(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2023) High concentrations of fully intact, never broken down DDT remain on the California seafloor decades after it was dumped off its southern coast in the middle of the 20^th century. “We still see original DDT on the seafloor from 50, 60, 70 years ago, which tells us that it’s not breaking down the way that [we] once thought it should,” University of California Santa Barbara scientist David Valentine, PhD, told the Los Angeles Times. “And what we’re seeing now is that there is DDT that has ended up all over the place, not just within this tight little circle on a map that we referred to as Dumpsite Two.”

These findings underscore the enormity of legal and regulatory decisions to approve production of hazardous chemicals. While many may believe the legacy of DDT ended with its ban in the early 1970s, the California findings raise a deeper problem not only with U.S. chemical policy, but also the response from well-meaning environmental nonprofits that continues to play out to this day. As many in the environmental community invest tremendous resources in seeking to ban problematic pesticides or chemicals of the day after the contamination has occurred (DDT being a prime example), the associated challenges of time, cost, and limited success, point to the critical need for environmental laws to assess the full life-cycle (manufacture, transportation, storage, use, and disposal) of a chemical’s potential poisoning and contamination before coming to market. Advocates maintain that this front-end analysis must prevent the allowance of toxic substances in light of the availability of nontoxic practices and products. 

In 2000, a legal fight alerted the world to the fact that Montrose Chemical Corp, the main manufacturer of DDT throughout the mid-20^th century, had dumped over 100 tons of DDT into the Los Angeles sewer system, contaminating the Palos Verdes Shelf along the coast. While a plan was set in place for this location, effectively no attention was given to evidence from shipping logs that, after WW2, DDT was regularly loaded onto barges and dumped in massive quantities a few miles out to sea. In 2020, this stockpile was rediscovered, discovered by Dr. Valentine on a hunch as he set out to study other aspects of the sea floor.

Research published last year finds that this massive stockpile has hampered wildlife recovery efforts of along coastal California. Dolphins, sea lions, other marine mammals, and the iconic California condor have all been found burdened with contamination from DDT and related compounds. In total, these animals recorded an astounding 415 different chemicals in their bodies. Critically, condors that spend their time along the coast contain seven times more DDT in their blood than findings from inland condors. This contamination places us back at square one, with reports as far back as 2006 showing thinning eggshells within condor nests.

The recent findings have generated interest from the federal government, which has put over $10 million into further researching the extent of the contamination. The finding are a Pandora’s box of revelations. The dump site is shockingly larger than initially assumed, and is not limited to DDT. As John Lyons, acting deputy director of the EPA’s Region 9 Superfund Division, told the Los Angeles Times, “When the DDT was dumped, it is highly likely that other materials — either from the tanks on the barges, or barrels being pushed over the side of the barges — would have been disposed at the same time.” For the DDT itself, evidence suggests that it is concentrated in a layer that is a mere two and a quarter inches below the surface of the sea floor, meaning that any disturbance effectively has the ability to generate contamination. According to the Los Angeles Times, researchers could not even retrieve a ‘control’ sample from the ocean floor as it came up contaminated with DDT.

Place these findings in the context of an understanding that the campaign to ban DDT was successful. With these data the only response can be an attempt to contain further damage. But it is critical that from these events we learn and apply lessons for future fights against toxic pesticides. It is not enough to merely ban a pesticide. To this day, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s answer to eliminating the remaining stocks of a banned pesticide is to use it up before the ban takes effect. In other words, remaining barrels are not dumped in a specific location but diluted throughout the nation and world.

For example, even with the known, Stockholm Convention-banned wood preservative pesticide pentachlorophenol, U.S. regulations banning the chemical provide a generous five-year phase-out to allow for the use of remaining stocks. Although this material is on its way out after decades of poisoning and contamination, over the course of its lifecycle it has created numerous Superfund sites that have harmed generations of families and continues to this day. Moreover, this decision makes little impact on the broader wood preservative industry, which can continue to manufacture wood products coated with materials like copper chromium arsenate or creosote, another chemical that has a multigenerational legacy of harm.  

While eliminating ongoing damage and immediate threats are critical aspects of environmental work, the environmental community must shift its focus to demanding the reframing of environmental law to address the full life-cycle of a chemical’s poisoning and contamination. Beyond Pesticides has long sought for the adoption of alternatives assessments in the pesticide registration process. With this approach, the precautionary principle is embraced, and if nonchemical or less toxic alternatives are currently available for a proposed new chemistry, that material will not be registered. In order to safeguard health and the environment now and for future generations, it is critical to seek and pass laws with a shelf-life as long as the toxicological activity of the materials it regulates. By embracing living laws and regulations that stop the production of toxic pesticides at the source, we can avoid burdening future generators with the same hazardous legacy we must now confront.  

For more information on Beyond Pesticides priorities for federal pesticide reform, and to join us in seeking these reforms, see the article “Groups Tell EPA’s Pesticide Program It’s a Failure, Call for Immediate Reforms.”

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

Source: Los Angeles Times

Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2023) In a move labeled “risk mitigation”—that is, mitigation of the risk to its shareholders—Bayer-Monsanto announced in 2021 that it would phase out Roundup™ products containing glyphosate for the residential lawn and garden market as of January 2023. In taking this action, Bayer-Monsanto is making no admissions, and glyphosate products will still be available to farmers. However, Lowe’s and Home Depot are still selling the glyphosate-based lawn and garden products.

Tell Lowe’s and Home Depot to eliminate Roundup™ and other toxic pesticides, promote organic practices, and sell organic compatible products. 

In fact, since this is a voluntary reformulation, and Bayer-Monsanto has decided its own timing, the company cannot be held accountable to anything. The company could change its mind, and stores can continue to sell the glyphosate-based products as long as they want. And keep in mind that replacement versions of Roundup™ products are also toxic. Roundup® Dual Action, for example, contains the following active ingredients: triethylamine salt of triclopyr, fluazipop-P-butyl, diquat dibromide, and ammonium salt of imazapic.

Thus, Bayer/Monsanto announces that it is changing the formulation of Roundup and moving away from glyphosate, while continuing to sell Roundup™ products formulated both with and without glyphosate—leaving consumers unaware of their risks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not taken any meaningful action to restrict glyphosate, and so we continue to see the threats to people and ecosystems associated with the chemical’s use. Of course, some of those who have been harmed by Roundup have secured large jury verdicts against Bayer-Monsanto for the harm inflicted and the Supreme Court, in failing to take an appeal from Bayer-Monsanto has upheld those jury verdicts. But glyphosate is the tip of the iceberg in a sea of toxic pesticides that have no place in our society. We know, for instance, that neonicotinoid insecticides have indiscriminately harmed pollinators, birds, and living organisms (terrestrial and aquatic) that are crucial to ecosystems that support life.

So, the alternative is to fiercely advance organic practices and hold responsible corporations to do the same. To do otherwise is to ignore the existential threat that petrochemical pesticides pose to health, biodiversity, and climate.

Tell Lowe’s and Home Depot to eliminate Roundup™ and other toxic pesticides, promote organic practices, and sell organic compatible products.

Letter to Lowe’s and Home Depot

In a move labeled “risk mitigation” — that is, mitigation of the risk to its shareholders — Bayer-Monsanto announced in 2021 that it would phase out Roundup™ products containing glyphosate for the residential lawn and garden market as of January 2023. In taking this action, Bayer-Monsanto is making no admissions. Lawn and garden glyphosate products will still be available if companies like yours sell it and until supplies are exhausted.

My understanding is that your stores still sell glyphosate-based lawn and garden products. As you know, Bayer-Monsanto’s decision on Roundup is a voluntary reformulation, and therefore the company has decided its own timing. I do not think that the continued sale of Roundup is responsible corporate behavior.

Please know that replacement versions of Roundup™ products are also toxic. Roundup® Dual Action, for example, contains the following active ingredients: triethylamine salt of triclopyr, fluazipop-P-butyl, diquat dibromide, and ammonium salt of imazapic—ingredients that are reproductive and developmental toxicants, sensitizers, and toxic to aquatic and other organisms.

When it comes to weeds, gardeners need good tools that enable them to control them with minimal effort and damage to their plants. Although gardeners differ in their preference for style of garden hoe, all must be sharp to operate efficiently, so files for sharpening should be located near the hoes, and customer service representatives should be prepared to demonstrate their use.

Weed-free and chemical-free organic mulches — such as straw or wood chips — are garden essentials for both weed control and long-term organic fertility. Speaking of fertility, natural fertility builds healthy soil for growing strong plants that resist insect and disease damage, while synthetic fertilizers kill valuable soil organisms. Healthy soils retain water and are especially helpful to plants in times of drought. Stores should stock fertility products approved for use in organic production.

We need to adopt practices in sync with nature that supports soil biology, cycles nutrients for plants naturally, retains moisture and water, and increases resiliency. Please:

1. Remove Roundup from your stores now.
2. Remove all toxic lawn and landscape pesticides from your shelves.
3. Remove synthetic fossil fuel-based fertilizers.
4. Fill your shelves with products compatible with certified organic products.
5. Teach consumers of methods and products that support soil health, a clean environment, and vibrant landscapes.

See https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/lawns-and-landscapes/overview for more information.

(Beyond Pesticides. March 24, 2023) The news on March 20 yielded a telling juxtaposition as the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report asserting that the world is on the “brink of catastrophic warming” — even while Congressional Republicans passed a measure to allow corporate profiteers to make that warming worse. Fortunately, President Biden vetoed that “ESG” bill, which sought to overturn a Labor Department rule that eased the ability of pension and 401(k) fund managers to consider environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) impacts of investments and shareholder rights decisions. (On March 23, House Republicans tried, but failed, to override the veto.) The IPCC‘s definitive report finds that humanity is very close to a dangerous climate threshold, but that “it does not mean we are doomed” if humans rapidly transition off of burning fossil fuels. Beyond Pesticides endorses both investment rules that advance protection of the climate, people, and the environment, and dramatic action on climate — including the cessation of use of fossil-fuel-derived synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and the transition to organic agriculture and land management.

The IPCC report, says The Washington Post (WaPo), asserts that the world is very likely to blow by the 1.5°C (2.7°F) Paris Agreement goal (of global average temperature increase above preindustrial temperatures) by the early 2030s. WaPo reports that, “Beyond that 1.5°C threshold, scientists have found, climate disasters will become so extreme that people will not be able to adapt. Basic components of the Earth system will be fundamentally, irrevocably altered. Heat waves, famines and infectious diseases could claim millions of additional lives by century’s end.”

The report prompted U.N. Secretary General António Guterres “to demand that developed countries such as the United States eliminate carbon emissions by 2040 — a decade earlier than the rest of the world. With few nations on track to fulfill their climate commitments and with the developing world already suffering disproportionately from climate disasters, he said, rich countries have a responsibility to act faster than their low-income counterparts.”

WaPo continues: “Calling the report a ‘how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb,’ Guterres announced on Monday an ‘acceleration agenda’ that would speed up global actions on climate. Emerging economies including China and India — which plan to reach net zero in 2060 and 2070, respectively — must hasten their emissions-cutting efforts alongside developed nations, Guterres said.” Both the Secretary General and the IPCC report call for humans to phase out — rapidly — use of gas, oil, and coal, which generate more than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The February 28 House vote on the Republican-led ESG measure passed, 216–204, passed, with all Republicans voting “yea,” and one Democrat — Representative Golden (ME) — crossing over party lines to vote for it. Democrats Castro (TX), Cleaver (MO), Davis (IL), Garcia (IL), Lofgren (CA), Sarbanes (MD), and Wild (PA) did not vote. On March 1, Republicans prevailed in the Senate vote, 50–46, in which they all voted for the measure, along with Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (WV) and Jon Tester (MT); both are up for re-election in 2024 in conservative-leaning states. Democratic Senators Merkley (OR), Feinstein (CA), and Fetterman (PA) did not vote.

The Biden Labor Department rule on ESG, which now prevails because of the President’s veto, aims to protect the interests of people who have assets in pension and 401(k) accounts by allowing plan managers to choose stocks, bonds, funds (and other instruments) with the risks of investment choices as part of the calculus. The ESG rule applies to plans that invest $12 trillion, in the aggregate, on behalf of more than 150 million people.

There are demonstrable financial risks that come with investing in companies involved in worsening the climate crisis, polluting environments, endangering the health of workers and the public, and engaging in non-transparent, inequitable, and insufficiently accountable corporate practices. Companies that disregard (or, as via the Trump rule, could not consider) ESG criteria expose themselves to risks of consumer boycotts, environmental disasters, and/or reputation scandal, among others.

And, according to coverage by The Globe and Mail, “[T]he majority of ESG-focused investments outperform the broader market,” in part because they enjoy lower capital costs and have better access to debt due to their reduced risk. In 2022, ESG funds lagged non-ESG funds for the first time because of the Russian war on Ukraine, which caused upheaval in energy market dynamics. (See more on sustainable investing from McKinsey&Company here.)

Many companies now incorporate ESG into their operations; according to McKinsey Sustainability, more than 90% of S&P 500 companies and 70% of Russell 1000 companies generate ESG reports of some sort. Bankrate reports that roughly two-thirds of privately owned companies have put ESG initiatives in place, and 89% of investors weigh ESG issues in making investment decisions. Abrdn, a UK-based investment company, concludes that “ESG factors bring lower volatility and therefore lower risk, and consequently higher risk-adjusted returns.”

Research out of the London School of Economics has found that, as of 2018, the global economy had suffered losses of $24 trillion USD due to climate change; researchers concluded that ESG is an effective tool in countering climate change because it guides investment toward companies whose operations reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ADEC Innovations’ coverage of the research identifies multiple examples of climate progress traceable to ESG.

The upswell in ESG activity — some of which is likely greenwashing by companies — has propelled the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to take a look at the ESG landscape. JDSupra notes that in 2022, the FTC “published a Notice soliciting public comment on proposed updates to its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, colloquially known as the ‘Green Guides.’” The Green Guides were created to help companies avoid making “unfair or deceptive” environmental marketing claims.

Much has changed since the guides were last updated in 2012, with many more companies (in part because of the influence of ESG) now touting their products or services as “environmentally friendly” or “environmentally conscious.” The FTC is reviewing the guides with an eye to these developments. In addition, and potentially importantly, “While the Green Guides are currently just that — non–legally binding guidelines — one of the FTC’s comment requests asks whether the Green Guides should be codified as federal regulations, carrying the force of law.”

On March 20, WaPo covered the Presidential veto and wrote, “In his letter informing Congress of the veto, Biden said the Labor Department rule ‘protects the hard-earned life savings and pensions of tens of millions of workers and retirees across the country’ and allows retirement plan fiduciaries to make ‘fully informed investment decisions by considering all relevant factors. The Republican-led bill would force retirement managers to ignore these relevant risk factors, disregarding the principles of free markets and jeopardizing the life savings of working families and retirees.’ The Republican bill, he said, would stop plan fiduciaries from ‘taking into account factors like the physical risks of climate change and poor corporate governance, that could affect investment returns.’”

In addition, ESG policies attract investors who want to advance environmental/climate, good governance, and/or social responsibility. The Republican measure to kneecap the new rule is another use of the Congressional Review Act to attempt to nullify a rule of a Biden administration agency in what many pundits are calling the latest in the Republican war against “wokeness” — broadly and in this case, in business practices.

With the raging climate crisis ongoing, the conservative Right (which at this juncture harbors most Republicans) appears hell-bent on countering progress on emissions reductions. Indeed, in January 2023, WaPo reported on a group, Consumers’ Research, that has been working largely behind the scenes to prevent financial institutions from dealing with the reality of climate change. WaPo wrote, “Bankrolled by mysterious donors, a little-known group named Consumers’ Research has emerged as a key player in the conservative crusade to prevent Wall Street from factoring climate change into its investment decisions.”

Among the organization’s recent activities was joining a late-2022 pressure campaign brought by 13 state attorneys general to “investigate” Vanguard for its “meddling with [the] energy industry to achieve progressive political goals at the expense of market efficiency. . . . Within days, Vanguard announced it was quitting a coalition called the Net Zero Asset Managers Alliance and shelved its own modest pledges to cut the amount of greenhouse gas emissions linked to companies in which it invests. Leaders of Consumers’ Research were surprised — and elated.”

In May 2022, The New York Times reported on the (at least parallel) organized Republican effort to punish companies for climate (and other “woke”) actions. This is done sometimes through laws pushed through by Republican-dominated state legislatures; it also comes via direct pressure from Republicans on state agency leaders who have the power to make regulations in their states; and/or pressure on “independent” organizations that rate or accredit companies. The NYT wrote, “Across the country, Republican lawmakers and their allies have launched a campaign to try to rein in what they see as activist companies trying to reduce the greenhouse gases that are dangerously heating the planet.”

The Republican Congressional attempt to derail President Biden’s rule on ESG was clearly another salvo in attempts to beat back action on the climate crisis, which many conservatives promote as another flash point in their “culture wars,” and to prop up their beloved fossil fuel industry. As WaPo says so well: “If you took Republicans’ feigned outrage at what they call ‘woke Wall Street’ seriously, you might think they were undergoing a dramatic ideological repositioning. Though conservatives have long declared their commitment to limited government and laissez faire economics, today’s Republicans are eager for government to make more economic decisions for market actors, at least on issues that fit in with their larger culture war. But look more closely and you’ll also see another version of an old story: The GOP helping out its favored industries while claiming it’s good for everyone.”

Much more attention and response are needed on the part of the public to demand robust and immediate action on the climate crisis, and to let legislators and other officials at all levels know how critically important this issue is. Beyond Pesticides asks you to take action: join organizations working on climate change; call/write/pester your federal and state legislators to support action; write letters to the editor for the largest newspaper near you; organize locally with other climate activists; and support organizations that are doing effective climate work.

Remember that the future is not yet written, and although humanity is in a tough spot — which is made worse by powerful people who care only for power and profit — as IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee said, “Mainstreaming effective and equitable climate action will not only reduce losses and damages for nature and people, it will also provide wider benefits. This [report] underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that, if we act now, we can still secure a liveable, sustainable future for all.”

Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/03/20/climate-change-ipcc-report-15/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/20/biden-veto-investment-rule-republicans/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2023) A case report article published in Frontier in Public Health confirms one of the first reported deaths from inhalation of the fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone) during work, resulting in acute renal (kidney) failure, hyperkalemia (high potassium levels in the blood), and brain edema (swelling). 1,3-D is a highly toxic fumigant used on a variety of crops, but primarily on potatoes, tobacco, strawberries, peanuts, and tomatoes to manage unwanted nematodes in soils. The chlorine-containing compound used in a greenhouse space entered the body of a 50-year-old man in China, being absorbed through the respiratory tract. Despite dilution from his wife, the compound was still strong enough to cause harm to human health. Without proper ventilation and personal protective equipment, wearing merely a surgical mask did not adequately defend against exposure to 1,3-D.

This case represents the broader issue of how toxic chemical compounds can enter the body, causing physiological damage. Specifically, pesticides can increase the permeability (absorptiveness) of the blood-brain barrier that filters various molecules entering the brain from the circulatory system. However, the permeation of pesticide molecules elevates the expression and accumulation of soluble proteins in the brain involved in neuroinflammation, which plays a critical role in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s diseases (PD), and Huntington’s diseases (HD). Considering over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts, including pesticides, are chemicals commonly present in human blood and urine samples, neurotoxicity risk increases when crossing the brain barrier. Therefore, cases like this highlight the importance of understanding how chemicals interact with the body to induce long-term health and disease prognosis. 

A 50-year-old man, who worked in the family greenhouse, inspected the greenhouse between the hour of 10 pm to 3 am without proper ventilation, without wearing respiratory protection, and bare-chested. Before these 5 hours, the man’s wife diluted 1,3-D with water at a 1:50 ratio and irrigated the enclosed greenhouse using the diluted 1,3-D on the floor surface at the door and a trench in the field. After application, the man entered the greenhouse alone for inspection. Upon returning home, the man began to experience headaches, dizziness, and other discomforts for three days before other symptoms arose, including blurred vision, unclear speech, and worsened dizziness. By the end of the third day, the man presented to the emergency department of a local hospital with dizziness, nonchalance (out of it), confusion, as well as newly developed irritability symptoms. Despite a cranial CT scan, the brain displayed no abnormalities on the third and fourth days. However, doctors shortly transferred the man to the ICU. By the fifth day, CT examinations showed unclear portions of the brain (sulci and cisternae), suggesting atrophic changes (wasting or thinning of tissue) in the brain, and on day six, a craniocerebral magnetic resonance examination showed widespread enlargement of the brainstem, uneven nerve signal, and a narrowed fourth ventricle (a series of interconnected hollows within the brain that contain cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]). The brain tissue exhibited widespread swelling, the downward shifting of the cerebellar tonsil, and indistinguishable sulci and cisternae. Additionally, the three paired main arteries that supply blood to the brain (bilateral anterior, middle, and posterior cerebral arteries) were nearly invisible.

The case determined that: “Walking in the damp climate, high temperature, and poorly ventilated greenhouses, when exposed to 1, 3-dichloropropene for a short time, the patient inhaled 1, 3-dichloropropene and quickly experienced dizziness, fatigue, nausea, unconsciousness, breathing difficulties, and other symptoms. Combined with the results of the serological test and brain magnetic resonance imaging, the symptomatic presentation was consistent with the manifestation of acute 1, 3-dichloropropene poisoning.”

The nervous system is an integral part of the human body, including the brain, spinal cord, and a vast network of nerves and neurons, all of which are responsible for many bodily functions—from sensation to movement. However, exposure to chemical toxicants, like pesticides, can cause neurotoxic effects or exacerbate preexisting chemical damage to the nervous system. The impacts of pesticides on the nervous system, including the brain, are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Mounting evidence over the past years shows that chronic exposure to sublethal (low) levels of pesticides adversely affects the central nervous system (CNS) and neural receptors, such as connections between nerves, the brain, enzymes, and DNA. Specifically, researchers identify agricultural chemical exposure as a cause of many adverse CNS impacts and neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, advocates say it is essential to avoid toxic chemical exposure to lessen potential acute and chronic health risks.

Whether 1,3-D exposure is short-term or long-term, certain concentrations are harmful to the human body in a closed environment, like the greenhouse in this case. Absorption through the respiratory tract may allow the compound to cross the blood-brain barrier, depose in the brain tissue, then inhibit the central nervous system and cause diffuse brain tissue edema, leading to acute damage to the heart (including the vascular system), lung (respiratory), and kidney (renal) function, eventually resulting in death. Additionally, EPA first classified 1,3-D as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” in 1985 until the primary manufacturer, Dow Chemical Company, requested EPA conduct the current cancer re-evaluation, resulting in 1,3-D downgrading from “likely” to “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity.”

For those who may consider this issue outside of their concern, note that a recent study focusing on the Western United States determined fumigant pesticides have close links to county-level cancer rates. Not only does this compound cause respiratory stimulation response and central nervous system inhibition after inhalation, but the volatile organic compound also contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and poor air quality.

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

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

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

Source:  Frontier in Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2023) Pesticide use on golf courses in the United States poses significantly more risk to human health than those in Europe, according to a study published this month in Science of the Total Environment. The findings highlight yet another area of land management where the U.S. is dangerously behind the European Union, as these countries are set to ban pesticides in parks, playgrounds, and playing fields, and have established a 50% reduction goal for agriculture by 2030. Meanwhile U.S. agencies continue to perpetuate widespread toxic pesticide use, with U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack even working to counter the EU’s reduction goals through a separate, “market-oriented” initiative alongside pesticide industry-friendly countries like UAE and Brazil.

Researchers found that pesticide risks from golf courses in the U.S. were on average 15 times higher than those in the EU. In order to come to that conclusion, surveys were sent out to courses in eight regions: East Texas, Florida, the Midwest, Northeast, and Northwest in the U.S., and the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Norway in Europe. Recorded answers (including product applied, date, rate, and area of application) were incorporated into the development of a hazard quotient (HQ), a ratio of pesticide exposure to a chemical’s toxicity. High hazard quotients indicate high risks to human health, while lower numbers indicate less risk. Such a model only captures the acute effects of pesticides, and not chronic impacts, but can nonetheless provide important data about pesticide dangers.

The highest single HQ for a golf course was found in Florida at 40,806. While the region with the highest average hazard quotient was U.S. Northwest at 13,696, with the lowest was found in Norway and Denmark at 64. In East Texas and Florida pesticide greens represented the greatest risk, but in all other locations fairways had the highest HQ. Fungicides posed the greatest health risk in Florida, the Midwest, Northeast, and Norway, while herbicides filled this role in East Texas, the Northwest, and Denmark. Insecticides posed the greatest risk for golf courses in the UK.

Although scientists hypothesized that golf courses in more southern regions of the U.S., with their longer growing seasons, would pose a greater risk than those with shorter seasons, this findings did not pan out. Economic factors also played less of a role than researchers expected. Only in Europe and the northern U.S. were any correlations found, with pesticide budget significantly factoring into pesticide risk. However, in all regions, pesticide use intensity was strongly associated with the number of maintenance employees on staff and the pesticide budget per hectare.

Overall scientists zeroed in on one defining factor differentiating pesticide risk on a region’s golf course: the regulatory environment. As the study explains, “Golf courses in regulatory environments where <100 pesticide products were available had a median CWA-HQ [component-weighted-average hazard quotient) of 248, which was significantly lower than mean pesticide risk on golf courses located in regulatory environments which allowed >100 pesticide products, which had a mean CWA-HQ of 7031.”

Indeed while the EU regulates pesticides based on hazards, the inherent toxicity of a chemical pesticide, the U.S. regulates based on risk, looking at the chance a pesticide will have a harmful effect on human health or the environment. “The risk based system used by the EPA has led to a much higher number of pesticides being available for golf courses in the US,” the study notes. In Denmark and Norway, less than 20 pesticide products are permitted to be applied to golf courses.

It is worth emphasizing that this review only focused on acute risks posed by pesticides. Chronic impacts present a greater long term threat to human health, as consistent exposure over years of playing or golf course maintenance adds to one’s exposome, the sum total of toxic exposures over one’s lifetime. While research is few and far between, a factor primarily based on the difficult in getting pesticide use reports from golf courses, the research available indicate elevated risk of various cancers (brain, prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and nervous system disorders among golf course superintendents.

Beyond Pesticides encourages proactive engagement with golf courses that heavily apply toxic pesticides, particularly in areas around homes, hospitals, playgrounds, and other sensitive sites. The program page Golf, Pesticides, and Organic Practices provides examples of courses that have gone organic or are moving in the right direction. As well as a strategy for advocates to follow to ‘Green Your Local Course.’

For more on the dangers of golf course pesticide use, including a personal, heart-felt story of how these dangers translate to real-world impacts, readers are encouraged to watch Ground War, a documentary created by Andrew Nisker after his healthy and fit dad suddenly developed an environmental-related cancer.

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

Source: Science of the Total Environment
Image Source: Wikimedia

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2023) Placing honey bee hives in agricultural areas creates stress that leads to microbial imbalances, according to research published in Scientific Reports by Croatian scientists this month. The research highlights the fragility and absurdity of chemical-driven agricultural systems dependent upon both pollinators and products that harm or kill off these sensitive species. While regulators in the United States continue to prop up unsustainable practices, more and more consumers are seeking out and engaging with the key alternative to this system by supporting organic farms and foodstuffs at their farmers market and grocery store.

Scientists began by creating 33 colonies from three apiaries within an agricultural region in Croatia, utilizing four brood frames, two honey frames, and mated queens. Of these 33 newly created hives, 22 were relocated to a separate agricultural region, and 11 were placed roughly six miles away from a nature preserve and considered a semi-natural area. A separate group of 10 hives that had been established on a small island (Unije, Croatia) in the Adriatic Sea were included in the study in order to represent a completely natural location.

After roughly two weeks of colony formation, scientists collected samples to represent the multiple different microbial niches within bee hives. These include bee gut, bee bread, hive entrance and internal hive air; in sum researchers term this the ‘apibiome’ of a given colony. Using a process called rRNA gene amplification, scientists conducted an analysis of the relative abundances of different bacteria detected. Focus was placed on identifying bacteria that were distinct between the three different study groups.

Hives located in primarily agricultural regions reveal a lower level of species evenness, indicating an imbalance in the abundance of species found within a hive’s apibiome. In particular, these hives had lower levels of bacteria considered beneficial for honey bees. There is also evidence of a stress response pathways within bee guts. The findings fall along a gradient, with the semi-natural hives representing a marked improvement over hives located in agricultural regions after the two-week shift. Natural hives, according to the study, “displayed bacterial profiles associated with good health, and were enriched in Acetobacteraceae and the gut core members Snodgrasella, Lactobacillus and Commensalibacter (involved in nutrient acquisition and immune responses).”

Researchers indicate that the bacterium of Arsenophonus genus were most prevalent within the agricultural hives and declined along a similar gradient from ag to natural environments. This indicates that these bacteria may be a key indicator of stressors and poor colony health brought on by difficult living conditions.

“The microbiota of the Unije Island hive is more balanced, its proportion of beneficial microorganisms is higher and in a semi-natural environment the proportion gradually decreases, whereas in the agricultural environment the composition of the hive is highly imbalanced, more opportunistic bacteria are found and it is more sensitive to diseases,” explained Iratxe Zarraonaindia, PhD.

These data match up closely with prior research on the damage that agricultural pesticide use can do to individual honeybee microbiomes. A study published in 2016 found that mixtures of various pesticides results in adverse changes to the make-up of honeybee gut bacteria. Another study on pesticide mixtures published six years later found that such adverse changes to a honeybee’s gut increases susceptibility to disease and pathogens, and likely reduces a pollinator’s life span.  A meta-analysis conducted in early 2022 determined that pesticides create these disturbances in one of two ways – either by directly harming microbes or by indirectly harming pollinators, resulting in gut microbial shifts.

Researchers continue to find new ways in which chemical-intensive agriculture is harming pollinators and the wider environment, underscoring the need for alternative systems that do not utilize these dangerous practices. It is imperative for those concerned about pollinator protection to engage with and help grow these alternatives.

Beyond Pesticides has long embraced organic agriculture as the key response to the damages brought about by pesticide-laden food production. But even organic can be subject to weakening and corporate attack, necessitating an engaged consumer base. Join Beyond Pesticides today in urging Organic to Lead the Way by contributing your voice to strong organic agriculture at upcoming the National Organic Standards Board meeting.

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

Source:  Scientific Reports, Phys.org press release

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2023) As a means of taking on the challenges of health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency, the review and updating of organic standards requires the public involvement in the current public comment period. This is required to keep organic strong and continually improving.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through April 5, 2023. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on April 18 and 20 and deliberative hearing April 25-27—concerning how organic food is produced. Sign up for a 3-minute comment to let U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) know how important organic is at the webinar by April 5. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov. by 11:59 pm EDT April 5. Links to the virtual comment webinars will be provided approximately one week before the webinars.

The NOSB is responsible for guiding USDA in its administration of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), including the materials allowed to be used in organic production and handling. The role of the NOSB is especially important as we depend on organic production to protect our ecosystem, mitigate climate change, and enhance our health.

The NOSB plays an important role in bringing the views of organic consumers and producers to bear on USDA, which is not always in sync with organic principles and not giving sufficient support to the critical need to end the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. There are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Spring 2023 Beyond Pesticides’ issues webpage. Here are some of our high priority issues for the upcoming meeting:

Prohibit the Routine Allowance of Ingredients Processed with Ion Exchange. Because the ion exchange process is a chemical process, all organic ingredients processed in this manner must be subject to review by the NOSB. Ion exchange creates synthetic ingredients through chemical change—removing some components and substituting other chemicals—that are used in processed food. It is not simply filtration. Chemicals in the ion exchange resins may leak into the food product. Yet, the Handling Subcommittee of the NOSB is proposing to allow any and all resins without review. To maintain the integrity of the organic label, resins must be subject to full National List (National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances) review to determine whether these ingredients meet organic standards, rather than establishing a blanket allowance of ion exchange in organic processing.

Organic Agriculture is Climate-Smart Agriculture. In a draft letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the NOSB has written an excellent primer on how organic agriculture responds to the climate emergency. However, the letter needs to stress the need for USDA to dramatically increase support for converting chemical-intensive agriculture to organic. It is critical that the National Organic Program ask, “What more should USDA be doing to advance organic?” As the Board states, the resiliency of organic is established: “Organic is the solution to mitigating climate change and responding to it.” However, despite the astronomical growth in organic consumption in the U.S., conversion to organic agriculture lags behind demand. USDA could and should require the adoption of organic/climate-smart practices a prerequisite for receiving the benefits of its programs and abandon its promotion of chemical-intensive agriculture supported by the biotech/chemical industry.

Plastic mulch is under consideration this year as a part of its five-year review cycle. This is part of the larger issue relating to the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plastic—and the microplastic particles resulting from its use—on human health and the environment. Plastics manufacture requires transportation of hazardous chemicals, such as those involved in the recent derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Plastic mulch should not be relisted as allowable in organic production. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic processing and packaging.

The NOSB should use the review (or sunset) process to eliminate nonorganic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that may comprise 5% of organic-labeled processed foods. The intent of the law is to allow restricted nonorganic ingredients (fully disclosed and limited) when their organic form is not available. However, materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and we can now grow virtually anything organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” The materials on §205.606 up for sunset review this year are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be taken off the National List of allowed materials.

>>Submit Comments Now.

Need help in submitting comments? Regulations.gov requires more than a single click, but it is not difficult. Please feel free to cut-and-paste the three comments above into Regulations.gov and add or adjust the text to personalize it. See this instructional video. (Regulations.gov has changed its look since this video was made.)

Thank you for keeping organic strong!

Visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage, where we post background and Beyond Pesticides’ comments on all the issues before the National Organic Standards Board this session.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2023) The U.S. House of Representatives’ Republican majority voted on March 9 to overturn a Biden administration rule that expands the definition of and protections for the “waters of the United States.” The rule, Revised Definition of Waters of the United States, clarifies that thousands of wetlands, smaller streams, and other kinds of waterways are included under the Clean Water Act’s protection provisions. The overturning resolution now goes to the Senate, and is expected to be taken up very soon; President Biden has said he will exercise his veto power if it reaches his desk. Were that veto overridden, this rollback would put at greater risk the nation’s waterways, from all sorts of pollution, including the more than 90% of the nation’s rivers and streams that are contaminated with five or more pesticides, according to Beyond Pesticides 2020 coverage.

You can contact your U.S. Senators HERE to let them know you want them to support Clean Water by voting against legislation that undermines protection of our waterways.

The rules promulgated by EPA and other federal agencies to protect the nation’s waters arise primarily from 1972’s Clean Water Act (amended in 1977 and 1987). That act, although referencing various kinds of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), does not actually define what that means. The interpretation of a definition has been an ongoing political kerfuffle for 15 years, according to Bloomberg Law, which asserts that the definition has is has been expanded and narrowed multiple times, depending on administrations.

Finalized in late December 2022, the rule is scheduled to go into effect on March 20. (See this Fact Sheet on the rule.) The Biden WOTUS rule, according to E&E News Greenwire, “would give federal protection to large waterways, like interstate rivers and streams and wetlands that are adjacent to them.” On the matter of which wetlands qualify for federal protection under the new WOTUS definition, the rule does not so much draw “bright-line rules” about, “for example, wetlands that are more than a specific number of feet from a jurisdictional water [being] not ‘adjacent.’” (The Obama WOTUS rule did draw such “bright lines” about federal jurisdiction.) Instead, “a more nuanced approach is required” because the impacts of a wetland on a larger waterway is variable with region, climate, and local hydrodynamics. The rule does say, “The agencies can state, based on nearly 45 years of implementation . . . that in a substantial number of cases, adjacent wetlands abut (touch) a jurisdictional water. . . . [O]n the whole, nationwide, adjacent wetlands are within a few hundred feet from jurisdictional waters.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through the final rule, repeals the previous, Trump administration rule that scaled back water protections that had been in place with the Obama rule. Beyond Pesticides wrote about that in early 2020: “President Obama’s WOTUS, aka Clean Water Rule, has provided protections from pesticide runoff and other pollutants to millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams. . . . The WOTUS rule was created to provide greater protections from pollution, and to ‘bring clarity to decades of political and legal debate over which waters should qualify.’ The rule included many smaller waterways and wetlands that function as recharge areas or tributaries to larger water bodies.”

Then, Republicans and industry/trade/business groups clamored loudly against the more-protective Obama administration definition of WOTUS. The same is happening today with the Biden rule, which the same general crew of opponents claim constitutes regulatory overreach that is “burdensome” to private enterprise, property rights, and — essentially — what they consider their “right” to pollute. This position ignores the reality of pollution of the nation’s water resources — not only the ubiquity of impacts, but also, the variety and extent of harms to human health, ecosystems, and biodiversity, as well as the disproportionate impacts of both water pollution and its sources on low-income communities and communities of color.

In bringing this to a House vote, Republicans employed the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn final rules of federal agencies, and is typically used on recently enacted rules and during changes of administration (accompanied by a shift in majority control in the House or Senate). With their recently acquired House majority (222–213), Republicans were able to pass the measure to overturn the Biden WOTUS rule with a 227–198 vote.

Voting for the rollback were 218 Republicans (1 voted against); 197 Democrats voted against it (9 voted for); and 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans failed to vote. Democratic House members who voted to overturn the rule included Representatives Sanford Bishop and David Scott (GA), Jim Costa and Jimmy Panetta (CA), Angie Craig (MN), Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Donald Davis (NC), and Jared Golden (ME); Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) was the one Republican who voted against the measure.

As this measure moves to the Senate, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (WV) has already declared his support for it. The Associated Press notes that Senator Manchin is a “frequent Biden antagonist” who “represents an energy-producing state and frequently clashes with Democrats on environmental issues.” Given the Senate Democrats’ narrow majority (51–49), Senator Manchin’s defection, coupled with recent Senate absences of Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Fetterman for health reasons — if those absences continue — could pose a challenge for Senate Democrats, Bloomberg Law asserts.

Senator Manchin commented, echoing Republican and industry talking points, that the Biden rule “would interject further regulatory confusion, place unnecessary burdens on small businesses, farmers and local communities, and cause serious economic damage.” Republican Representative David Rouzer (NC), Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chair, commented to the Associated Press: “The EPA rule ‘needs to be repealed so Americans across the country are protected from subjective regulatory overreach making it harder to farm, build and generate economic prosperity.’”

The Biden Administration has countered that its clean water rule would actually responsibly guide business and agriculture, and that overturning the rule would generate more uncertainty. EPA, on its website, says that the “final rule establishes a clear and reasonable definition of ‘waters of the United States’ and reduces the uncertainty from constantly changing regulatory definitions that has harmed communities and our nation’s waters.”

The agency further notes, “The agencies developed this rule with consideration of the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act and the statute as a whole, relevant Supreme Court case law, and the agencies’ technical expertise after more than 45 years of implementing the longstanding pre-2015 ‘waters of the United States’ framework. This rule also considers the best available science and extensive public comment to establish a definition of ‘waters of the United States’ that supports public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth.”

Meanwhile, litigation on the WOTUS definition sits with the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS); a decision for the plaintiff, according to Earthjustice, “could gut the Clean Water Act.” The case, Sackett vs. EPA, was brought by Michael Sackett, an Idaho property owner who sued EPA over its ruling that he and his wife needed a permit to infill a wetland (and build a home on it) next to an Idaho lake, and were in violation of the Clean Water Act. The plaintiff has asked SCOTUS to determine whether a lower court applied the correct standards in its ruling for EPA, and whether EPA has authority over the Sacketts’ private property. The crux of the case re: the federal rule is whether (and which) wetlands meet the definition of “waters of the United States.” Plaintiffs were distressed by the December 30 announcement of the final rule — prior to a SCOTUS decision in the case.

Of course, industry interests have come out in force, filing many amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in support of the plaintiffs. Those entities include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; conservative organizations the Cato Institute, Liberty Justice Center, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation; the National Federation of Independent Business; the National Association of Home Builders; the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association; 14 agricultural organizations; and a host of conservative, regional “legal foundations,” among others. In Jun 2022, Earthjustice filed an amicus brief on behalf of Native tribes seeking to defend existing water protections for waterways on which they depend for food, economy, and culture. A SCOTUS decision in the case is expected soon.

The organization American Rivers explains the stakes of the case well: “The Supreme Court decision . . . means more than just redefining the Clean Water Act. Siding with polluters would mean denying communities across the country access to clean water — a fundamental human right. If [SCOTUS] rules against the EPA, the drinking water of one in three people in this country will be at risk. Countless wetlands and streams across the country — vital for fish and wildlife habitat and flood protection for communities — are also at risk. For example, the Court could remove protections for 80% of streams in the Southwest alone. . . . [I]n the case of Sackett v. EPA, big polluters are arguing that [SCOTUS] should weaken the scope of the Clean Water Act. This means countless streams and wetlands all over the country would no longer be protected — and polluters could have free rein to use our nation’s waters as sewers once more.” 

The support among business, industry, and agriculture groups for the SCOTUS plaintiff and the House vote on WOTUS (and Republican spin on it) lays bare the aims and determination of those who profit from polluting. The House resolution on WOTUS was introduced by two Republicans — Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Sam Graves (MO) and Representative Rouzer — and cosponsored by 170 others. The House website titles its press release on the vote “House Votes to Overturn Flawed, Overreaching Biden WOTUS Rule.” (The Senate resolution was introduced by Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito [WV]).

Representative Graves commented in the press release: “American families, farmers, small businesses, and entire communities are suffering under the economic crises caused by the disastrous Biden policies of the last two years. The last thing they need is this Administration’s inexplicable decision to move the country back toward the overreaching, costly, and burdensome regulations of the past, which is exactly what this WOTUS rule does.” Representative Rouzer amped up the provocative language, saying, “President Biden’s new WOTUS rule is a nuclear warhead aimed squarely at our farm families, small businesses, homebuilders, every property owner, and entire communities because of its overreaching definition. Cloaked under the guise of clean water, all this rule does is expand the federal government’s control over states, localities, and private landowners, making it harder to farm, build, and generate economic prosperity.”

Earthjustice summarizes the case for this protective rule and its WOTUS definition: “[It] is based on vigorous science. The agencies that made the new rule reviewed hundreds of scientific articles when making this rule and worked through thousands of public comments to develop a framework for protecting our nation’s waters from industrial pollution. The rule is not perfect, but it is a crucial step toward restoring protection to a network of waterways that support healthy ecosystems, and economies. More than three in four people support stronger federal protections for our nation’s waters.”

Beyond Pesticides encourages members of the public to advocate strongly with their U.S. Senators to uphold the Biden WOTUS rule, which represents badly needed protection for the nation’s waterways, and the ecosystems, organisms, and people who depend on them — essentially, everyone and everything. Click HERE to take action by contacting your U.S. Senators. 

Sources: https://apnews.com/article/biden-clean-water-manchin-republicans-epa-environment-1bb64abf01d910f4c4763ad49883a8cb and https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/house-passed-water-rule-baits-bidens-veto-with-absent-democrats

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2023) Highly hazardous PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are leaching out of plastic containers and contaminating food products, according to research published in Environment Technology and Letters this month. The data confirm the results of prior research focused on the propensity of PFAS to contaminate various pesticide products through the storage containers. That data led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a warning over the potential for direct PFAS contamination of food. The current study, conducted by scientists at Notre Dame University, confirms these worst fears and shows that the containers of commonly used products like ketchup and mayonnaise are leaching out levels that post a threat to human health. “Not only did we measure significant concentrations of PFAS in these containers, we can estimate the PFAS that were leaching off creating a direct path of exposure,” said study coauthor Graham Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Notre Dame.

In breaking news on Tuesday, EPA is setting standards for two PFAS, PFOA and PFOS at no more than 4 parts per trillion in drinking water. While testing will be required, this measure is limited by its scope, requiring only monitoring of a few other PFAS compounds.

At issue are HDPE (high density polyethylene) containers, a type of plastic that may or may not be fluorinated prior to filling them with various materials. Fluorinating these containers “allows for cheaper and more efficient production of plastics that contain desirable properties, primarily increased barrier properties,” according to the study. In other words, fluoridation is being used to address the potential for gasses, water vapor, light and other factors that would impact the quality of product in the packaging. The material is as common as your milk jug and used to store a wide variety of substances – from foodstuffs to shampoo, motor oil, detergents and pesticides.

Using food samples retrieved from glass jars, scientists tested them by adding samples to both fluorinated and non-fluorinated HDPE containers. Scientists tested the amount of PFAS in these containers using plain water, methanol, and acetone as reference. And food samples added to both treated and untreated HDPE containers, including ketchup, olive oil, and mayonnaise were also analyzed for their PFAS levels. Further tests were conducted where containers and food were heated, to determine if that increased the effects. Testing methods employed a similar approach recently taken by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to measure PFAS in foods.

Results from even nonfluorinated containers represented a risk, ranging from 10 parts per trillion to 880 parts per trillion. Fluorinated containers hit between an astounding 45,120 and 94,810 ppt. These numbers include a summation of a range of PFAS analytes, including PFOA, PFDA, PFBA, and many others.

Food samples left in these containers did contain PFAS in a range of 2,660, 5,950, and 7,190 correspondingly in olive oil, ketchup, and mayonnaise. Heat also increased the leaching process significantly. As the study indicates, “In fluorinated containers, sums of PFAS concentrations were 27 times higher in samples exposed at 50 °C than those exposed at room temperature, demonstrating that exposure to elevated temperatures significantly increased the migration of PFAS from the containers into the water.”

In sum, the study finds that using an estimated five servings per week of just one of the food products measured would be 770 to 2,680 ppt per kilogram of body weight each week. The study provides a comparison to the European Union, where  a tolerable weekly intake limit of 4,400 ppt per week was set. Given that a few dabs of mayo or ketchup over the course of the week can nearly reach this level, the risks come into clear focus.

If this was not concerning enough, this is far from the only source of PFAS chemicals in our environment. This process is also occurring with pesticides stored in HDPE containers, and there is also significant concern regarding leaching from wastewater treatment plants, which consistently record high PFAS outflow. Combined, these represent additional threats of contamination to the land were food is grown and the water used on crops, which in many places around the country includes that very same wastewater outflow.

There are also issues EPA has not addressed: with evidence from another recent study that certain insecticides may contain PFAS levels as high as 19,200,000 parts per trillion, and that these applications leach into food grown on site, currently existing global contamination adds another concerning data point to the risks individuals in the US and around the world are encountering with PFAS.

“We measured concentrations of PFOA that significantly exceeded the limit set by the EPA’s 2022 Health Advisory Limits,” said Dr. Peaslee. “Now, consider that not only do we know that the chemicals are migrating into the substances stored in them, but that the containers themselves work their way back into the environment through landfills. PFAS doesn’t biodegrade. It doesn’t go away. Once these chemicals are used, they get into the groundwater, they get into our biological systems, and they cause significant health problems.”

Beyond Pesticides is calling on Congress to act on bipartisan bill — the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act —legislation introduced by the Maine Delegation modeled on a policy the state of Maine recently passed.

Act now by telling your U.S. Senators and Representative to cosponsor the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act. If they are already cosponsors, thank them. Tell EPA to stop the spread of legacy chemicals.

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

Source: University of Notre Dame, Environment Technology and Letters

(Beyond Pesticides, March 15, 2023) In a move that will improve land access for Mauiʻs organic farmers, Maui County Council passed Bill 160 (Kula Agricultural Park Phase I Expansion Area),  reserving 262 acres in the Kula Agricultural Park for practices that comply with the Organic Foods Production Act and USDA organic standards, and removing barriers in the application process in favor of emerging farmers.

Councilmember Gabe Johnson, chair of the Agriculture, Diversification, Environment and Public Transportation Committee, sponsored the bill. “Regenerative agriculture is a forward-thinking system that works to nurture soil, protect water resources and biodiversity, and combat climate change,” said Mr. Johnson. “We need to create an environment that supports our farmers and agriculture economy.”

Maui County currently has an operational 445 acre Agriculture Park, available for lease at the affordable rate of $100 per acre per month. All users of the current Agriculture Park practice chemical-intensive methods, making it an unsuitable area for organic farmers. In 2018, Maui County purchased an additional 262 acres to expand the Agriculture Park, and Bill 160 reserves the expansion area for organic practices, giving organic farmers the same opportunity for affordable land access. The Kula Agriculture Park expansion will be available for lease after the county completes the planning and infrastructure phase.

Maui County imports about 85% of its food, leaving the population vulnerable in times of disaster or supply chain disruption, and making the cost of food high. Maui County and the State of Hawaiʻi are taking action to change that, and increase the amount of food produced locally, and environmental advocates have been pushing to define what kind of agriculture they would like to see as a solution.

Autumn Ness, director of Beyond Pesticides Organic Land Management and Farm Support Program, worked on Bill 160 with Mr. Johnson and says, “Not all agriculture is good agriculture, and as we seek to increase agriculture and food security, that cannot come with increased petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use, at the cost of our health and environment.” She continues: “We can increase food production, remediate our soils, keep our near shore waters clean, conserve our precious water resources, and keep our residents healthy, all at once. Organic agriculture does that.”

Family Farmer Training Networkʻs Georgia Pinsky supported Bill 160.  Ms. Pinsky said, “I work with beginning farmers who are motivated to grow food and steward the land, but one of the biggest barriers to their success is access to affordable land. Bill 160 is a game changer for them.”

Ms. Ness challenges the notion that “no one wants to be a farmer these days,” saying that: “The conventional commodity crop agriculture model isnʻt attractive to many young Maui farmers. Thatʻs what the system has been set up to support, and people who want to farm to organic standards have trouble navigating outside of that.”

There are three farmer training programs on Maui, with full cohorts every year; Go Farm, through the University of Hawaiʻi, Farmers Apprentice Mentorship Program through the Hawaiʻi Farmers Union, and The Family Farmer Training Network. Representatives from each program report that almost 100% of the graduates want to practice organic or regenerative farming.

 “We, as a community, have to build systems that support their success,” says Mr. Johnson.  “Our future depends on them.”

Bill 160 comes on the heels of multiple actions that are intended to work together to create an environment that supports and prioritizes regenerative organic farming and land management.

In 2020, Maui County Council funded an agricultural microgrant program, which is now in its third year of funding.  Applicants are eligible for up to $25,000 in grants for expenses that will help them increase food production.  Preference is given to Native Hawaiian, women, and farmers of color.

In 2020, in the midst of COVID shutdowns, Beyond Pesticides co-founded Maui Hub, to support Mauiʻs local farmers through the crisis, with a long-term goal to build a dependable market that will facilitate the large-scale increase in local, organic food production. It is in its third year, and still growing.

In 2021, Maui County passed the strongest public lands organic policy in the country, prohibiting the use of all synthetic pesticides and fertilizers on any county-owned lands, including parks and roadways.

“Itʻs exciting to see our community begin to prioritize organic agriculture as the solution to so many crises we face,” says Ms. Ness.  She continued: “We are still in the beginning stages of evening the scales in a system that has favored conventional and plantation agriculture for over 100 years. We have a long way to go, but we are committed to making regenerative, traditional Hawaiian, and organic agriculture the norm on Maui, becoming an economic driver that has positive benefits for generations.”

Visit Maui County Council’s website at https://tinyurl.com/Bill160CD1FD1 to read Bill 160. For more information about Beyond Pesticidesʻ work in Hawaiʻi, please contact: [email protected].

Photo: Maui County Council Member Gabe Johnson on his organic farm. Mr. Johnson was an organic farmer prior to being elected to represent the island of Lānaʻi on the Council.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2023) A study published in Environmental Research and Public Health finds occupational pesticide exposure increases the risk of sleep disorders among farmworkers and pesticide applicators. Specifically, many pesticides, like organophosphates (OPs), are detrimental to neurological function through inhibition of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE) responsible for ending a neurotransmission event after relaying the necessary information. Without an end to neurotransmission events, individuals experience a buildup of acetylcholine, resulting in convulsions, headaches, weakness, impacts on bodily senses, and other cognitive/mental changes. In addition to illnesses from chemical exposure, inadequate sleep has links to several chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and depression. Therefore, given research links to sleep-related disorders and bodily functions, including endocrine, metabolic, neurological, and cognitive disorders, studies like this can help government and health officials identify how pesticides’ impact on the brain elevates health concerns. The study notes, “The study’s findings can be used to create strategies for addressing mental health issues and promoting mental health and quality of life.”

Researchers assess the sleep patterns among individuals living in southeast Spain, near the coast of Almeria, where chemical-intensive agriculture from greenhouses is prevalent. Of the 380 participants in the study, 189 were greenhouse workers, while 191 were control subjects. Using the Oviedo Sleep Questionnaire in Spanish, the researchers collected data on sleep patterns and disturbances during the annual occupation health survey assessment. The risk of insomnia is significantly higher among agricultural workers than in the control group, especially for those without proper personal protective equipment (PPE) like gloves or masks. Among pesticide applicators, like gardeners and landscapers, insomnia risk occurs in those who do not wear goggles or masks. Therefore, the risk of sleep disorders increases with occupational pesticide exposure.

Numerous occupational hazards are associated with chemical exposure, especially among individuals with occupations that involve regular exposure to xenobiotic (foreign substance) compounds. 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 in pesticides can accumulate in bodies, causing an amalgamation of health effects. These effects can range from heightened risks of various cancers (e.g., prostate, hepatic, liver, etc.) and endocrine disruption to mental health problems (e.g., depression), respiratory illnesses (asthma), and many other pesticide-induced diseases. However, pesticide exposure is ubiquitous and not only confined to where it is 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 levels of chemicals transported into the house can be 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. Therefore, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide compound in their body. These pollutants have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. 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. The increasing ubiquity of pesticides concerns public health advocates as current measures safeguarding against pesticide use do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. Therefore, individuals will continuously encounter varying concentrations of pesticides and other toxic chemicals, adding to the body’s burden of those toxic chemicals currently in use.

This study adds to global research supporting the link between pesticide exposure and sleep disorders, yet this is the first study in Spain to analyze the prevalence of pesticide-induced sleep disorders among those working with or around these chemicals. Exposure to medium and high levels of pesticides results in shortened sleep duration, poorer sleep quality, and insomnia. Therefore, pesticides can interrupt normal non-rapid eye movement (NREM) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep patterns. REM sleep is active, meaning more brain activity takes place (e.g., dreaming) compared to NREM sleep, which can be the beginning of sleep, light sleep, or deep sleep. REM and NREM sleep play an important role in childhood development, learning/memory, and immune system support. Thus, pesticide exposure interrupts these processes leading to further health issues. For example, REM sleep disorder can be a precursor to neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease and types of dementia. Studies have shown that more than 50 to 80 percent of people with REM sleep behavior disorder go on to develop a neurodegenerative disorder year later or even decades. Besides the neurotoxicity of pesticides, these toxic chemicals also can function as an endocrine disruptor that affects hormone function, including melatonin responsible for sleep. The study highlights the significance of PPE as a premier way to mitigate chemical exposure resulting in sleep disorders. However, replacing toxic, conventional, synthetic pesticides with organic pesticides can reduce the risk of sleep disorders, regardless of PPE.

The researchers conclude, “The use of PPE and adherence to safe practices during the handling of pesticides in agricultural activities can reduce the total exposure to pesticides and thus avoid the negative effect of pesticides on health and the occurrence of some disorders, such as sleep disorders.”

Humans spend approximately one-third of their life sleeping, and some animals even more so, signifying how important sleep is for normal bodily function, health, and well-being. Various pesticide products act similarly or in conjunction with other chemical substances, simultaneously resulting in more severe health outcomes. Therefore, advocates urge that policies enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms that pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Brain and Nervous System Disorders, Learning/Developmental Disorders, Endocrine Disruption, Body Burdens, and other diseases.

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

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

Source: Environmental Research and Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2023) The United Nations has just announced on March 4, 2023, an agreement on a new high seas treaty. The treaty, which must be adopted by member states and then ratified by at least 60 countries to take effect could be a critical development for meeting the UN’s COP15 “30 by 30” goal of protecting 30% of the world’s land and sea by 2030 to slow and arrest global biodiversity losses.

The treaty represents a step toward implementation of President Biden’s “America the Beautiful Initiative” set in 2021, proclaiming “the first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President –a goal of conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.” However, he U.S. has a poor track record on approval of UN environmental treaties; approval requires a two-thirds majority affirmative vote in the Senate, and failure on that would block a Presidential signature and ratification.

Meanwhile, a report just reissued by an international coalition of scientists led by Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco documents the widespread and growing pollution of the ocean. The full report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” is published in the Annals of Global Health (DOI: 10.5334/aogh.2831).

Tell President Biden to sign the UN high seas treaty. Tell EPA and Congress to protect the ocean from toxic pollution.    

Professor Philip Landrigan, M.D., the director of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and the Global Observatory on Planetary Health summarize the importance of actions to protect the oceans, “Simply put: Ocean pollution is a major global problem, it is growing, and it directly affects human health.” The UN treaty recognizes the need to address “biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems of the ocean, due to, in particular, climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, such as warming and ocean deoxygenation, as well as ocean acidification, pollution, including plastic pollution, and unsustainable use.”

The UN treaty will promote the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted in 1982, by establishing protected areas on the high seas—that is, the vast portion of the ocean that is outside of national boundaries—and providing for an overhaul of environmental impact assessments for actions affecting the ocean.

But signing and ratifying the treaty are only first steps. In order to comply with the treaty, nations must take concrete steps to promote the objectives of the treaty when making decisions under other laws, ensuring “that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.” As shown by the Global Observatory’s report, whose findings are drawn from 584 scientific reports, these impacts include:

• Pollution of the oceans by plastics, toxic metals, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, sewage, and agricultural runoff that is killing and contaminating the fish that feed 3 billion people. 

• Coastal pollution spreading life-threatening infections. 

• Oil spills and chemical wastes that threaten the microorganisms in the seas that provide much of the world’s oxygen supply. 


Action is needed now to stop the ongoing collapse of marine ecosystems. Researchers blame chemical pollution from pesticides, farm fertilizers, and oil spills in the water. The same chemicals that contribute to the insect apocalypse on land are contributing to the loss of keystone aquatic and marine organisms. For example, neonicotinoid insecticides, which have been detected in rivers, streams, and lakes in 29 states, present detrimental impacts on keystone aquatic organisms and result in a complex cascading impact on ecosystems. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2017 risk assessment for the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, found, “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.” These surface waters eventually drain into the ocean.

EPA has responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Clean Water Act to protect human health and the environment from these threats. Despite its acknowledgement that current benchmarks are not adequately protective, EPA describes its review process as requiring studies of the most sensitive organisms and a range of publicly available environmental laboratory and field studies.

Industrial agriculture, supported by EPA’s registration of toxic pesticides, results in emissions of climate-changing nitrogen oxides and loss of soil health. It is also a major contributing factor to nitrate run-off and the need for petroleum-based chemicals whose production results in oil spills. It is within the power and authority of EPA to reverse the threats to biodiversity and human existence.

Letter to EPA:

The United Nations has just announced an agreement on a new high seas treaty. The treaty represents a step toward implementation of President Biden’s “America the Beautiful Initiative,” the “first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President –of conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030”—endorsing the United Nation’s 30 x 30 plan to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030.

Meanwhile, a report just reissued by an international coalition of scientists led by Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco documents the widespread and growing pollution of the ocean. The report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” is published in the Annals of Global Health (DOI: 10.5334/aogh.2831).

Professor Philip Landrigan, M.D., director of the observatory and of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program, summarizes the need to protect the oceans, “Simply put: Ocean pollution is a major global problem, it is growing, and it directly affects human health.” The UN treaty, recognizing the need to address “biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems of the ocean, due to, in particular, climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, such as warming and ocean deoxygenation, as well as ocean acidification, pollution, including plastic pollution, and unsustainable use,” will promote the implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

But signing and ratifying the treaty are only first steps. Compliance with the treaty requires concrete steps to promote the objectives of the treaty when making decisions under other laws, ensuring “that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.” As shown by the Global Observatory’s report, whose findings are drawn from 584 scientific reports, these impacts include: pollution of the oceans by plastics, toxic metals, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, sewage, and agricultural runoff that is killing and contaminating the fish that feed 3 billion people; coastal pollution spreading life-threatening infections; oil spills and chemical wastes that threaten the microorganisms in the seas that provide much of the world’s oxygen supply. 


Action is needed now to stop the ongoing collapse of marine ecosystems. Researchers blame chemical pollution from pesticides, farm fertilizers, and oil spills. The same chemicals that contribute to the insect apocalypse on land are contributing to the loss of keystone aquatic and marine organisms. For example, neonicotinoid insecticides, which have been detected in rivers, streams, and lakes in 29 states, present detrimental impacts on keystone aquatic organisms, with a complex cascading impact on ecosystems. EPA’s 2017 risk assessment for the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, found, “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.” These surface waters eventually drain into the ocean.

EPA has responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Clean Water Act to protect human health and the environment from these threats.

The same industrial agriculture that is supported by EPA’s registration of toxic pesticides and results in emissions of climate-changing nitrogen oxides and loss of soil health is also a major contributing factor to nitrate run-off and the need for petroleum-based chemicals whose production results in oil spills. It is within the power and authority of EPA to reverse the threats to biodiversity and human existence.

EPA must reevaluate its risk-benefit analysis to recognize the existential threats posed by toxic pesticides and the industrial agriculture they support. EPA must, instead, promote organic agriculture that does not create such threats.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

The United Nations has just announced an agreement on a new high seas treaty. The treaty can be a step toward realization of President Biden’s “America the Beautiful Initiative,” the “first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President –of conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030”—endorsing the United Nation’s 30 x 30 plan to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030.

A report by an international coalition of scientists led by Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco documents the widespread and growing pollution of the ocean. The report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” is published in the Annals of Global Health (DOI: 10.5334/aogh.2831).

Professor Philip Landrigan, M.D., director of the observatory and of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program, summarizes the need to protect the oceans, “Simply put: Ocean pollution is a major global problem, it is growing, and it directly affects human health.” The UN treaty, recognizing the need to address “biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems of the ocean, due to, in particular, climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, such as warming and ocean deoxygenation, as well as ocean acidification, pollution, including plastic pollution, and unsustainable use,” will promote the implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

But signing and ratifying the treaty are only first steps. The treaty requires concrete steps to promote its objectives when making decisions under other laws, ensuring “that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.” As shown by the report, whose findings are drawn from 584 scientific reports, these impacts include: pollution of the oceans by plastics, toxic metals, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, sewage, and agricultural runoff that is killing and contaminating the fish that feed 3 billion people; coastal pollution spreading life-threatening infections; oil spills and chemical wastes that threaten the microorganisms in the seas that provide much of the world’s oxygen supply. 


Action is needed now to stop the ongoing collapse of marine ecosystems. Researchers blame chemical pollution from pesticides, farm fertilizers, and oil spills. The same chemicals that contribute to the insect apocalypse on land are contributing to the loss of keystone aquatic and marine organisms. For example, neonicotinoid insecticides, which have been detected in rivers, streams, and lakes in 29 states, harm keystone aquatic organisms, with a complex cascading impact on ecosystems. EPA’s 2017 risk assessment for the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, found, “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.” These surface waters eventually drain into the ocean.

EPA has responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Clean Water Act to protect human health and the environment from these threats.

The same industrial agriculture that is supported by EPA’s registration of toxic pesticides and results in emissions of climate-changing nitrogen oxides and loss of soil health is also a major contributing factor to nitrate run-off and the need for petroleum-based chemicals whose production results in oil spills. It is within the power and authority of EPA to reverse the threats to biodiversity and human existence.

Please ensure that EPA re-evaluates its risk-benefit analysis to recognize the existential threats posed by toxic pesticides and the industrial agriculture they support and promotes organic agriculture that does not create such threats.

Please encourage President Biden to sign the High Seas Treaty and the Senate to approve its ratification.

Thank you.

Letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield:

The United Nations has just announced an agreement on a new high seas treaty. The treaty represents a step toward implementation of President Biden’s “America the Beautiful Initiative,” the “first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President –of conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030”—endorsing the United Nation’s 30 x 30 plan to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030.

Meanwhile, a report just reissued by an international coalition of scientists led by Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco documents the widespread and growing pollution of the ocean. The report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” is published in the Annals of Global Health (DOI: 10.5334/aogh.2831).

Professor Philip Landrigan, M.D., the director of the observatory and of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and the Global Observatory on Planetary Health summarizes the importance of actions to protect the oceans, “Simply put: Ocean pollution is a major global problem, it is growing, and it directly affects human health.” The UN treaty, recognizing the need to address “biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems of the ocean, due to, in particular, climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, such as warming and ocean deoxygenation, as well as ocean acidification, pollution, including plastic pollution, and unsustainable use,” will promote the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December.

But signing and ratifying the treaty are only first steps. In order to comply with the treaty, nations must take concrete steps to promote the objectives of the treaty when making decisions under other laws, ensuring “that the activity can be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevention of significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.” As shown by the Global Observatory’s report, whose findings are drawn from 584 scientific reports, these impacts include: pollution of the oceans by plastics, toxic metals, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, sewage, and agricultural runoff that is killing and contaminating the fish that feed 3 billion people; coastal pollution spreading life-threatening infections; oil spills and chemical wastes that threaten the microorganisms in the seas that provide much of the world’s oxygen supply. 


Action is needed now to stop the ongoing collapse of marine ecosystems. Please encourage President Biden to sign the High Seas Treaty.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2023) Following years of discussions and negotiations, 193 United Nations member countries have just approved — for the first time — a draft treaty for protection of the globe’s “high seas” and their denizens. The March 4 adoption of the draft marks the achievement of a potential legal framework for such protections, but is also the beginning of “a long journey to ensure the world’s oceans are adequately protected for future generations,” according to coverage by NewScientist. As research out of Boston College identifies, our oceans are badly polluted by multiple substances — including pesticides and other agricultural runoff; industrial and petrochemical waste; and the synthetic chemicals embedded in plastics — that threaten human health. The treaty, which must be adopted by member states and then ratified by at least 60 countries to take effect could be a critical development for meeting the COP15 “30 by 30” goal of protecting 30% of the world’s land and sea by 2030 to slow and arrest global biodiversity losses. Beyond Pesticides has long covered the ecological harms of ocean pollution. 

The treaty represents a step toward implementation of President Biden’s 2021 “America the Beautiful Initiative,” proclaiming “the first-ever national conservation goal” established by a President — a goal of conserving at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.” That said, the U.S. has a poor track record on approval of UN environmental treaties; approval requires a two-thirds majority affirmative vote in the Senate, and failure on that would block a Presidential signature and ratification.

Consensus on the draft treaty — titled “Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction” — was not easy. Since 2004 nations have been in discussions about how to create environmental protections for international waters, but these repeatedly got bogged down around issues related to fishing rights, resource rights, funding, and allocation of the benefits of marine genetic resources (MGRs) derived from deep-sea corals, seaweeds, sponges, krill, and bacteria — in which the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries are very interested. Since 2022’s COP15 summit, pressure from global NGOs and the so-called “high ambition coalition” (the U.S., United Kingdom, European Union [EU], and China) has mounted, and is credited with helping to get consensus on the treaty “over the line.” Promises of more funding, including roughly US$857 million from the EU, also greased the wheels.

This treaty addresses the world’s “high seas,” defined as oceans that lie in international waters and thus, are not subject to national regulations. Stockholm University’s Frida Bengtsson was quoted by NewScientist: “The high seas belong to everyone; juridically, they’re seen as ‘the common heritage of mankind,’ just as space or the moon.” The high seas include the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, and Southern oceans, which host important areas of unique marine habitat and significant biodiversity that are under real threat from pollution, overfishing, and climate change. Roughly two-thirds of our oceans — covering about half the planet — are in the “high seas” category, which also means there are few legal protections in place for them, especially related to environmental threats or risks.

The world’s oceans occupy half of the planet’s surface and comprise two-thirds of oceanic real estate. They generate half of the oxygen humans breathe, host 95% of the biosphere of the Earth, and are, in the aggregate, the largest carbon sink. They are a primary regulator of global climate; and they are in trouble.

The research referenced above was the first to conduct a focused examination of ocean pollution’s impacts on human health; it reviewed nearly 600 scientific reports on various aspects of maritime contamination. Published in Annals of Global Health and released at the Monaco International Symposium on Human Health & the Ocean in a Changing World, the research paper concluded that ocean pollution is worsening, and that when the toxins from that pollution return to terra firma, they threaten the health and well-being of more than three billion people worldwide.

Lead researcher Philip Landrigan, MD is director of the Boston College Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and the university’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health, commented in a news release: “People have heard about plastic pollution in the oceans, but that is only part of it. Research shows the oceans are being fouled by a complex stew of toxins including mercury, pesticides, industrial chemicals, petroleum wastes, agricultural runoff, and manufactured chemicals embedded in plastic. These toxic materials in the ocean get into people, mainly by eating contaminated seafood. . . . We are all at risk, but the people most seriously affected are people in coastal fishing communities, people on small island nations, indigenous populations, and people in the high Arctic. The very survival of these vulnerable populations depends on the health of the seas.”

The research team’s central findings were these:

• mercury pollution is widespread in the oceans, accumulating to high levels in predator fish; once in the food chain, this poses documented risks to people who consume these fish
• burning coal is the primary source of mercury contamination; mercury toxins vaporize as coal burns and eventually land in ocean waters
• coastal pollution — industrial waste, agricultural runoff, pesticides, and human sewage — has increased the incidence of damaging algal blooms, which produce toxins associated with neurological harms, dementia, amnesia, and death
• plastic waste in the oceans (to the tune of 8 to 10 million tons a year) is ubiquitous; it breaks down mechanically into microplastic particles that contaminate and can kill fish, seabirds, and other marine organisms; virtually all humans now harbor these microplastics in their bodies

The 5 Gyres Institute has amplified very recent research (published on March 8) that identifies a shocking metric: there is now a great and growing “plastic smog” in the world’s oceans, comprised of 170 trillion plastic particles. From the paper abstract: “Today’s global abundance is estimated at approximately 82–358 trillion plastic particles weighing 1.1–4.9 million tonnes. We observed no clear detectable trend until 1990, a fluctuating but stagnant trend from then until 2005, and [then] a rapid increase until the present. This observed acceleration of plastic densities in the world’s oceans, also reported for beaches around the globe, demands urgent international policy interventions.”

Read recent Beyond Pesticides coverage of the damaging impacts of ocean pollution (from plastics, synthetic agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, pharmaceutical waste, etc.) on marine biodiversity, and on plankton, in particular. Plankton, which comprise small and microscopic plant, animal, bacterial, and fungal organisms, are the basis of the ocean food chain. They are consumed by krill, which are eaten by fish, which are then consumed by larger ocean creatures, and by terrestrial animals — including billions of human beings. Plankton could credibly be considered “über-keystone species” for their function as the basis of the marine (and a significant part of the terrestrial) food chain. Their plummeting numbers — a global population drop of 40% since 1950 — should sound a dire alarm.

The researchers’ recommendations on mitigating the pollution pipeline to our oceans include:

• create, expand, and safeguard marine protected areas
• shift rapidly from use of fossil fuels for energy to renewables (wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal)
• eliminate coal combustion entirely, and tightly control all industrial uses of mercury
• reduce plastics production and ban production of single-use plastics
• promote effective waste management and recycling
• reduce agricultural releases of nitrogen, and phosphorus, as well as animal waste, industrial discharges, and discharge of sewage into coastal waters
• execute robust monitoring of ocean pollution and extend pollution control programs to cover all countries
• support research on the extent, severity, and human health impacts of ocean pollution

Given the state of the world’s oceans, and the peril represented by their intensive contamination, this treaty cannot happen fast enough. In 2022, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission outlined the variety of threats our oceans face:

• climate change warms and acidifies waters, causing death of coral reefs and threats to other ocean organisms, as well as thermal expansion of sea water (water molecules become more distant from one another) because of warmer temperatures, leading to more wetland flooding, erosion, and contamination of littoral agricultural lands
• plastic pollution causes physical damage to ocean creatures (entanglement, suffocation, lacerations, infection, and internal injury); 80% of ocean plastic originates with terrestrial human activity, largely littering/inappropriate plastic disposal; 8 million tons of plastic end up in the oceans every year
• nonpoint source pollution is the runoff from land to ocean (including pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural lands and other managed turf), precipitation, and atmospheric deposition
• petrochemical/oil spills
• ocean dumping is intentional discharge from industry, sewers, oil tankers, and entities that discard trash into the seas
• shipping and transport “contribute” waste and trash to the oceans; these activities account for a big chunk of the economic activity supported by oceans (90% of global trade uses sea routes); dredging to expedite shipping disturbs ecosystems; maritime transport generates 30% of global emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides; the shipping industry also generates noise pollution that harms marine organisms
• extractive industries, such as deep-sea mining and offshore oil drilling
• fishing and fishing gear contribute significantly to ocean pollution by leaving behind harmful (often plastic) debris; industrial fishing nets (usually plastic), abandoned or lost, are a chief problem

Advocates say that a critically important impact of the treaty would be the creation of international marine protected areas in which destructive activities, such as industrial fishing, deep sea mining, or offshore/deep water petroleum drilling could be restricted. Among the general principles embedded in the draft treat are:
• the Precautionary Principle

• the polluter pays
• the common heritage of humankind
• equity, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits
• integrated, ecosystemic approaches
• recognition of the special circumstances of small island developing states and least-developed countries

In response to affirmation of the draft treaty, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that it would prove “crucial for addressing the triple planetary cris[e]s of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.” World Wildlife Fund’s Jessica Battle commented, “What happens on the high seas will no longer be ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ . . . We can now look at the cumulative impacts on our ocean in a way that reflects the interconnected blue economy and the ecosystems that support it.”

Dr. Landrigan sounds a hopeful note, saying, “The key thing to realize about ocean pollution is that, like all forms of pollution, it can be prevented using laws, policies, technology, and enforcement actions that target the most important pollution sources. Many countries have used these tools and have successfully cleaned fouled harbors, rejuvenated estuaries, and restored coral reefs. The results have been increased tourism, restored fisheries, improved human health, and economic growth. These benefits will last for centuries.”

From its lane, Beyond Pesticide emphasizes that the transition from conventional, chemical-intensive agricultural and land management practices and products to organic would all but eliminate one important source of toxic ocean pollution.

Sources: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2362921-what-is-the-un-high-seas-treaty-and-will-it-save-the-worlds-oceans/ and https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/science-tech-and-health/earth-environment-and-sustainability/landrigan-ocean-report.html

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2023) A study published in Environmental Research finds exposure to organophosphate (OP) compounds during pregnancy, or prenatal OP exposure can cause shortfalls in language development abilities at 18 months, stifling preschool-age language expression. Additionally, a timely and co-occurring study published in Environmental International confirms similar results, highlighting that chlorpyrifos (an organophosphate) impedes neurological and psychological development, including language communication and all motor skills of offspring at 12 and 18 months old. Prenatal development is one of the most vulnerable periods of exposure, as the fetus is most susceptible to the harmful effects of chemical contaminants. Many studies indicate that prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases susceptibility to diseases, from learning and developmental disabilities to cancer. Given research links to pesticide exposure and neurological and cognitive development, studies like this can help government and health officials identify how pesticides’ impact on the brain elevates health concerns. The Environmental Research authors note, “The etiology [cause] of language development is complex, and this work further highlights the importance of the prenatal environment as a mechanism of influence that are associated with deficits in early language acquisition and ability, which could signal increased behavioral problems and academic difficulties in later childhood that extend into adolescence.”

The study in Environmental Research includes 299 mother-child groups from Norway. Researchers examined chemical exposure in pregnant mothers during gestation week 17 and accessed the related language skills of children at 18 months of age and pre-school age (~4-6 years old). Parents and teachers report the child’s language ability and apply it to structural equation models. Prenatal exposure to OP pesticides has a negative correlation with language ability in both 18 months and preschool-aged children. The results published in Environmental International mirror those of the Norwegian study as researchers assessing neuropsychological development in 12-month and 18-month-old children find the stages of communication and motor skills among children are underdeveloped relative to age.

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

Both studies add to the growing evidence of the impacts chemical exposure during pregnancy has on offspring health, specifically neurological development. Additionally, these studies highlight that early childhood developmental pathways are significant for future health. The findings around OP exposure and delayed communication skills are not new. Research underscores one of the mechanisms that allows chemical contamination in a mother’s body to affect the fetus. In blood and umbilical cord samples, pregnant women already have over 100 detectable chemicals, and studies find pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Like these studies, other studies demonstrate that exposure to pesticides, such as organophosphate insecticides like chlorpyrifos, have endocrine disruption properties that induce neurotoxicity via acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition. The number of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities is increasing in the U.S., and many children in rural areas—where pesticide use is most prevalent—have a higher rate of neurological disabilities. Therefore, it is essential to effectively monitor and assess pesticide exposure for the sake of human health.

There is a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical windows of development. Similarly, the general population is at elevated health risk should from pesticide exposure. Fortunately, the wide availability of non-pesticidal and nontoxic alternative strategies gives residential and agricultural management safer choices to establish a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For instance, buying, growing, and supporting organic land management reduces human and environmental contamination from pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Numerous studies find that pesticide metabolite levels in urine significantly decrease when switching to an all-organic diet. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage on the Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through the 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 learning/developmental disorders, Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Body Burdens, and other diseases. Additionally, learn more about the hazards to children’s health through Beyond Pesticide’s Pesticides and You Journal article, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.”

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

Source: Environmental Research, Environmental International

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2023) An old Kerr-McGee Wood Treatment Facility is still causing health issues among residents in Springfield, Missouri. The former site of pressure-treated railroad tie production remains contaminated with creosote, a concoction of dangerous chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols, and creosols. While residents are still dealing with lingering effects of a now shuttered production site, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to reregister creosote (wood preservatives are regulated as pesticides in the U.S.), perpetuating the harm caused by this material despite the wide availability of alternatives.

The wood treatment facility in question operated for nearly 100 years, releasing significant levels of creosote-related chemicals throughout the immediate region. The Kerr-McGee Corporation spun off its liability for a range of hazardous sites previously under its control to a separate company called Tronox, which subsequently declared bankruptcy in 2009. Andarko Petroleum then purchased Kerr-McGee, but, during bankruptcy proceedings, Tronox filed a complaint against both Andarko and Ker-McGee, alleging fraudulent conveyance of the liabilities. As EPA explains, “At the core of the plaintiffs’ complaints is the allegation that the Defendants fraudulently transferred valuable assets out of Tronox and left Tronox with insufficient funds to pay the billions of dollars of liabilities that Tronox owed to involuntary creditors.” A bankruptcy settlement led by the Southern District of New York resulted in the companies being liable for over $5 billion in environmental claims and liabilities, the largest settlement to date on this issue.

While large corporations played a shell game with regulators, everyday residents continued to experience harm from the site. Longtime resident June Smith was interviewed by local new station KOLR10, explaining, “Every Friday night they released the creosote and I have a ditch out there in back and it smelled so bad you could not be outside,” Ms. Smith said. “It would burn your eyes. It would hurt so bad. You didn’t cook out or go outside then because it was awful.”

While burning eyes and bad smells will ruin anyone’s outdoor experience, the impacts of the plant go far beyond mere inconveniences for residents. These minor impacts were merely the acute effects of chemicals that pose much greater long=term risks.

“Everybody in this neighborhood has died of cancer,” Ms. Smith told KOLR10. “I can take you from house to house. One of my best friends at the top of the hill is now dying of cancer. My husband died, so it’s very much bad stuff.”

Unfortunately, such a situation is not isolated to Springfield residents. Dozens upon dozens of Superfund sites around the country are caused by the former production or process of highly hazardous wood preservatives. In Houston, residents announced a lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad for its contamination of properties. Residents, like Latonya Payne, are telling the story of Corinthian Giles, a 13-year-old boy she was the legal guardian of who died of leukemia after a five-year battle with the disease. A recent report found that the Houston community is in the midst of a childhood leukemia cancer cluster, with disease rates five times the national average.

While EPA Administrator Michael Regan toured the region as part of his Journey to Justice tour, EPA is currently in the process of reauthorizing creosote use for another 15 years, despite a history that shows it is impossible to produce and use creosote without causing contamination and poisoning.

Advocates are concerned that EPA is continuing to move too slowly to eliminate toxic wood preservatives and promote safer alternatives. After nearly a century of use, the agency is cancelling the highly toxic wood preservative pentachlorophenol (penta), taking action after Beyond Pesticides joined with local residents, reporters, and legislators to stop its last potential production site in the country.  Yet it has done so with a 5-year phase-out period, ultimately allowing economic decisions to trump the health of vulnerable residents.

Steel, concrete, and composite represent viable alternatives to hazardous wood preservatives and provide a lifespan of 80 to 100 years. And while wood preservatives are likely to require re-treatment, steel, concrete and fiberglass do not. In addition, disposal costs for chemicals used in wood treatment are high and continue to grow, while steel can be recycled. Communities may also choose to bury their utility lines if conditions are appropriate.

Join Beyond Pesticides in urging EPA to immediately ban all toxic wood preservatives in favor of nontoxic alternatives.

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

Source:  KOLR10, EPA Case Summary: Tronox Incorporated Bankruptcy Settlement

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2023) Exposure to glyphosate (Roundup) and its breakdown products is associated with an increased risk of liver and metabolic disorders in children and young adults, according to research published in Environmental Health Perspectives earlier this month. While glyphosate has developed a well-deserved reputation as a carcinogen, research is finding that cancer is one of a myriad of chronic diseases associated with the notorious chemical. As this body of literature grows, growing awareness by the public is increasing pressure on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to cancel its allowed uses.

Researchers began their investigation concerned about the rise of liver disorders and metabolic syndrome among young people. This trend has been pronounced among populations of color. The worrying increase has led many to consider synthetic chemical exposure as a contributing factor, as lack of diet and exercise is unlikely to account for the entirety of the increase.

To better understand these impacts, researchers enrolled existing participants in the CHAMACOS (Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas) study, a long running cohort of mothers and their children born between the years 2000 and 2002 in the Salinas Valley of California. Enrolled participants consistent mostly of farmworker families who were studied (including assessment of body measurements, contaminants in blood and urine, diet, interview questionnaires) at delivery and followed at one to two year intervals. For the present study, 480 participants who completed the 18 year old follow up visit were enrolled in a nested case-control study. Out of this 60 cases were selected based on blood tests for liver damage while 91 controls without liver damage were used as a comparison.  

Scientists reviewed urine samples stored from pregnancy, and at ages 5, 14 and 18 years old. These data were considered against an analysis of the amount of agricultural-use glyphosate occurring in and around each enrolled family’s residence.  

The results confirm there is cause for concern among young people’s exposure to glyphosate. At age 5, urinary levels of glyphosate’s primary breakdown product aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) was associated with an increase in transaminases, liver enzymes that can cause harm at high levels in the body, as well as a nearly 2x increased risk of metabolic syndrome. This trend associating glyphosate exposure with adverse effects held throughout early adulthood. Glyphosate and AMPA exposure significantly increased risk of metabolic syndrome in 14-year-olds. When paired with data on the amount of agricultural use glyphosate in a given area, having lived near an a site where glyphosate was applied from birth until 5 years of age was associated with having metabolic syndrome at age 18.

This is not the first study linking glyphosate to liver damage. A 2015 study determined that chronic exposure to even ultra-low doses of the chemical in drinking water could result in harm to the kidney and liver. A study in 2017 connected the chemical to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and a 2019 study built on those findings, showing higher levels of glyphosate in the urine of individuals diagnosed with NAFLD. A 2022 study likewise found that glyphosate before and after birth induces liver damage, posing a significant risk to pregnant women, infants, and children.

NAFLD and other liver disorders can increase the risk of metabolic syndrome. And a growing body of literature has implicated pesticide exposure and the rise of metabolic disorders and obesity, separate from concerns over diet and fitness. Researcher Bruce Blumberg, PhD, of University California Irvine has published extensively on the issue – a transcript of his 2018 talk to the National Pesticide Forum was published in Pesticides and You and is available on Beyond Pesticides’ Youtube page.

For additional information on the connection between pesticides and chronic disorders, read Sicker, Fatter, Poorer by Leonardo Trasande, MD – see Beyond Pesticides’ review of the book, and Dr. Trasande’s discussion at Beyond Pesticides 2021 workshop on protecting children from pesticides on our Youtube page.  

Help support ongoing actions to eliminate glyphosate use by telling EPA to ban the chemical immediately.

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

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2023) After the Trump EPA was blocked from weakening the application exclusion zone (AEZ) provisions for protecting farmworkers, the rules reverted to the Obama era rules. Now, EPA proposes to reaffirm part of that rule, while accepting some of the weakening amendments from the Trump administration.

Tell EPA to strengthen pesticide rules to protect farmworkers. Tell President Biden to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.   

EPA’s Worker Protection Standards (WPS) are rules 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 farmworkers, their children and communities. Under the WPS, AEZs are buffer zones where people are not allowed to enter during the course of a pesticide application. Like all buffer zones, they are designed to allow application of toxic pesticides while providing a nominal degree of protection. Pesticides drift long distances when being applied and they volatilize off of treated areas and then move through air currents.

Under the proposed regulations, the AEZ would remain the same, while—as proposed by the Trump administration—allowing farm families to remain inside structures within the AEZ and allowing applications to resume after halting because someone was in the AEZ. These proposed rules, while not as egregious as the Trump EPA rule, are a step backwards from the current rule.

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. 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 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers.

Many farmworkers are migrant workers, and are subject to conditions that would not be permitted for U.S. citizens. The U.S. is not a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens.

 Tell EPA to strengthen pesticide rules to protect farmworkers. Tell President Biden to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.   

Thank you.

Send a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan

Letter to Administrator Regan:

After the Trump EPA was blocked from weakening the application exclusion zone (AEZ) provisions for protecting farmworkers, the rules reverted to the Obama era rules. Now EPA proposes to reaffirm part of that rule, while accepting some of the weakening amendments from the Trump administration. 

EPA’s Worker Protection Standards (WPS) are rules 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. Under the WPS, AEZs are buffer zones where people are not allowed to enter during the course of a pesticide application. Like all buffer zones, they are designed to allow application of toxic pesticides while providing a nominal degree of protection. Pesticides drift long distances when being applied and they volatilize off of treated areas and then move through air currents. 

Under the proposed regulations, the AEZ would remain the same, while—as proposed by the Trump administration—allowing farm families to remain inside structures within the AEZ and allowing applications to resume after halting because someone was in the AEZ. These proposed rules, while not as egregious as the Trump EPA rule, are a step backwards from the current rule. 

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. 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 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers. 

Many farmworkers are migrant workers, and are subject to conditions that would not be permitted for U.S. citizens. The U.S. is not a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens. 

Please strengthen protections for farmworkers by eliminating their exposure to toxic pesticides. Please tell President Biden to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. 

Send a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. Representative to the United Nations

Letter to Secretary Blinken and Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield:

I am writing to ask your assistance in protecting migrant farmworkers.

After the Trump EPA was blocked from weakening the application exclusion zone (AEZ) provisions for protecting farmworkers, the rules reverted to the Obama era rules. Now EPA proposes to reaffirm part of that rule, while accepting some of the weakening amendments from the Trump administration.

EPA’s Worker Protection Standards (WPS) are rules 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. Under the WPS, AEZs are buffer zones where people are not allowed to enter during the course of a pesticide application. Like all buffer zones, they are designed to allow application of toxic pesticides while providing a nominal degree of protection. Pesticides drift long distances when being applied and they volatilize off of treated areas and then move through air currents.

Under the proposed regulations, the AEZ would remain the same, while—as proposed by the Trump administration—allowing farm families to remain inside structures within the AEZ and allowing applications to resume after halting because someone was in the AEZ. These proposed rules, while not as egregious as the Trump EPA rule, are a step backwards from the current rule.

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. 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 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers.

Many farmworkers are migrant workers, and are subject to conditions that would not be permitted for U.S. citizens. The U.S. is not a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens.

Please tell President Biden to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2023) On February 22, a group of 65 nonprofit organizations (including Beyond Pesticides) filed a citizen petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that asks the agency to close a gaping — and well exploited — regulatory loophole by revoking a 1984 regulation that waived efficacy data requirements in pesticide evaluations. This means that EPA has, for 39 years, registered pesticides without demonstrated proof of efficacy and benefits. The petition is aimed primarily at the widespread use of neonicotinoid insecticides (neonics), which are so harmful to hundreds of species — and to bees, other pollinators, and birds, in particular — that many advocates have insisted they should be banned altogether. Beyond Pesticides has advocated for a neonics ban because of their extensive harms to pollinators, multiple other organisms (including humans), ecosystems, and natural resources.

The Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Biological Diversity, Beyond Pesticides, and other advocates have filed lawsuits in recent years to get EPA to act protectively on neonics and other pesticides. The coalition of groups in the subject case seeks to rein in a plethora of harmful impacts of neonics, given EPA’s overall lack of protective action. (For recent developments, see here and here.) Indeed, in the absence of effective neonic regulation, many localities and states (e.g., Maine, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Portland and Eugene, Oregon), as well as France and unitary state entities, such as the European Union and the United Kingdom, have taken steps to ban or curb significantly the use of these noxious compounds.

Led by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) and the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the petition “asks EPA to amend its existing regulation for registrations of all neonicotinoid insecticides and other systemic insecticides so as to require all registration and re-registration applicants to provide performance (efficacy) data to ensure that the benefits of their products actually exceed their costs, including to society and to the environment.” Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman asserts that EPA does not evaluate the efficacy of pesticides, except for those deemed to have public health benefits (such as those used in a public health emergency or for a “special local need”); even then, he says agency action on the latter has hardly been stellar.

According to the Environmental Health Newsletter (EHN), the current, ubiquitous use of neonics has arisen in large part from that 1984 EPA waiver, which said, “rather than require efficacy data, the Agency presumes that benefits exceed risks.” EHN also notes that, “The petition specifically calls for the EPA to reinstate performance data requirements and says if the companies failed to provide such information, the EPA should revoke their product registrations. The rule change would include products currently on the market.”

Neonics are the most widely used class of insecticides globally; they impact roughly 100 million acres annually in the U.S. In a PEER press release subtitled “Neonicotinoid insecticides targeted for wreaking eco-havoc despite lack of economic benefits,” Senior Counsel Peter Jenkins commented, “While EPA should hold all pesticides to a higher standard, for the neonics we have voluminous published evidence on their lack of efficacy, their prophylactic overuse, and the environmental harm they are causing. The threat they pose to long-term ecosystem integrity is especially insidious.”

Launched to market two decades ago, use of neonics increased significantly when the treatment of crop seeds with the compounds took hold. This marked “an unprecedented shift toward large-scale, preemptive insecticide use,” and has contributed to the insect apocalypse underway — as evidenced by a 75% decline in insect abundance.

The impacts on pollinators are of extreme concern, both generally and because these creatures are critical to food production. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently reported, for example, that the western bumble bee underwent a 57% decline from1998–2020. The use of neonics, and pesticides broadly, threatens not only global ecosystems, but also, food production that depends on pollinators. Neonic seed treatments are commonly used on cotton, soybean, wheat, canola, wheat, sunflower, potato, and many vegetables seeds.

A chief contributor to bee, other pollinator, and bird decline, neonics affect the central nervous systems of organisms. The chemicals impair, for example, bees’ foraging, navigational, and learning behaviors, and immune responses, and often result in paralysis and death. As Beyond Pesticides has written, “These individual impacts are compounded at the level of social colonies, weakening collective resistance to common parasites, pathogens, and other pesticides . . . thus leading to colony losses and mass population declines. In 2018, more than two hundred scientists co-authored a ‘call to restrict neonicotinoids’ on the basis of the bulk of evidence implicating neonicotinoids in mass pollinator and beneficial insect declines.”

Neonics are systemic compounds, meaning that they move throughout a plant’s vascular system, and are present not only in plant tissues, but also, in pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets. Organisms that feed off of treated plants (and those that grow from treated seed) thus ingest the compounds and suffer the risks outlined above; this includes beneficial insects. Any plant remnants left in the field also harbor the compounds, polluting the soils on which they decompose. Neonics can persist for long periods in soil, and are highly water soluble; they can be transported by rain or irrigation systems to surface waters, waterways, and groundwater.

Yet another vector for exposures is the neonic dust that becomes airborne when treated seeds are planted. Together, these paths account for much of the contamination of drinking water by neonics. Neonic impacts on health, via compromise of the central nervous system, is not limited to the insect and bird world. Humans are also at risk, with established associations between neonic exposures and neurotoxicity, reproductive anomalies, hepatic and renal damage, and an increase in gene expression linked to hormone-dependent breast cancer.

Acting director of the pollinator initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Daniel Raichel, commented: “The failure to regulate treated seeds creates a gigantic regulatory blind-spot — allowing one of the largest and most widespread uses of pesticides to go almost completely untracked and unregulated.”

Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Journal in 2020 adds to the arguments against this class of insecticides: “[N]eonicotinoid exposure is far higher than necessary to achieve plant protection and yield objectives. Neonicotinoid seed coatings rarely improve crop yield, and neonicotinoids are applied preventively to vast areas of turf, which cover more land in the United States than any other irrigated crop, even when pests are absent or below thresholds. . . . Risks to many terrestrial, aquatic, and detrital organisms and ecosystems have been documented. Considering these risks, advocacy groups have frequently promoted outright bans on all neonicotinoids in all circumstances, and this stance seems easy to justify.”

Efficacy facts belie the intensive use of neonics as seed treatments. EPA itself (in 2014) reported that “seed treatments with neonicotinoid insecticides provide little or no overall benefit in controlling insects or improving yield or quality in soybean production.” (See the detailed EPA letter on the underlying research here.) Research in 2019, as reported by Beyond Pesticides, found that neonic-treated soybeans provide negligible benefits to farmers in terms of yield and overall economic benefit. EPA ought, in its neonic registrations and re-registrations, be evaluating whether pesticide compounds — especially those with such demonstrated harms as neonics cause — are necessary and effective before introducing them into the environment or allowing their continued deployment.

It is instructive, in discussion of the petition’s attention to efficacy, to note that under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Organic Program (NOP) operates with attention to the necessity of a substance: “NOSB members use specific criteria when voting on substances, including the essentiality for the substance and its impacts on human health and the environment.” EPA should take a page from NOP: if a neonic does not work, it is entirely unnecessary.

Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman comments, “The justification EPA has used about efficacy of pesticides is that ‘the marketplace determines efficacy,’ and that ‘farmers and consumers wouldn’t buy them if didn’t work.’ When we’re talking about toxic substances and acknowledged hazards and risks, it is inappropriate for an agency to allow harm, especially if the product doesn’t work or perform as intended.” In 2021, a coalition of groups, including PEER and Beyond Pesticides, issued a scathing critique of the performance of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs — embedded in the groups’ advocacy for a series of 25 reforms.

The subject petition is the most recent strategy used by advocates to pressure EPA to curb the use of neonics by altering its registration (and re-registration) process for them (and all pesticides) to take into account their efficacy. The petition tackles one specific aspect of EPA’s process on one class of insecticides. The agency’s track record, on so many pesticides, is to deal with one compound (under a narrow range of circumstances and/or narrow time frame and/or specific exposure levels) at a time. Beyond Pesticides has dubbed this the “whack-a-mole” struggle on pesticides.

Each regulatory baby step at EPA, each judicial settlement or knock-down of a particular pesticide, each bit of research demonstrating harms — these represent small, incremental advances on a pesticide problem that is vast in scope. But this approach is wholly inadequate to the devastation that toxic pesticides are causing, and it continues the “collision course” we are on re: human health and well-being, biodiversity collapse, and the climate crisis. A precautionary approach — captured in organic, regenerative agriculture and land management protocols — is far more suited to the task of genuinely protecting public health and the environment than EPA’s current, industry friendly, piecemeal approach.

The availability of alternative materials and practices that prevent (or vastly reduce) toxic hazards, as are used in organic management, makes the dependence on synthetic chemical pesticides even more reprehensible. As consistent readers of the Daily News Blog are aware, Beyond Pesticides pursues a vision of a genuinely protective approach to pests (floral or faunal) in agriculture and land management, via a transition from chemical dependency to organic land management in food production, and in parks, playing fields, and all recreational and public spaces. In the meantime, efforts to push EPA will continue to move the needle, however slowly and haltingly. EPA should take seriously its mission: to protect human health and the environment.

Source: https://www.ehn.org/neonics-pollinators-2659453225.html

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2023) Populations experiencing higher levels of environmental pollutant exposure, specifically pesticides, also experience a higher rate of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), according to a study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. IBS is a gastrointestinal disorder that causes abdominal pain or discomfort and changes in bowel behaviors. IBS affects 25 to 45 million individuals in the U.S., mostly female (two-thirds). Additionally, a quarter to half of all gastrointestinal-related visits are for IBS symptoms. Despite the unknown etiology of IBS, ample evidence demonstrates environmental contaminants, like pesticides, negatively affect the gut microbiota, causing a microorganism imbalance and resulting in inflammation associated with IBS. 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.

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, “These findings may help to understand the relationship between pesticide exposure and IBS; however, more epidemiological and experimental research is needed to understand and confirm the role of these exposures in the development of IBS.”

This study assesses whether people experiencing continuous exposure to pesticides from areas near intensive agriculture have an association with the occurrence and risk of IBS. Using a case-control study over 20 years (2000-2021), researchers evaluate IBS diagnosis among over 1.5 million residents from Andalusia, southern Spain, and categorize geographical locations as two areas of high or low pesticide use. In the two areas, insecticides, including organophosphates [chlorpyrifos], N-methyl carbamates, macrocyclic lactones, neonicotinoids, and pyrethroids, are commonly used. Fungicides (i.e., [di] thiocarbamates, conazoles, dicarboximide), anilino-pyrimidines, and copper salts, and herbicides, including bipyridyl (paraquat, diquat), organophosphonates (glyphosate), chlorotriazine, and phenylurea, are commonly used in these areas. Over the 20 years, 18,807 individuals in the two areas of pesticide exposure received an IBS diagnosis. About 10,302 of these individuals live near areas of high pesticide use/exposure, while 8,506 individuals reside in areas of low pesticide use/exposure. However, IBS rates are significantly higher among individuals experiencing higher levels of pesticide exposure.

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. 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 can affect some 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. 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).

The study highlights the increased risk of IBS in pesticide-heavy areas, particularly among women. In addition, the research suggests consideration of sex and age can act as predictors of IBS. Scientific studies demonstrate the male and female immune systems may differ as males may be more susceptible to infection, while females are more vulnerable to autoimmune disorders. IBS may be chronic or recurrent diarrhea, constipation, or both. For instance, in males, an infection can induce changes in the gut microbiome resulting in diarrhea-predominant IBS. However, IBS among female patients is more likely to affect immune function, including hormone balances associated with mood disorders and thyroid issues. For instance, in women, hormones, like estrogen, may play a role in gut sensitivity as there are gender differences in hormone activity involving the enteric nervous system that regulates intestinal activity. The study concludes, “The widespread use of pesticides has raised concerns about environmental pollutants, and policies to address these concerns should be implemented. However, more research supported to confirm our findings since epidemiological evidence is scarce even though data obtained in experimental animals supports the deleterious effects of pesticides on intestinal health.”

Pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt gut function, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). As IBS incidence increases, it is essential to mitigate further exposure to disease-inducing pesticides that may exacerbate the onset of symptoms. For more information on the link between pesticides and autoimmune disorders, see the page on Immune System Disorders in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticides in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, from rural to urban, can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. 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. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology

(Beyond Pesticides, March 1, 2023) Fungicides sprayed on chemically farmed strawberries reduce their flavor quality, according to research published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry this week. This explanation is a major insight for frustrated consumers who may remember when the strawberries sold at retail contained deeper, more complex flavors. As the agrichemical industry claims that dangerous pesticides are needed to grow food to feed the world, it is evident these practices health and environmental hazards, but also affect the quality of the food grown. As savvy shoppers and gardeners already know, buying and growing organic addresses this range of issues, improving flavor while protecting wildlife and public health.

Scientists developed their study to better understand the mechanisms leading to flavor deterioration by growing strawberry plants in a greenhouse with chemical-intensive practices, including the use of synthetic fertilizers. One group was treated with the fungicide boscalid, another with the fungicide difenconazole, and a control group received no spray. Fruits were sprayed beginning at the green, small fruit stage, a total of two times, and collections from each group were taken at the white, turning, and red fruit stage (zero, three, and seven days after the second pesticide application).  Analysis was conducted on a range of variables, including fruit weight and size, total soluble solids, the fruit sugar-acid ratio, content of flavonoids, phenols, evidence of stress biomarkers, and volatile compounds. Red ripe fruits from each group were also blind taste tested by a panel of 30 individuals for a range of flavor attributes.

Differences in fruit weight and size are not significant between any of the groups. Sugar content increases through ripening as expected for all treatments, but the control group ripe strawberries contain the most sugars (with fructose being the highest content). Differences in sugar content are not minute, with the difenconazole expressing 10% less fructose, and boscalid group 25% less.  At the same time, levels of titratable acid increase in the fungicide treatments, and display the lowest sugar-acid ratio; the control group expresses the highest.  

Treated strawberries show lower levels of flavonoid content and a lower number of total phenols compared to the control. Analysis found evidence that treated strawberries also have higher levels of oxidative stress. In regards to volatile compounds produced by the fruits, fungicide treated fruit only showed higher levels associated with acids. Measurements of esters, aldehydes, furanones, and terpenes all see a marked decrease after fungicide applications.

The taste testing panel generally reflects the findings of the scientific analysis. All groups score roughly the same on how ripe, fresh, juicy, and firm the strawberry is. However, fungicide-treated groups score lower on aroma, and the acid intensity of the sprayed strawberries are rated higher. The control group resulted in the highest selection score, followed by the difenconazole and then boscalid-treated group.

For fungicide-treated strawberries, sugars are turned to acids, reducing sweetness, and changes in volatile compounds further reduce aroma and taste.  

These data add another reason to avoid chemically grown products. In many ways, this is the theme of chemical farming – in trying to simplify rather than embrace the complexity of the environment and growing conditions, this approach makes for a bland and increasingly dull world.

In addition to flavor, organic products are also the healthier option. Organic dairy products have been found to be healthier than those produced through chemical-intensive management practices by increasing the proportion of beneficial amino acids. Even processed organic products represent a better choice over their chemical-intensive counterparts. According to recent data, even switching from a highly processed diet to one rich in fruits, vegetables and nuts is compromised by the presence of pesticides, potentially tripling exposure. Eating organic reduces exposure to pesticides, according to a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics. And research shows that organic food consumption is associated with higher scores on cognitive tests.

Help grow the organic movement, and enshrine practices that lead to healthier, tastier food by participating in Beyond Pesticides’ action alerts aimed at maintaining and improving organic integrity. See the webpage on Organic Agriculture for more information.

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

Source: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Phys.org

(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.