Equally importantly, it is critical that farmers who comply with the rigorous certification standards are not losing sales to fraudulent growers, suppliers, or importers.”

Beyond Pesticides is among the most ardent of voices for organic integrity, as evidenced by the organization’s consistent urging of steps to protect it. (For more, see here, here, here, and the organization’s webpage, Keeping Organic Strong.) Beyond Pesticides recognizes that protecting and improving the organic sector is an ongoing project, and is hopeful that the new rule will make meaningful differences in NOP oversight and enforcement — bolstering trust of the Certified Organic designation and label by the public and, indeed, by elements of the organic supply chain itself. Advocates for organic integrity look forward to the improvements this SOE is designed to launch, will pay attention to its impacts on the organic sector, and continue to encourage public engagement with keeping organic strong.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/01/19/usda-rule-organic-fraud/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 26, 2023) A study published in Food Safety and Toxicology finds that the widely used fungicide azoxystrobin (AZO), used in food production and turf management, can disrupt the function of the intestinal (colonic) barrier responsible for the absorption of nutrients and defense against harmful substances. This and other similar data are important because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with its required pesticide testing protocol, says that the chemical has “low acute and chronic toxicity to humans, birds, mammals, and bees,” and speaks to the need for the agency to modernize its registration requirements. [The agency does note that AZO is “is highly toxic to freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, and estuarine/marine fish, and very highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates.]

AZO is a broad-spectrum chemical used in wheat, barley, oats, rye, soya, cotton, rice, strawberry, peas, beans, onions, and a long list of other vegetables, as well as on lawns and golf courses, on a range of fungal diseases. The intestinal (colonic) barrier prevents the internal environment from damage caused by exogenous toxins to ensure internal homeostasis, impeding incidences of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS).

The intestines host a group of microorganisms that form the gut microbiome. These microorganisms, including bacteria, archaea, viruses, and fungi, play a crucial role in digestion, bodily function, detoxification, and immune and central nervous system regulation. Ample evidence demonstrates environmental contaminants like pesticides negatively affect gut microbes. Through the gut biome, pesticide exposure can enhance or exacerbate the adverse effects of additional environmental toxicants on the body. Studies even find low levels of pesticide exposure during pregnancy or childhood cause adverse health effects, including metabolic disorders tied to gut microbiome disruption (dysbiosis).

Although studies show how chemical exposures affect overall human health, a growing body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is now questioning how these toxic chemicals influence gut health and the subsequent occurrence of diseases. The study notes, “The results of this study will strongly support new insights that the gut microbiota can be a key target of the health effects of pesticide exposure.”

Researchers divided 36 male mice into three treatment groups of 12: the control group with deionized water, low dose of azoxystrobin (L-AZO) in deionized water, a high dose of azoxystrobin (H-AZO) in deionized water. After a week of treatment, the researchers collected microbial contents from the colons of each group for transplantation into donor mice. Researchers orally administered the collected microbiota to donor mice to determine the correlations between the presence of these biota, metabolites of gut contents, and traits associated with colonic barrier function. The results reveal AZO exposure altered the metabolic profile of microbes in the gut, inducing gut dysbiosis, leading to structural damage of the colon and colonic inflammatory response. Although the L-AZO treatment group experiences no changes in body weight compared to the control group, the H-AZO treatment group has significantly reduced body weight and weight gain.

A gut microbiome is a group of microorganisms, including bacteria, archaea, viruses, and fungi, that plays a crucial role in digestion, bodily function, detoxification, and immune and central nervous system regulation. The gut, also known as the “second brain,” shares similar structural and chemical parallels to the brain. The microbiota in the gut plays a crucial role in lifelong digestion, immune and central nervous system regulation, as well as other bodily functions.

Through the gut biome, pesticide exposure can enhance or exacerbate the adverse effects of additional environmental toxicants on the body. Since the gut microbiome shapes metabolism, it can mediate some toxic effects of environmental chemicals. However, with prolonged exposure to various environmental contaminants, critical chemical-induced changes may occur in the gut microbes, influencing adverse health outcomes.

The impacts of pesticides on the human gut microbiome represent another pesticide assault on human health. Because the biome harbors between 10 and 100 trillion symbiotic microbes, pesticide exposure has effects on some of those bacteria. The human gastrointestinal tract and its digestive processes (a.k.a., the “gut”) mediate the function of several systems. Dysfunction of the gut microbiome is associated with a host of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, some cancers, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, asthma, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as allergies, autism, depression, obesity, and other disorders or syndromes.

This study is the first to demonstrate AZO’s effect on colonic barrier function in mammals which is the first barrier of the host against exogenous (external) pollutants. AZO’s effect on the gut results in changes in the tight junctions of intestinal epithelial cells and the integrity of the intestinal barrier for protection. Additionally, AZO exposure alters the ability of gut bacteria to break down proteins, fats, carbohydrates, or other macronutrients into residual metabolites, which constitute the metabolic profile. For instance, gut bacteria break down fatty acid chains into dietary fibers, a process essential in modulating the immune system, gene expression, and cell multiplying, among others.

AZO is far from the only pesticide linked with the growing global metabolic disorder incidence rates over the past few decades. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds (e.g., detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides, etc.) as endocrine disruptors associated with notorious metabolic disorders like diabetes/obesity that can span generations. However, endocrine disruption is the mechanism for several adverse health endpoints, interacting with the body’s hormone system and affecting the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of both animals and humans. 

To improve and sustain gut microbiome health, the use of toxic pesticides must end. Beyond Pesticides challenges the registration of toxic chemicals due to their impacts on soil, air, water, and health. Instead, emphasis on converting to regenerative-organic systems and using least-toxic pest control to mitigate harmful exposure to pesticides, restore soil health, and reduce carbon emissions, should be the main focus. Public policy must advance this shift rather than allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides. Moreover, purchasing organic food when possible can help curb exposure and adverse health effects. Beyond Pesticides holds that safer alternatives are available, and organic practices can protect public health and the environment. In addition to positive impacts on the human microbiome, organically grown food (e.g., milk, meat, strawberries, tomatoes, and a range of other foods) contain a much more diverse bacterial community than their chemical-intensively grown counterparts.

Learn more about soil and gut microbiota and their importance via Beyond Pesticide’s Pesticide and You Journal article, “Sustaining Life From Soil Microbiota to Gut Microbiome.” Additionally, learn more about how pesticides affect human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, which supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. 

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

Source: Food Safety and Toxicology