(Beyond Pesticides, December 12, 2022) It is time for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to follow through on its duty to assess individual “inert” ingredients used in organic production. In creating the original regulations for the National Organic Program (NOP), USDA—based on the recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)—decided to postpone the evaluation of so-called “inert” ingredients until active materials had been reviewed for the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. In this context, “inert” is a misleading legal term since the ingredient may be chemically or biologically active, but not included for purposes of attacking a target organism. The first regulation and all subsequent revisions have allowed the use of “inert” ingredients on EPA’s former Lists 4A (“minimal risk inert ingredients”) and 4B (“other ingredients for which EPA has sufficient information to reasonably conclude that the current use pattern in pesticide products will not adversely affect public health or the environment”). A limited number on List 3 (“inerts of unknown toxicity”) were allowed in pheromone products.

[This action requires a submission at Regulations.gov. You can copy and paste from the suggested comment below. Comments are due December 31, 2022.]

Tell USDA that the National Organic Program must evaluate “inert” ingredients used in organic production.
[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 language from the 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.)]

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) requires that no synthetic substance may be used in organic production unless evaluated and recommended by the NOSB and entered on the National List, which is contained in NOP regulations. Now USDA is accepting comments on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on “inert” ingredients used in organic production. The ANPR reflects a lack of understanding on the part of the USDA authors of the character of so-called “inert” ingredients and the requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act, as well as the history of efforts by the NOSB to address this issue. USDA refers to time, effort, and work required to implement the NOSB’s recommended reviews of individual “inert” ingredients. These references are disingenuous at best, considering the time that has elapsed since the issue became critical when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was no longer supporting the lists to which NOP regulations refer—16 years ago.

Some crucial facts must be acknowledged by USDA:

* “Inert” ingredients are not biologically or chemically inert. The Beyond Pesticides report “’Inert’ Ingredients in Organic Production” compares the toxicity of active substances and “inert” substances used in organic production. In almost every category, there are more harmful “inerts” than active substances.
* OFPA allows the use of a synthetic substance in organic production only if it is listed on the National List “by specific use or application” based on a recommendation by the NOSB, following procedures in OFPA.
* The NOSB has repeatedly passed recommendations telling NOP to evaluate individual “inerts.”

In moving forward,

* There must be no more delay.

* The first step must be the immediate publication in the Federal Register of all “inerts” known to be used in organic production, with a request that registrants of products approved for use in organic production to notify AMS if their products contain other “inert” ingredients.

* USDA must allocate resources needed to review substances that are identified.

* Former List 3 “inerts” must be relisted according to the Spring 2012 NOSB recommendation.

* USDA must establish a process for production of technical reviews of substance on former Lists 4A and 4B.

* The NOSB must evaluate the substances according to a process designed to complete the review of all “inerts” within five years of publication of the list, and USDA must complete rulemaking in accordance with OFPA and NOSB recommendations.

* Known endocrine disrupting and persistent organic pollutants—such as nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), bisphenols, and orthophthalates—should not be permitted.

* Every five years the materials will be subject to sunset review.

This action requires a submission at Regulations.gov. You can copy and paste from the suggested comment below. Comments are due December 31, 2022.

Tell USDA that the National Organic Program must evaluate “inert” ingredients used in organic production.
[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 language from the 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.)]

Suggested comment:

It is time for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to follow through on its duty to assess individual “inert” ingredients used in organic production. In creating the original regulations for the National Organic Program (NOP), USDA—based on the recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)—decided to postpone the evaluation of so-called “inert” ingredients until active materials had been reviewed for the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. The first regulation and all subsequent revisions have allowed the use of “inert” ingredients on EPA Lists 4A (“minimal risk inert ingredients”) and 4B (“other ingredients for which EPA has sufficient information to reasonably conclude that the current use pattern in pesticide products will not adversely affect public health or the environment”). A limited number on List 3 (“inerts of unknown toxicity”) were allowed in pheromone products.

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) requires that no synthetic substance may be used in organic production unless evaluated and recommended by the NOSB and entered on the National List, which is contained in NOP regulations. Now USDA is accepting comments on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on “inert” ingredients used in organic production. The ANPR reflects a lack of understanding on the part of the USDA authors of the character of so-called “inert” ingredients and the requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act, as well as the history of efforts by the NOSB to address this issue. USDA refers to time, effort, and work required to implement the NOSB’s recommended reviews of individual “inert” ingredients. These references are disingenuous at best, considering the time that has elapsed since the issue became critical when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was no longer supporting the lists to which NOP regulations refer—16 years ago.

Some crucial facts must be acknowledged by USDA:

* “Inert” ingredients are not biologically or chemically inert. The Beyond Pesticides report “’Inert’ Ingredients in Organic Production” compares the toxicity of active substances and “inert” substances used in organic production. In almost every category, there are more harmful “inerts” than active substances.

* OFPA allows the use of a synthetic substance in organic production only if it is listed on the National List “by specific use or application” based on a recommendation by the NOSB, following procedures in OFPA.

* The NOSB has repeatedly passed recommendations telling NOP to evaluate individual “inerts.”

In moving forward,

* There must be no more delay.

* The first step must be the immediate publication in the Federal Register of all “inerts” known to be used in organic production, with a request that registrants of products approved for use in organic production to notify AMS if their products contain other “inert” ingredients.

* USDA must allocate resources needed to review substances that are identified.

* Former List 3 “inerts” must be relisted according to the Spring 2012 NOSB recommendation.

* USDA must establish a process for production of technical reviews of substance on former Lists 4A and 4B.

* The NOSB must evaluate the substances according to a process designed to complete the review of all “inerts” within five years of publication of the list, and USDA must complete rulemaking in accordance with OFPA and NOSB recommendations.

* Known endocrine disrupting and persistent organic pollutants—such as nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), bisphenols, and orthophthalates—should not be permitted.

* Every five years the materials will be subject to sunset review.

Thank you for your consideration of this urgent issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2022) Representatives from more than 195 countries have descended on Montreal for the December 7 start of COP15 — the United Nation’s (UN’s) Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The UN Development Programme sets out the context for this summit: “Despite ongoing efforts, biodiversity is deteriorating worldwide, and this decline is projected to worsen with business-as-usual. The loss of biodiversity comes at a great cost for human well-being and the global economy.” Beyond Pesticides has documented many aspects of this decline in biodiversity, and the implications for ecosystem, human, and planetary health. In this COP15 context, the data points to the importance of broad adoption of organic regenerative / agroecological systems, which can very significantly address the interactive health, biodiversity, and climate crises.

Close on the heels of November’s UN COP27 summit on climate, COP15 has commenced, with the goal of adopting a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (CBF) to provide “a strategic vision and a global roadmap for the conservation, protection, restoration, and sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystems for the next decade.” The first such summit was called the Convention on Biological Diversity and was held in 1993. Out of it and subsequent meetings have come several international agreements — the 2003 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (focused on environmental protection from potential risks of genetically modified organisms), and the 2014 Nagoya Protocol (aimed at sharing benefits of the use of genetic resources in equitable ways), as well as other actions related to environmental integrity, community rights, and rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Prior to that, in 2010 the conference adopted a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity — the Aichi Biodiversity Targets for the 2011–2020 period. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, “[a]t the global level none of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets agreed by Parties to the CBD in 2010 [were] fully achieved.”

Subsequently, CBD focus shifted to the development of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework via the current (through December 19) meetings in Montreal. NGOs, such as Friends of the Earth and the CBD Alliance — the latter a network of civil society organizations — are engaged in the COP15 process. The CBD Alliance has forwarded equity and transparency concerns about that process, as demonstrated in this letter, and has set out its long list of “ingredients” it wants included in a successful COP15 GBF.

Among those is a serious and ambitious focus on the role of agroecological approaches to agriculture (and forestry) operations around the world. Agroecology overlaps broadly with organic regenerative agricultural approaches — for which Beyond Pesticides advocates strongly, and which it has described and explained here, here, and here (at 46:55). Agroecological approaches are generally described as: holistic and diversified; integrating ecological principles into the design and management of food production systems; incorporating social justice and cultural concerns; and embracing of multiple kinds of outputs, as well as spatial and temporal diversification. In addition, they center the health of the soil, the organismic ecosystems beneath the soil surface, and the resultant ability to drawn down and hold carbon.

Such approaches show up “on the ground” in multiple strategies, including crop rotation; no (or very limited) chemical inputs, such as synthetic pesticides and fertilizers; interplanting and succession planting; use of cover crops; no- or low-tillage (without use of herbicides); and no or few off-farm inputs (and in the former case, typically because crop production is supported by and integrated with maintaining some on-farm livestock). The UN Food and Agriculture Organization provides a primer on the elements of agroecology.

Many organic producers operate according to a majority of these principles, although U.S. organic standards (i.e., U.S. Department of Agriculture Certified Organic) do not mandate use of all the practices described above. Some consider organic farming practices to be roughly synonymous with agroecological practices, but agroecology, as it is practiced in some parts of the world, also attends to the health of forests and their management. (See an illustrative case study, of an agroecological farm in Ethiopia, in an Organic Without Boundaries blog entry.)

According to Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman, U.S. “organic” does not require and codify all of those agroecological features in its National Organic Standards (NOS). But the NOP (National Organic Program) “does have defined standards that are enforceable and subject to public review. Because issues of cost are not factored into producers’ meeting OFPA [the Organic Foods Production Act] standards, and because scale is often based on inputs or practices that are not allowed in organic, the USDA National Organic Program has, embedded in it, standards that are generally not friendly to industrial agriculture. At the same time, with agribusiness pushing for entry into the organic market, we are vigilant in Keeping Organic Strong.” (For more on what is allowed and not allowed in organic production, see the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.)

The global transition to these approaches to agricultural production is imperative. In addition to Beyond Pesticides’ long-standing and ardent endorsement of the transition, The Rodale Institute has studied and advocated for organic systems for decades, and in 2016, the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES) issued a report calling for a “paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems.”

In recent years, multiple national and international entities have encouraged the transformation of food and agriculture systems, including aspects of the European Union’s Farm to Fork strategy, and the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, which issued a 2019 report — Our Future in the Land — calling for radical transformation of the UK food and agricultural system to sustainable, agroecological farming by 2030.

In his introduction to Beyond Pesticides’ recent 2022 Forum Series seminar, Tackling the Climate Emergency, Mr. Feldman said, “We [in the U.S.] don’t have to be theoretical about this. We have organic systems in place, governed by a clear definition and requirements for compliance with standards. Under the OFPA in the U.S. (and similar statutes worldwide), those selling products as organic are required to adhere to a legal definition of soil management practices, a list of allowed and prohibited substances, a certification and inspection system that establishes compliance with defined organic standards, and a participatory public decision-making process for continuous improvement. This approach, whether in agriculture or in our parks and playing fields, eliminates the reliance on fossil fuel-based toxic chemicals that release greenhouse gases. It also employs the ability of healthy soil, rich in biodiversity, to draw down atmospheric carbon.”

Seminar speakers emphasized the need for, and evidence of the many benefits of, the critical transition to organic regenerative / agroecological agriculture for rescuing and sustaining biodiversity, health, and climate. One of the seminar presenters was Dr. Rachel Bezner Kerr, PhD, a researcher and expert on sustainable African agriculture, and on climate change adaption, who is also participating in COP15 discussions. (See Dr. Kerr’s presentation at Beyond Pesticides’ climate seminar, beginning at 5:48.)

Dr. Kerr recently Tweeted: “Agroecology is key to ensuring the success of the Global Biodiversity Framework,” and pointed to a recent study of agroecological practices in Ethiopia as demonstrative of their potential benefits. That research paper calls agroecology “key . . . [to] meeting significant increases in our [future] food needs . . . while ensuring no one is left behind. . . . [A]groecology can promote the transition towards social-ecological sustainability. Unlike other approaches to sustainable development, agroecology helps to deliver contextualized solutions to local problems. It is based on bottom-up and territorial processes, involving the co-creation of knowledge, and combining science with the traditional, practical, and local knowledge of producers. It is characterized by its participatory approach,” and enhances farmers’ income, achieves food security, and protects the environment.

A report by another agroecology expert, Faris Ahmed of Carleton University, has been core to the case, pressed by advocates at COP15, to re-center the role of agriculture in recovering and supporting biodiversity, and in the GBF. His report for Friends of the Earth, Replanting Agricultural Biodiversity in the CBD, maintains that “agriculture needs to be dealt with both as a destructive force, and [for] its ability to nurture and restore biodiversity. Today’s industrially driven, large-scale agriculture and intensive livestock production is identified as the biggest driver of land use change, ecosystem exploitation and destruction, and a significant contributor to climate change. However, agriculture is also a solution: in contrast to industrial agriculture, peasant agriculture and food provision, practiced by the majority of the world’s small-scale farmers, nurtures and safeguards agricultural biodiversity.”

Beyond Pesticides concurs. We have recently underscored the benefits of organic practices for biodiversity, drought resilience, climate, farm operation economics, and soil health, and amplified our call for a rapid phase-out of the use of toxic, petrochemical pesticides within a decade — a critical component in progress toward restored biodiversity and health for ecosystems and humans. Mr. Feldman adds, “The agroecology movement is critical. We need a big tent to bring communities together worldwide and eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers in a short timeframe. At the same time, we need strong domestical and international standards, and governmental systems — with legal requirements and enforcement — that move agriculture to sustainable, agroecological / organic regenerative practices that can restore biodiversity and, simultaneously, address the climate and health crises.”

Source: https://www.foei.org/what-we-do/forests-and-biodiversity/convention-on-biological-diversity/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 8, 2022) Children with higher levels of certain pesticide metabolites are more likely to go through early puberty, according to research published recently in Environmental Pollution. The findings by a team of Spanish researchers speak to a need for greater protections for children from toxic pesticide exposure. Children are much more sensitive to pesticide exposure than adults as they take in greater amounts of toxics relative to their body weight and have developing organ systems. Managing homes and yards without chemicals and purchasing organic food whenever possible can significantly reduce childhood pesticide exposure.  

Researchers began their investigation with children aged 7-11 participating in the Spanish state’s Environment and Childhood multicenter birth cohort stud, an ongoing project aimed at understanding the effect of environmental exposures on pregnancy, fetal, and childhood development in the country. Out of over 3,000 children enrolled in the project, 1,539 had their urine sampled for the presence of pesticide metabolites. Scientists focused on four insecticides breakdown products—a chlorpyrifos metabolite ‘TCPy’, a metabolite of the organochlorine diazinon ‘IMPy’, a general organophosphate metabolite ‘DETP’, the pyrethroid metabolite ‘3-PBA’, and a metabolite of ethylene-bis-dithiocarbamate fungicides ‘ETU’.

Urinary levels of these pesticide metabolites were then compared against parental-reported stages of pubertal development. Researchers worked to control for confounders, and did explore the further interaction between pubertal development, chemical exposure, and body mass index.

For girls, urinary concentrations of DETP and ETU above the 75^th percentile were associated with a greater chance of pubertal development, with ETU fungicide metabolites specifically resulting in greater development among girls who are underweight or normal weight (with odds ratios averaging a 10x increased risk). For boys, any detection of TCPy was found to influence more rapid genital development than boys without evidence of exposure. 3-PBA and ETU above the 75^th percentile in boys was associated with greater development in overweight/obese and underweight/normal weight children respectively. Interestingly, DETP was found to be associated with lower odds of pubertal development in overweight/obese boys.

“[T]hese findings represent a potential cause of concern, due to the widespread exposure to children in the general population to pesticides and the possibility that altered pubertal timing may increase the risks of behavioral disorders during adolescence and of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and endocrine-related cancers later in life,” the authors write.

This area of research has been developing consistently since the turn of the century. In 2008, a study on the synthetic pyrethroid esfenvalerate found that it delayed the onset of puberty in rats at doses as much as two times lower than levels EPA classified as having no adverse effects. Nearly a decade later, another study on synthetic pyrethroids, this time looking directly at the association between urinary levels and puberty onset, found similar results with the insecticide cypermethrin. Not only did this study find an association, it was able to characterize the effects driving the process. In rodent models, researchers found that cypermethrin was accelerating puberty through hormonal release. Rather than a response from the hypothalamus, which controls the release of pituitary luteinizing (affecting the reproductive system) and follicle-stimulating hormones, scientists found that cypermethrin acts directly on cells within the testis and pituitary glands.

Advocates concerned with the impacts of pesticide exposure on children emphasize pesticide use and agrichemical industry profits should not be prioritized of the children’s health. Yet, in the United States, toxic pesticides are regularly sprayed in and around schools, parks, and playgrounds where children play, and food served in school cafeterias is more frequent than not grown through chemical, rather than organic farming practices.

Research finds that children who eat an organic food diet score higher on tests measuring fluid intelligence and working memory. Help prevent the hazards effects that pesticides can cause to children by encouraging your child’s school to serve organic food, and working to eliminate the unnecessary of toxic pesticides on community lawns and landscapes.

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

Source:  Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, December 7, 2022) A recent study from Australian researchers has investigated pesticide use through an unusual lens — by quantifying the environmental footprints of pesticide use in 82 countries and territories (and eight regions), and then concluding that international trade drives significant pesticide use. The researchers identify the U.S., Brazil, and Spain as the biggest exporters of the “pesticide hazard load” associated with those environmental footprints, and China, the United Kingdom, and Germany as the top three importers. They lay responsibility for this hazard load at the feet of the unsustainable intensification of chemical-intensive agriculture (via synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use during the past 50 years), and ratcheting consumer demand for goods and services. Indeed, they conclude that the latter, in “developed” countries, is responsible for a substantial portion of the pesticide pollution in other countries.

The study authors note that previous “efforts to quantify the environmental footprints of global production and consumption have covered a wide range of indicators, including greenhouse gas emissions, water scarcity, biodiversity, nitrogen pollution, acidification, land use, and others, but they have largely missed . . . represent[ing] the environmental pressures exerted by pesticide use.” The researchers set themselves the task of quantifying the “footprints” of pesticide use, from producers to final consumers, in order to map how international trade drives pesticide use, and identify potential repercussions if/when a nation’s policy were to shift from domestic production toward increased importation. They note that prior research has evidenced impacts of specific products and processes, but has not accounted for the role of globalization and international trade.

The researchers remind readers that the intensity of chemical-dependent agriculture (which uses copious amounts of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers) is unsustainable; these practices degrade both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, deplete water resources, and contribute to the climate crisis, among other impacts. Beyond Pesticides has spent its tenure demonstrating that pesticide use has huge impacts on the functions of ecosystems, biodiversity (and insect and pollinator loss, especially), natural resources, and human health.

The study employs an unusual metric in its investigation; it defines pesticide footprints as the “hazard load” of pesticides used for crop production to satisfy consumer demand for food (for humans and animals), textiles, and services that utilize either. They define hazard load (HL) as the measurement of the total body weight of nontarget organisms that would be required to absorb pesticides accumulating in the environment. The higher the HL, the greater the environmental pressure related to consumption. (The study analyzed only the use of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides on croplands, did not account for pesticide impacts on human health or for acute exposure impacts, and used data from 2015.)

The researchers’ analyses account for roughly 79% of global pesticide use, and 70%, 70%, and 63%, respectively, of use in Brazil, the U.S., and China, the world’s top three pesticide consumers. Insecticides, according to the researchers, contribute 80% of the global insecticide footprint, and herbicides, 10%. The study’s methodology included estimating residual pesticides — the amounts remaining in the environment after application. Of the 3.24 tonnes (or 3.57 U.S. tons) of pesticides analyzed, the study finds that roughly 9.3% accumulated as residues in the environment.

That amount of residue translates to a hazard load of about 2 gigatonnes (2,204,622,622 U.S. tons) of organismic body weight (see last paragraph), 34% of which the team attributes to consumption by developed countries (which house 18% of global population), and 66% to consumption in developing countries, which represent most of the world’s people. Try, for a moment, to imagine how many organisms that HL would require; it is a stupefying quantity that would be required to absorb the environmental residue from that 79% of global pesticide deployment.

The world’s pesticide footprint is distributed across sectors, with plant-based foods comprising the largest portion at 59%; the orchard fruit and grapes sector accounts for a whopping 17% of the global figure. Animal-based foods contribute roughly 11%. Strikingly, the study finds that “17% of the pesticide footprints in developed countries is attributed to the consumption of empty calorie food products such as soft drinks, alcoholic drinks, chocolates, ice-creams, and sugars. In contrast, these food items contribute only 9% of the footprints in developing countries.” Clothing and other textile sectors comprise 4% of the global pesticide footprint; consumption of food and textile products in the service and industrial sectors are responsible for another 13%.

The well-known outsized environmental footprint of the developed economies/countries in other regards (climate, water consumption, energy use, et al.) is borne out in the pesticide footprints, as well. The study authors assert that approximately “49% of pesticide footprints caused by the consumption in developed countries [— which harbor only 18% of global population — is] embodied in international trade (i.e., the pesticide hazard loads were occurring abroad), while the consumption of imported goods contributes only 23% of the pesticide footprints in developing countries.

Roughly 32% of global pesticide footprints are traded internationally (i.e., 32% of global pesticide hazard loads occurred outside of the country of final consumption). More than 90% of pesticide footprints imported by some European countries were caused by active pesticide substances/ingredients that were banned for use in those importing countries. (See Beyond Pesticides coverage of the direct export of banned pesticides here and here.)

The study finds that China is the biggest net importer of goods with embodied HLs from insecticides and herbicides, followed by Germany, the UK (United Kingdom), Japan, and India. (“A net importer exerts more environmental pressures (i.e., more pesticide hazard loads) abroad due to their consumption than locally for exports, and vice versa for net exporters.”) The U.S. is the largest net exporter of goods with insecticide- and herbicide-embodied HLs, followed by Brazil; 34% of the U.S. HL exports head to China. Roughly 61% of pesticide footprints carried in Brazil’s exports is caused by consumption in developed countries, especially the U.S., Germany, and the UK.

The study traced the flows of such embodied pesticide footprints along international trade supply lines, and found that the biggest flow moves from the U.S. to China, mostly due to soybeans and other grain/legume commodities. As for impacts of human food crops, orchard fruits and grapes yield the highest footprints (per unit mass and calories), and wheat the lowest. Soybeans show the lowest footprint among protein-rich crops; meat registers a slightly higher footprint per unit.

Having tracked and quantified the pesticide footprints of commodities as they are exported and imported around the world, the authors conclude: “A reciprocal pesticide regulation may need to be implemented for imports to discourage the consumption of imported commodities produced using the substances banned in the importing country. Countries importing pesticide footprint should also contribute a fair share in the effort to develop technology for sustainable pest management and the implementation of remediation projects to reduce pesticide contamination in exporting countries. To reduce environmental impacts from global food production, our study suggests that, in addition to sustainable pest management strategies that reduce pesticide use, the strategy of shifting human diet towards plant-based foods should be accompanied by the promotion of awareness to minimize food waste and food loss, reduction of overconsumption, and a decrease in the consumption of empty-calorie foods.”

The authors make valuable points about the responsibility of countries not to export banned pesticides, about the importance of reducing waste and overconsumption, about the pesticide footprint of nutritionally empty food items, and the advisement of shifting to more plant-based foods in the diets of, especially, developed nations. Yet, as with so much research on which Beyond Pesticides reports, conclusions that argue for “reduction” of pesticide use, “sustainable” pesticide use, integrated pest management (IPM), and the like — though well-intentioned — seem to miss the fundamental point. No incremental “reductions,” or IPM, will halt the ubiquitous number and variety of downstream impacts of pesticide use, never mind deal with what has already been deployed. Right now, pesticides are damaging pollinator populations, adding to the human chemical body burden, catalyzing disease processes, launching trophic cascades, degrading agricultural soils, and so much more.

Only agricultural and other land management practices that eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers — what in the U.S. we call organic production — would stop the toxic flow of pesticides, many of which have never undergone adequate risk evaluations. Please consider helping Beyond Pesticides advocate for the transition to organic regenerative agriculture, and other benign land management approaches. You can join/contribute, take up the issue in your local community, organize with others for state-level action, and more; let us know if we can help: [email protected] or 202.543.5450.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00601-8

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 6, 2022) Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—including banned pesticides—present a health risk to humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), according to a study published in Environmental Pollution. Regarding female humpback whales, levels of POPs in blubber are higher in juveniles and subadults than in adults, primarily from the transference of contaminants from the mother to her calf. 

Organochlorine compounds (OCs), such as organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are well-known persistent organic pollutants. The international Stockholm Convention treaty (signed by 152 countries, but not the U.S.) banned these primary pollutants of concern (UNEP, 2009) in 2001 (taking effect in 2004) because of their persistence, toxicity, and adverse effects on environmental and biological health. These pollutants have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. However, these chemicals can remain in the environment for decades and interact with various current-use pesticides, including organophosphates, neonicotinoids, and pyrethroids.

Although various studies demonstrate the volatile, toxic nature of POPs, much less research evaluates the impact POPs have on maternal offloading or transfer of contaminates to offspring and respective health consequences. The globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk. With the increasing rate of biodiversity loss, advocates say it is essential for government agencies to research how previous and ongoing use of POPs can impact present-day species. Likewise, collaborative, global monitoring of POPs can help leaders identify the effect on vulnerable species of the chemicals’ long-range transport and the most effective unified global strategy. The study notes, “Contaminant studies in cetaceans can provide information about pollutant levels and patterns in a given region.”

The study measured the concentration of POPs in the blubber of female humpback whales across all ages and distinguish contaminants from maternal offloading in offspring. Previous studies typically focused on POP concentrations in males rather than the confounding effects of reproductive status and maternal offloading (transfer of materials) in females. However, contaminant burdens in female whales need better assessment due to the direct transfer of POPs to offspring. Researchers gathered 36 blubber biopsy samples from female humpbacks whale in the Gulf of Maine to determine POP burdens across different ages (i.e., adult, subadult, juvenile, calf). Using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), researchers identified POPs, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes (DDTs), chlordane (CHLDs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs).

Overall, the most abundant POPs are PCBs, followed by DDTs and chlordane. PCB levels are above the estimated threshold for adverse health effects. The three aforementioned POPs have a significant difference in abundance between adults and juveniles and adults and subadults, with juveniles and subadults having higher concentrations. However, HCHs are less persistent among humpback whales, with little difference between age classes, except for HCH levels between juveniles and subadults. The researchers emphasize these changes in POP levels across ages “are consistent with maternal offloading and potentially important for evaluating population health and viability.”

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. While various POPs on the Stockholm Convention annex lists are no longer manufactured or utilized, many of these chemical compounds remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Therefore, individuals still encounter various POPs at varying concentrations, adding to the toxic body burden of those chemicals currently in use. Scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of adverse environmental effects, including wildlife, biodiversity, and human health. The impacts of pesticides on wildlife are extensive and expose animals in urban, suburban, and rural areas to unnecessary risks. Pesticides can affect animals through direct or indirect applications like drift, secondary poisoning, and runoff. Some animals could encounter direct spraying, while others may consume plants or prey contaminated with pesticides. However, the climate crisis adds another level of concern, especially regarding passive pesticide and microbial exposure from snowmelt.

Pesticide contamination has been identified as an issue in the U.S., as results of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) show that pesticides and their breakdown products are present in all U.S. streams and widespread in groundwater throughout the country. Permafrost and glacial melting will only add to water source contamination as volatile chemicals can enter waterways at the same concentration levels as before ice entrapment, even after several decades. Moreover, several banned chemicals are not soluble in water (e.g., DDT, lindane, chlordane) but bioaccumulate in the fatty tissue of many Arctic species, such as polar bears, seals, whales, and some fatty fish like salmon, herring, and catfish. The level of DDT in Arctic penguins’ blubber is similar to levels found more than 30 years ago when DDT was banned. Like marine invertebrates and birds, many marine mammals demonstrate signs of chemical poisoning, especially from POPs like DDT and PCBs.

This report demonstrates that exposure to chemical contaminants adversely impacts marine mammal health globally. The study notes specific long-term health concerns among the humpback whale population not described in previous reports, including reproductive toxicity, immune dysfunction, and increased susceptibility to disease. Despite the difference in diet (e.g., plankton, lower trophic level fish, etc.) among humpback whales and regional toothed whales, the risk of adverse health effects from POPs exposure remains similar for both cetaceans. However, this study is not the first to highlight instances of chemical contaminant transfer between mother and offspring, specifically among mammals. Beluga whales pass a portion of POPs, like PCBs, to the fetus from blubber storage. Similarly, accumulation in the fatty tissue of bottlenose dolphins in the eastern Atlantic. Studies find dolphins can harbor high concentrations of organochlorine compounds in their brain tissue.

POPs are not the only chemicals that contaminate marine mammal species. A 2020 study finds bottlenose dolphins and pygmy sperm whales along the eastern seaboard contain high triclosan and BPA levels and low levels of atrazine. All three chemicals display endocrine (hormonal) disrupting properties in ranges of animals, including mammals, even at extremally low levels. A 2018 study finds detectable levels of toxic industrial byproducts like “inert” ingredients from pesticide products in bottlenose dolphins inhabiting the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, there is growing concern over current-use chemicals like organophosphorus compounds in flame retardants, neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, and other pesticide classes. According to a 2018 study, marine mammals may lack the functioning of a gene that helps terrestrial animals break down certain toxic chemicals. Therefore, whales, manatees, dolphins, and other mammals may display heightened chemical accumulation in fatty tissue and sensitivity to pesticides.

The study concludes, “Due to the confounding effects of maternal offloading, POPs data collected from female marine mammals is less common than that of males, but the adverse health effects, such as immune dysfunction and increased susceptibility to disease, are important to assess the health of a population. In addition, POPs data can be used to develop models that can help determine the potential impacts of these toxic compounds on population growth of cetaceans.”

Chemical contamination is ubiquitous in terrestrial and marine environments. Regarding marine mammals, some indigenous tribes in Arctic regions rely on these very mammals and fish for sustenance, and ingesting these pollutants is inevitable, putting their health at risk. Higher bodily concentrations of chemicals are evident in those who consume contaminated meat with associated health risks, including immune system disorders, increased susceptibility to disease, central nervous system disorders, learning disabilities among children, reproductive issues, and cancer. Therefore, these mammals and other animals can act as sentinel species for chemical contamination, detecting risk to humans by exhibiting signs of environmental threat sooner than humans in the same environment. Unless more is done to address chemical pollution, humans will also continue to see similar declines in general health, fitness, and well-being. Learn more about the hazards pesticides pose to wildlife and what you can do through Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife program page, including mammals.

Replacing pesticides with organic, non-toxic alternatives is crucial for safeguarding public health, particularly in communities vulnerable to pesticide toxicity. A switch from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis. Organic agriculture eliminates toxic, petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizer use, building soil health, and sequestering carbon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that agriculture, forestry, and other land use contribute about 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. However, organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters ambient carbon in the soil. Learn how to sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions by switching to organic management practices by reading Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming. For more information about organic food production, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keep Organic Strong webpage. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure.

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2022) A petition filed last week with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) urges increased protections for the West Indian manatee after dramatic declines in its population over recent years. In 2017, USFWS downgraded the classification of the manatee from endangered—a category that broadly protects against “take,” defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct”—to threatened, for which an “acceptable” level of “take” is allowed. Following the downlisting of the species, manatee populations have declined dramatically.

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to upgrade the Florida manatee to endangered and require protection from chemical pollution. Tell your Congressional Representative to cosponsor H.R. 4946 and your Senators to introduce identical legislation. Tell Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to protect manatees.

Florida manatees, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), can live as long as 60 years, weigh up to 1,200 lbs, and have no natural predators. The biggest threat to these peaceful marine mammals is human activity. Humans harm manatees directly through boat strikes and encounters with fishing equipment, canal locks, and other flood control structures, but the largest threat comes from chemical pollutants.

In 2017, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating that over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, a bipartisan group of Florida Congressional Representatives, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) and Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL), have introduced legislation (H.R. 4946, Manatee Protection Act) that would reclassify the sea cows as endangered. In addition, a group of concerned environmentalists—the Center for Biological Diversity, Harvard Animal Law and Policy Clinic, Miami Waterkeeper, Save the Manatee Club, and Frank S. González García—have petitioned USFWS to restore the endangered status.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate (Roundup) herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other natural causes of mortality—including  red tide, and cold stress in the winter months, as manatees are unable to survive in waters below 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways from lawns and landscapes, parks, golf courses, and farm fields. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and highly manicured landscapes. The algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can either directly kill off more aquatic vegetation, or feed algae blooms as it breaks down. According to recent reporting, in just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. The Florida Governor’s plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce use of toxics and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical that lawmakers and the public take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to reduce the need to store tons of fertilizer in precarious lagoons, and spray these and other harmful chemicals broad areas of land throughout the state. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to upgrade the Florida manatee to endangered and require protection from chemical pollution. Tell your Congressional Representative to cosponsor H.R. 4946 and your Senators to introduce identical legislation. Tell Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to protect manatees.

Letter to U.S. Representative:

Florida manatees are facing severe threats, prompting a group of concerned environmentalists—the Center for Biological Diversity, Harvard Animal Law and Policy Clinic, Miami Waterkeeper, Save the Manatee Club, and Frank S. González García—to petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to restore the endangered status. Protecting manatees will require a multi-faceted approach, including upgrading their status to endangered and protecting their watery habitat from toxic threats. I am writing to ask you to cosponsor H.R. 4946, Manatee Protection Act, to re-classify manatees as endangered.

Florida manatees, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), can live as long as 60 years, weigh up to 1,200 lbs, and have no natural predators. The biggest threat to these marine mammals comes from chemical pollutants.

In 2017, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, a bipartisan group of Florida Congressmembers, Rep Vern Buchanan and Rep Darren Soto, have introduced legislation (H.R. 4946) that would re-classify the sea cows as endangered.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other causes of mortality—including red tide and cold stress in the winter months. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and treated landscapes. Algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can both directly kill off more aquatic vegetation and feed algae blooms as it breaks down. In just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. The Florida Governor’s plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce demand and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical that lawmakers and the public take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to reduce the need to store tons of fertilizer in precarious lagoons, and spray these and other harmful chemicals broad areas of land throughout the state. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Please cosponsor H.R. 4946, Manatee Protection Act of 2021.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators:

Florida manatees are facing severe threats, prompting a group of concerned environmentalists—the Center for Biological Diversity, Harvard Animal Law and Policy Clinic, Miami Waterkeeper, Save the Manatee Club, and Frank S. González García—to petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to restore the endangered status. Protecting manatees will require a multi-faceted approach, including upgrading their status to endangered and protecting their watery habitat from toxic threats. I am writing to ask you to introduce legislation identical to H.R. 4946, Manatee Protection Act, to re-classify manatees as endangered.

Florida manatees, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), can live as long as 60 years, weigh up to 1,200 lbs, and have no natural predators. The biggest threat to these marine comes from chemical pollutants.

In 2017, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, a bipartisan group of Florida Congressmembers, Rep Vern Buchanan and Rep Darren Soto, have introduced legislation (H.R. 4946) that would re-classify the sea cows as endangered.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other causes of mortality—including red tide and cold stress in the winter months. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and treated landscapes. Algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can both directly kill off more aquatic vegetation and feed algae blooms as it breaks down. In just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. The Florida Governor’s plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce demand and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical that lawmakers and the public take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to reduce the need to store tons of fertilizer in precarious lagoons, and spray these and other harmful chemicals broad areas of land throughout the state. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Please introduce legislation identical to H.R. 4946, Manatee Protection Act of 2021.

Thank you.

Letter to USFWS:

I am writing to support the petition by the Center for Biological Diversity, Harvard Animal Law and Policy Clinic, Miami Waterkeeper, Save the Manatee Club, and Frank S. González García to restore the endangered status of the manatee.

In 2017, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, it is clear that optimism over the status of the species was premature.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate (Roundup) herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other natural causes of mortality—including red tide, and cold stress in the winter months, as manatees are unable to survive in waters below 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and treated landscapes. The algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can either directly kill off more aquatic vegetation, or feed algae blooms as it breaks down. In just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. The Florida Governor’s plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce demand and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical to take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to eliminate threats from harmful chemicals. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Thank you for considering this request.

Letter to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission:

I am writing to ask you to take action to protect the Florida manatee by requiring the management of state parks with organic land management practices.

In 2017, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, it is clear that optimism over the status of the species was premature.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other natural causes of mortality—including  red tide, and cold stress in the winter months, as manatees are unable to survive in waters below 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and treated landscapes. The algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer.

In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can either directly kill off more aquatic vegetation, or feed algae blooms as it breaks down. In just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. Your plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce demand and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical to take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to eliminate threats from harmful chemicals. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Thank you for acting to protect the Florida manatee.

Thank you to sponsors of H.R. 4946

Thank you for sponsoring H.R., 4946, Manatee Protection Act of 2021, to restore the manatees’ endangered status under the Endangered Species Act. This action is critical for both the manatees and for Florida’s environment.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 2, 2022) The longest-running — four-decade — investigation comparing organic and conventional grain-cropping approaches in North America is reporting impressive results for organic. Recently announced in the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial — 40-Year Report are these outcomes: (1) organic systems achieve 3–6 times the profit of conventional production; (2) yields for the organic approach are competitive with those of conventional systems (after a five-year transition period); (3) organic yields during stressful drought periods are 40% higher than conventional yields; (4, 5, and 6) organic systems leach no toxic compounds into nearby waterways (unlike pesticide-intensive conventional farming), use 45% less energy than conventional, and emit 40% less carbon into the atmosphere. Beyond Pesticides reported in 2019 on similar results, from the institute’s 30-year project mark, which have been borne out by another three years of the trials.

The current report builds on results from the FST that were shared in the RI’s 2020 white paper, Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming,” which integrated the newest research data and offered action steps for consumers, policymakers, farmers, and others. That report asserted that a global switch to a regenerative food system could not only provide sufficient food for the world’s population, reduce chemical exposures, and improve biodiversity, but also, could be key to mitigating the climate crisis.

Through its longitudinal Farming Systems Trial (FST), the Rodale Institute (RI) has collected data that measure differences in soil health, energy efficiency, crop yields, water use and contamination, and nutrient density across test plots of grains grown in organic and conventional systems, and using different levels of tillage. The project focuses on grains (including wheat, corn, soy, and oats) because they represent 70% of U.S. crops.

On its 12-acre Pennsylvania parcel, the institute’s FST uses 72 experimental plots, across which are applied three broad approaches:

• organic manure, representing a typical organic dairy or beef operation, featuring long rotations of annual feed grain crops and perennial forage crops, fertilized through legume cover crops and periodic applications of composted manure, and using diverse crop rotations as primary defense against pests
• organic legume, representing a typical cash grain operation, featuring mid-length rotations of annual grain crops and cover crops, deploying leguminous cover crops as the sole fertilizers, and using only crop rotations as pest defense
• conventional synthetic, representing a typical U.S. grain-producing enterprise, using synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, and controlling weeds with synthetic herbicides (according to recommendations of Penn State University Cooperative Extension)

Each of those three is further divided into “no-till” and “tillage” strategies (tillage being the practice of digging up, turning over, or otherwise agitating the soil with mechanical tools — typically a plow or disc). This yields six different systems in the FST. The RI notes that, “No-till and organic no-till are not created equal. Conventional no-till utilizes herbicides to terminate a cover crop, whereas organic systems use tools like the roller crimper. We have found that organic no-till practices year after year do not yield optimal results, so our organic systems utilize reduced tillage, and the ground is plowed only in alternating years.” The RI website adds that, in order to model standard agricultural approaches, GM (genetically modified) crops and no-till were introduced to the conventional plots in 2008 when those techniques became common in the U.S.

Beyond Pesticides has covered the adverse impacts of conventional no-till, which, as noted, generally uses herbicides to knock down cover crops (in addition to using them on the crop plants). This additional herbicide use can actually cancel out any greenhouse gas emissions saved through not tilling, and can accelerate the development of weeds’ resistance to the herbicide compounds.

To what to attribute these demonstrated benefits of organic over conventional approaches? All these results, as Beyond Pesticides and the RI have asserted for decades, begin with soil health. “Healthy soil is that which allows plants to grow to their maximum productivity without disease or pests and without a need for off-farm supplements. Healthy soil is teeming with bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoa, nematodes, and other tiny creatures. Those organisms play an important role in plant health [by helping plants fight diseases and pests]. Soil bacteria produce natural antibiotics that help plants resist disease. Fungi assist plants in absorbing water and nutrients. Together, these bacteria and fungi are known as ‘organic matter.’ The more organic matter in a sample of soil, the healthier that soil is.”

Healthy soil retains more moisture, boosting plants’ ability to survive periods of drought; it binds together, supporting soil structure that more successfully wards off soil erosion and runoff into waterways. And because organic systems don’t use chemical inputs, toxic compounds are not deployed into the environment, and fewer fossil fuels are used (because synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are derived from petrochemicals).

It is well known that organic practices increase organic matter in soils; but FST data show that organic matter (and thus, soil health) in organic systems increases continuously over time, whereas in conventional agricultural systems, this does not happen, and soil health remains essentially unchanged. According to the RI, such healthy, organically managed soils allow “15–20% more water to percolate through soils, replenishing groundwater and helping organic crops perform well in extreme weather. More organic matter also means more total microorganisms that make nutrients available to plants for strong growth.” The metrics used to determine a soil’s health include: the number of microorganisms present in the soil; the ability of the soil to retain water during drought or dry periods; the number and variety of nutrients present; and the quantity of carbon the soil is able to hold.

By contrast, a more conventional view of soil sometimes sees it as little more than an “empty matrix” to which (chemical) inputs are added so that plants can survive, rather than as a living, evolving, and interactive ecosystem that provides a rich growing environment for plants and many other life forms.

The FST stands out as a singular research approach for multiple reasons, but chief among them is its longevity. The RI explains that, “Short-term studies that take place over only a few years can’t measure longer-term weather effects, like drought, that will inevitably occur, or biological changes to the soil, which can happen slowly. We need long-term studies to find real solutions to problems affecting the future of global food production.”

These results were good news three years ago; they emerge as even more important as the world grapples with a constellation of intersecting environmental and health crises. Many of those are related to the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and are showing up as degraded soils, biodiversity loss, widespread chemical pollution, and compromised human and ecosystem health. These toxic compounds also play a role in exacerbation of the climate crisis. These realities challenge governments, institutions, businesses, and human populations to change “business as usual.” Yet we must change, and must influence decision makers at every level and in every institution if we are to rescue the future of human life on the planet.

Regeneration International has issued a dire warning: at current rates of soil destruction — via erosion, desertification, decarbonization, and chemical pollution — public health will be seriously damaged within 50 years. Soil scientists are predicting, the organization says, health damage from a food supply with reduced nutritive value (including loss of important trace minerals), as well as no longer having “enough arable topsoil to feed ourselves. Without protecting and regenerating the soil on our 4 billion acres of cultivated farmland, 8 billion acres of pastureland, and 10 billion acres of forest land, it will be impossible to feed the world, keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, or halt the loss of biodiversity.”

Regenerative organic agriculture has a potentially enormous role to play in the needed changes to business as usual in the agricultural sector, according to the Rodale Institute. Regeneration International defines such agricultural practices as “farming and grazing . . . that, among other benefits, reverse climate change by rebuilding soil organic matter and restoring degraded soil biodiversity — resulting in both carbon drawdown and improving the water cycle.” Such systems center soil health and, organically executed, remove toxic chemicals from agricultural production, whether of crops or livestock.

The organization adds, “Regenerative agriculture leads to healthy soil, capable of producing high-quality, nutrient-dense food while simultaneously improving, rather than degrading land, and ultimately leading to productive farms and healthy communities and economies. It is dynamic and holistic, incorporating permaculture and organic farming practices, including conservation tillage, cover crops, crop rotation, composting, [and] mobile animal shelters and pasture cropping, to increase food production, farmers’ income and especially, topsoil.”

The Rodale Institute posits, in its 2020 report, Regenerative Agriculture and the Soil Carbon Solution, that humans could sequester more than 100% of global, annual, human-caused CO₂ emissions if all global arable and grass lands were transitioned to regenerative systems, and that “stable soil carbon can be built quickly enough to result in a rapid drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” The organization adds to that the importance of shifting to organic regenerative systems, a distinction Beyond Pesticides has emphasized.

The RI makes the case: “Healthy soil is the foundation of our global food system, but currently, it’s at risk. The United Nations reports that using current practices, we have fewer than 60 years of farmable topsoil remaining. Every organic farming practice contributes to healthy, resilient soil that can support abundant life both below and above ground, making organic farming a powerful tool for soil conservation.”

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

For additional discussion of the relationship between climate and the pesticides and fertilizers of chemically intensive, conventional agriculture, and what transitional change can look like, see Beyond Pesticides’ recent seminar, Tackling the Climate Emergency. The presenters included Rodale Institute’s Andrew Smith, PhD and coauthor of several landmark reports on soil biology and carbon sequestration — including the just-released Farming Systems Trial — 40-Year Report, and Rachel Bezner Kerr, PhD, a Cornell University professor, and a coordinating author of the United Nations report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Dr. Smith shared information about the potential for organic regenerative practices, as short- and long-term strategies, to offset greenhouse gas emissions by sequestering massive amounts of carbon in soils over the next two-to-three decades.                 

With livability of the planet on the brink, the seminar speakers make the case for rapid reversal of the increasing release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) to arrest the heating of our planet’s atmosphere and oceans, and the alarming climate impacts we are starting to experience.

Source: https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/fst-30-year-report.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 1, 2022) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must put measures in place to protect endangered species from the hazardous insecticide cyantraniliprole before September 2023. The requirements stems from a recent federal appeals court ruling that found EPA in violation of its statutory obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agency originally lost its legal case on this chemical in 2017, but has since done nothing to fulfill the initial court order, necessitating further litigation by conservation groups. “It’s outrageous that the EPA is thumbing its nose at a federal court order even as cyantraniliprole wreaks havoc on our most endangered wildlife,” said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The EPA has acknowledged that this pesticide is incredibly toxic to bees and other invertebrates, but the agency is so accustomed to putting the profits of the pesticide industry ahead of its duty to protect human health and our environment that for years it simply ignored a direct court order.”

Cyantraniliprole is a systemic insecticide registered for use in 2014. It presents similar risks to pollinators and wildlife as other widely used systemics, such as the neonicotinoid class of chemicals. Its mode of action works by impairing the regulation of muscle contractions, causing paralysis and eventual death in insects. EPA considers the chemical “highly toxic on acute and oral contact basis” to bees. But despite clear data on the hazards to pollinators, the agency registered the chemical as a seed treatment and on a range of crops whose productivity depends on insect pollination.

Not only did EPA register this chemical with known hazards to pollinators, it also failed to consider, let alone mitigate, any potential impacts the chemical could cause to endangered species. In addition to pollinator impacts, the chemical was found to be “very highly toxic” to certain aquatic species.  It also showed evidence of liver damage in multiple tested species, including rats, mice and dogs, and was found to have the ability to alter the thyroid of laboratory rats. These data indicate a potentially significant threat to a range of aquatic and terrestrial endangered species, as well as human health.

Conservation and food safety groups sued EPA within months after registering cyantraniliprole, citing the agency’s failure to address and mitigate impacts to endangered species. The lawsuit took three years to work through the courts, resulting in a 2017 ruling that EPA violated the ESA when approving cyantraniliprole by failing to consider harm to endangered species. The court mandated EPA conduct required consultations under ESA with federal wildlife agencies (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) in order to evaluate the dangers posed. Yet documents uncovered by the Center for Biological Diversity through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that EPA took no steps whatsoever to fulfill this federal court order. Follow up legal cases resulted in the agency being ordered by a federal circuit court to fulfill its obligation in 2019. Again, no action was taken.

In 2021, another lawsuit was launched to force the agency to comply with its original legal requirements and the court order requiring it to fulfill its original legal requirements. Now, with the recent ruling in favor of conservation groups, EPA has a court ordered deadline to fulfill its legal obligations. “Today’s decision is a vital victory for endangered species and the planet,” said George Kimbrell, the Center for Food Safety’s legal director and co-petitioner in the case. “As EPA has proven over and over with pesticides, the only way the agency will do its job is when forced by a court.”

It appears as though the courts not only have to force EPA to do its job, but set a clear, unambiguous deadline for the agency to fulfill its order. As with the chemical chlorpyrifos, EPA delayed action on the chemical for years before finally receiving a court mandate to take final action in 2017, which then-Administrator Pruitt reversed, setting up another round of court battles. This resulted in another court deadline, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco in its ruling in May, 2021, in which it mandated EPA action, said, “The EPA has had nearly 14 years to publish a legally sufficient response to the 2007 Petition [filed by environmental and farmworker groups].” The court continued, “During that time, the EPA’s egregious delay exposed a generation of American children to unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos.”

In addition to cyantraniliprole, as recently as 2020, EPA registered the pesticide inpyrfluxam without ESA consultations, resulting in a lawsuit wherein EPA committed to drafting endangered species determinations by the end of this year.

While those sympathetic to EPA may excuse these actions as a result of a lack agency resources, advocates argue that it is not resources, but priority that is most concerning. Throughout these court deadlines, EPA managers continued to direct staff to review and approve toxic pesticides. Instead of fulfilling court ordered requirements, and shifting resources to these projects, the agency has remained focused on keeping pesticides on the market for as long as possible. In the context of understanding EPA as a captured agency beholden to those it is supposed to regulate, rather than the public and environment it is mandated to protect, these actions are unsurprising, yet still profoundly distressing.   

For its part, EPA released a new policy earlier this year indicating that it will follow the law and review the impact of pesticides on endangered species prior it its use. As Beyond Pesticides wrote at the time, “While it is not usually news for a government agency to announce it will follow statutory requirements, the agency’s new policy reverses decades of violative practice, whereby the EPA allowed pesticides on to market without a complete understanding of how threatened and endangered species would fare.”

While the long term efficacy of this directive has yet to be seen, it is important not only for EPA to fix issues in the future, but provide adequate scrutiny to the thousands of active pesticide ingredients already in commercial use. Join us in telling EPA to take meaningful action to protect endangered species.

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

Source: Progressive Farmer DTN, Center Biological Diversity press release

(Beyond Pesticides, November, 30, 2022) A petition filed last week with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) urges increased protections for the West Indian manatee after dramatic declines in its population over the last several years. In 2017, the USFWS downgraded protections for the manatee, a move that was widely criticized by conservation groups as premature. That sentiment has become a reality, with nearly 2,000 manatees dying over the last two years from a range of preventable factors.

West Indian manatees, a species of manatee that includes the Florida and Antillean Manatee subspecies, were first listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, at a time when there were less than 1,000 individual animals in the United States. By 2017, the number of manatees had increased to over 6,000, leading then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to downlist (downgrade) the animals from endangered to threatened under ESA.

ESA works to protect species by listing them as either threatened or endangered. A species classified as endangered is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant a portion of its range and a threatened classification means the species is likely to be endangered within the foreseeable future.  Endangered species are given greater protections than threatened species. While endangered species are broadly protected against “take” – defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” However, with threatened species USFWS can determine an acceptable level of take for the animal in question.

Since the downlisting of the species, manatee populations have declined dramatically. The animals are primarily at risk from a range of hazards, including boat strikes, entanglement with fishing equipment, habitat loss, and chemical pollution.

“With Florida’s manatees dying by the hundreds, it’s painfully clear that the 2017 federal decision to downlist the species was scientifically baseless,” said Ragan Whitlock, a Florida-based attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Fish and Wildlife Service now has the opportunity to correct its mistake and protect these desperately imperiled animals.”

Boat strikes kill an average of 100 manatees each year, a number which is set to increase alongside growth in human populations in its range. Cold stress can also harm these creatures, as waters below 68 Fahrenheit can impact immune system functioning, making them more vulnerable to disease or even death. Entanglement in fishing equipment is the cause of death for roughly 10% of deceased manatees.

Chemical pollution likely represents the most far-reaching and growing threat to manatee habitat and survival. The species is seeing the effects from a variety of factors that are unfortunately combining to cause immense damage.

Research finds that marine mammals are more vulnerable to the impacts of certain toxic chemicals because they lack the genetic traits that assist their bodies in breaking down these chemicals. Within the context of increased vulnerability, manatees off the U.S. coast are experiencing chronic exposure to the weed killer glyphosate. Over 55% of sampled manatees had glyphosate in their bodies in 2020, a number that steadily increased from the beginning of research conducted in 2009.  

Red tides became an additional weight on manatee populations, with 2021 containing a mortality event that killed 1,110 manatees. This devastation continued through to this year, during which time 726 manatees have died. These losses represent nearly one third of the population at the time of downlisting in 2017.  

These dangers are interacting to further harm manatee habitat. Glyphosate in the water not only harms nontarget animals like the manatee, but also nontarget aquatic vegetation that manatee rely upon. Incidents of Red Tide and other harmful algae blooms are also exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and highly manicured landscapes. These algae blooms cause a trophic cascade. Floating on the surface, algae blocks sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, either directly kills off more aquatic vegetation, or feeds algae blooms as it breaks down.

“Increasing protections for manatees with an endangered listing would provide immediate protection,” said Rachel Silverstein, executive director of Miami Waterkeeper. “With astounding losses of seagrasses around the state, we need to address water-quality issues to give the manatee a fighting chance to survive and thrive.”

Patrick Rose, executive director of Save the Manatee Club, also had strong words to convey to the public: “In 2017 Save the Manatee Club strongly opposed the biologically unjustified downlisting of the manatee, and in the years since our worst fears have become reality as we approach what will likely be a third winter of mass manatee mortality and aquatic ecosystem collapse. Re-designating manatees as endangered will be a critical first critical step in righting a terrible wrong. In addition, we call for full implementation of all tools available under the Endangered Species Act, including reinstatement of the Expert Manatee Recovery Team and other expert working groups such as the Manatee Warm-Water Task Force. The time to act is now.”

As advocates working closest with these kind, lovable creatures note, there is no time to delay as population declines are occurring unabated, in real time before our very eyes. Allowing dead or dying manatees to wash up on U.S. shores en masse when we know the steps necessary to protect these animals is unacceptable and would represent the biggest failures of ESA to date. The law was already barely working to increase manatee numbers; this necessitates not only the reinstatement of prior protections, but further actions to address human activities like boat strikes and pesticide pollution that continue to weigh down these otherwise buoyant animals.

Get active to protect manatees from toxic runoff by urging USFWS to upgrade the manatee to endangered status and require protection from chemical pollution. Take further action in urging your federal elected officials to support HR 4946, a bipartisan bill which would reclassify the animals as endangered.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity press release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2022) Based on new international research adding weight to previous research on falling sperm counts, it is critical that environmental agencies address this and other problems related to endocrine disruption. The study by Levine et al. finds that the drop in sperm count—a drop of 51.6% from 1973 through 2018—is global and that the rate of decline is accelerating.

Tell EPA and Congress that pesticide use cannot continue without findings of no endocrine disruption.

 The documented (average) drop in sperm counts is approaching the level at which the ability to cause a pregnancy begins to plummet dramatically. The reduction in male fertility may have profound psychological and social impacts, including anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression. These psychological problems have health impacts of their own. Equally serious are connections of anxiety and depression with violent behavior and suicide. Compounding the problem is the fact that men are unlikely to seek fertility-related social support.

The drop in sperm counts is just one example of endocrine disruption largely due to exposure to toxic chemicals. The endocrine system consists of a set of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone, and adrenaline), which help guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Hormones are signaling molecules, which travel through the bloodstream and elicit responses in other parts of the body.

The failure of EPA to meet its statutory responsibility to protect people and wildlife from the dire consequences of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals must end. Over recent decades, evidence has mounted showing that many pesticides interfere with hormones—and are therefore endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). In 1996, the promise of screening pesticides for endocrine disruption generated support from environmentalists and public health advocates for the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which traded the absolute prohibition of carcinogens in food of the Delaney Clause for a risk assessment standard that is subject to manipulation and an underestimation of real-life hazards. And now, 26 years later, we have yet to see EPA use endocrine disruption findings in pesticide registration decisions.

More than 50 pesticide active ingredients have been identified as endocrine disruptors by the European Union and the late endocrine disruptor expert Theo Colborn, PhD. Endocrine disruption is the mechanism for several health effect endpoints. Endocrine disruptors function by: (i) mimicking the action of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (ii) blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones; or (iii) affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. Endocrine disruptors have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, early puberty, infertility and other reproductive disorders, childhood and adult cancers, and other metabolic disorders. 

It is not only humans who are affected. Hermaphroditic frogs, polar bears with penis-like stumps, panthers with atrophied testicles and intersex fish with immature eggs in their testicles have all been linked to endocrine disruption. The popular herbicide atrazine chemically castrates and feminizes exposed male tadpoles. The mosquito-killing S-methoprene larvicide alters early frog embryo development. Distorted sex organ development and function in alligators is linked to the organochlorine insecticide dicofol. The ubiquitous antibacterial chemical triclosan alters thyroid function in frogs, while its chemical cousin triclocarban enhances sex hormones in rats and in human cells. In her book, Our Stolen Future, Dr. Colborn states that the decline of animal species can no longer be simply explained by habitat destruction and human disturbance, but also by reproductive failures within populations brought on by the influence of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

According to FQPA, the agency must screen all pesticide chemicals for potential endocrine activity. To ensure timely follow-through, EPA was given a timeline by Congress to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. It started a screening program (Tier 1) and reported results in 2009. Since, according to EPA, Tier 1 Screening (which looks at high exposure chemicals) is not sufficient to implicate a chemical as an endocrine disrupting chemical, but acts as a tool for defining which chemicals must undergo Tier 2 testing, the only stage that can influence regulatory decision-making. Indeed, it is unclear when or how EPA will move forward with Tier 2 testing, and how, if at all, any Tier 2 findings will be used to inform actual regulation.

EPA now issues Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) on pesticide registrations making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the potential for endocrine disruption, or identifying additional data needs to satisfy Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program requirements in the PIDs. EPA cannot make findings of no unreasonable adverse effects without findings concerning endocrine disruption.

Demand that EPA test for and act on endocrine disruptors as required by law.

Letter to EPA:

I am writing to ask you to act now to meet a statutory responsibility mandated to protect people and wildlife from dire health consequences.

Based on new international research adding weight to previous research on falling sperm counts, it is critical that environmental agencies address this and other problems related to endocrine disruption. The study by Levine et al. finds that the drop in sperm count—a drop of 51.6% from 1973 through 2018—is global and that the rate of decline is accelerating.

The documented (average) drop in sperm counts is approaching the level at which the ability to cause a pregnancy begins to plummet dramatically. The reduction in male fertility may have profound psychological and social impacts, including anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression. These psychological problems have health impacts of their own. Equally serious are connections of anxiety and depression with violent behavior and suicide. Compounding the problem is the fact that men are unlikely to seek fertility-related social support.

The drop in sperm counts is just one example of endocrine disruption largely due to exposure to toxic chemicals. In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 24 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), established to carry out the act, has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides.

To ensure timely follow-through, EPA was given a timeline by Congress to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. EPA has issued Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) on pesticide registrations making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the potential for endocrine disruption, or identifying additional data needs to satisfy Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program requirements in the PIDs. EPA cannot make findings of no unreasonable adverse effects without findings concerning endocrine disruption. In the absence of such findings, EPA must cancel and suspend the registration of each pesticide lacking data or findings.

Please ensure that your agency meets its responsibility to protect the health of people and wildlife.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

I am writing to ask you elevate a critical public and environmental health issue –the regulation of endocrine disrupting pesticides.

Based on new international research adding weight to previous research on falling sperm counts, it is critical that environmental agencies address this and other problems related to endocrine disruption. The study by Levine et al. finds that the drop in sperm count—a drop of 51.6% from 1973 through 2018—is global and that the rate of decline is accelerating.

The documented (average) drop in sperm counts is approaching the level at which the ability to cause a pregnancy begins to plummet dramatically. The reduction in male fertility may have profound psychological and social impacts, including anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression. These psychological problems have health impacts of their own. Equally serious are connections of anxiety and depression with violent behavior and suicide. Compounding the problem is the fact that men are unlikely to seek fertility-related social support.

The drop in sperm counts is just one example of endocrine disruption largely due to exposure to toxic chemicals. The failure of EPA to meet its statutory responsibility to protect people and wildlife from the dire consequences of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals must end. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia. And, EPA has simply not carried out its statutory mandate to regulate endocrine disrupting pesticides.

Endocrine disruptors are linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. This is a public health tragedy that cannot be ignored.

Since EPA announced it was ready to begin testing both active and “inert” (usually the majority of the undisclosed product ingredients that make the solution, dust, or granule) pesticide ingredients for potential endocrine disrupting effects in 2009, the protocols EPA proposed to use have become significantly outdated, having been first recommended in 1998. In the interim, science has progressed such that it offered more sophisticated assumptions than those that informed the EPA test designs. Further, as Beyond Pesticides noted in 2009, “Each of EPA’s tests and assays was designed under the surveillance of corporate lawyers who had bottom lines to protect, and assorted toxicologists who were not trained in endocrinology and developmental biology. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia.” 

In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 24 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), established to carry out the act, has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides. As of 2019, the program has stalled entirely.

To ensure timely follow-through, EPA was given a timeline by Congress to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. That has real costs. Please use the power of your office to push EPA to meet its statutory responsibility to protect the health of people and wildlife.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 27, 2022) On Tuesday, November 29 (at 1:00-2:30pmEST), two preeminent researchers will present their research and worldwide collaborative work to fully characterize the effects of the climate crisis and the viable solutions associated with land management. The Forum headliners are (i) Rachel Bezner Kerr, PhD, Cornell University professor just back from COP 27 [27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] and co-author of the definitive United Nations (UN) report on climate and food production and (ii) Andrew Smith, PhD, chief operating officer of the Rodale Institute and coauthor of several landmark reports on soil biology and carbon sequestration, including the just released Farming Systems Trial—40-Year Report. With livability of the planet on the brink, the speakers at the upcoming Forum make the case to immediately reverse the increase of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane to stop the changes on the horizon that destroy life—from floods, fires, and associated climate-induced hazards to food production.

The good news, according to the scientists, is that there are solutions available now in the agricultural and land management sectors that can reverse the threat if dramatic changes are made. Dr. Bezner Kerr, professor in the Department of Global Development, part of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and coordinating lead author of the Food, Fibre and other Ecosystem Products chapter in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, said, “The world can prevent severe impacts on people and on nature, but there is a brief and rapidly closing window to act.” As the forward to the report states, “The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all.” The Food Chapter of the report outlines the devastating threats to specific crops and society, including disproportionate impacts on people of color, low income people and countries, and gender inequity if changes are made now. The report speaks to the need for a holistic response to challenges associated with individual problematic inputs, including synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, that are as a whole systemically devastating.

Dr. Smith’s work at the Rodale Institute, along with a team of scientists, has defined a path forward. Since the chemicalization of agriculture after World War II, the conventional wisdom has been that pesticides and synthetic fertilizers are necessary to feed the world—that any harm associated with their production, use, and disposal are offset by the benefits that they bring worldwide. The now existential crisis associated with the climate emergency and the disproportionate harm to lower income people and countries most immediately, causing land displacement and food insecurity, has clarified the need to focus on resiliency. As the IPCC report states, “[T]he term [resilency] describes not just the ability to maintain essential function, identity and structure, but also the capacity for transformation.”

In his 2020 report Regenerative Agriculture and the Soil Carbon Solution, Dr. Smith writes: “Based on peer-reviewed research and the seasoned observations of agronomists working around the world, this white paper confidently declares that global adoption of regenerative practices across both grasslands and arable acreage could sequester more than 100% of current anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and that stable soil carbon can be built quickly enough to result in a rapid drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide. We now know enough to have real hope, and with this hope comes the responsibility to journey down a new path.” The report attributes 30 percent of carbon emissions to the food system, including fertilizer manufacturing, processing, transportation, refrigeration and waste disposal. When including nonagricultural lands, such as playing fields and parks, managed with pesticides and synthetics fertilizers, the number grows substantially. The solution requires land management systems that only utilize natural forms of fertilizer, such as compost, and the elimination of synthetic chemicals.

The report continues: “Large-scale conventional, industrial farming is locked in a system that needs more than the farmer’s will to shift. It’s a system built on high capital expenses, proprietary inputs, seeds purposefully designed to work only in tightly controlled chemical regimes, and on scales reliant not on eyeballs and acres, but by satellites geolocating across miles. The great capital expenses involved produce low-priced commodity crops. The only way these systems work is through externalization of costs and sheer scale coupled with support from government agricultural policies and entrenched interests of large agribusiness corporations.”

The Farm Systems Trial report concludes, “An economic analysis shows that organic systems are more profitable for farmers than conventional agriculture is.” Of all the ecosystem-based farming and land management systems, organic is the only one that is governed by a clear definition and requirements for compliance with standards. Under the Organic Foods Production Act (in the U.S. and similar statutes worldwide), those selling products as organic are required to adhere to a legal definition of soil management practices, a list of allowed and prohibited substances, and a certification and inspection system that establishes compliance with the defined organic standards.

Nevertheless, the IPCC report points to ecological systems that include a social component, recognizing the disproportionate impacts of environmental degradation and climate stress on the low income, people of color, and women worldwide: “Ecosystem-based approaches, agroecology and other nature-based solutions in agriculture and fisheries have the potential to strengthen resilience to climate change with multiple co-benefits (high confidence); trade-offs and benefits vary with socioecological context. Options such as ecosystem approaches to fisheries, agricultural diversification, agroforestry and other ecological practices support long-term productivity and ecosystem services such as pest control, soil health, pollination and buffering of temperature extremes (high confidence), but potential and trade-offs vary by socioeconomic context, ecosystem zone, species combinations and institutional support (medium confidence). Ecosystem-based approaches support food security, nutrition and livelihoods when inclusive equitable governance processes are used (high confidence).”

In terms of the viability of transformational change, IPCC continues, “The drivers of transformation are multidimensional, involving social, cultural, economic, environmental, technical and political processes. The combination of these creates the potential for abrupt and systemic change, the stability of entrenched and interlocked power structures, and the importance of individual beliefs and behaviours.”

Plan to attend the 2022 National Forum Series, Health, Biodiversity, and Climate: A Path for a Livable Future. Registration is open for the November 29^th climate session. All previous sessions are available through the webpage on this link. 

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

Sources. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Regenerative Agriculture and the Soil Carbon Solution, Farming Systems Trial—40-Year Report

(Beyond Pesticides, November 25, 2022) A study published in Chemosphere adds to the growing body of research demonstrating the endocrine (hormone) disrupting effects of glyphosate play in breast cancer development. Exposure to the herbicide glyphosate and other glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) at high concentrations mimics the estrogen-like cellular effects of 17β-estradiol (E2), altering binding activity to estrogen receptor α (ERα) sites, thus causing fundamental changes in breast cancer cell proliferation (abundance). 

Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, not just Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup®. The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate over two decades ago. The toxic herbicide readily contaminates the ecosystem with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, literature proves time and time again that glyphosate has an association with cancer development, as well as human, biotic, and ecosystem harm. Therefore, advocates point to the need for national policies to reassess hazards associated with disease development and diagnosis upon exposure to chemical pollutants. The researchers note, “The results obtained in this study are of toxicological relevance since they indicate that glyphosate could be a potential endocrine disruptor in the mammalian system. Additionally, these findings suggest that glyphosate at high concentrations may have strong significance in tamoxifen resistance and breast cancer progression. [F]urther studies in animal models must confirm these effects on organ systems.”

The study evaluated the cytotoxic (toxic to cells) effect of analytical grade glyphosate and GBHs to evaluate its estrogenic activity. The literature shows that significant exposure to these GBHs can cause cell death from the active ingredient glyphosate, as well as other ingredients in the formulations. These ingredients can have detergent-like properties (e.g., adjuncts) that can amplify the cytotoxic effects of glyphosate. The researchers aim to clarify the molecular mechanism involved in glyphosate-induced estrogen production and breast cancer cells. The Chilean researchers in the study find exposure to glyphosate at high concentrations induces estrogen-like effects through binding to estrogen receptor α (ERα) sites, mimicking the cell effects of 17β-estradiol (E2), attaching a phosphate group to the zinc (Zn) II ion (phosphorylation), thus causing fundamental changes to estrogen in breast cancer cells. Like past studies, this study demonstrates that glyphosate mimics the effect of E2 through Erα phosphorylation.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, causing the second most cancer-related deaths in the United States. Past studies suggest genetic inheritance factors influence breast cancer occurrence. However, genetic factors only play a minor role in breast cancer incidents, while exposure to external environmental factors (i.e., chemical exposure) may play a more notable role. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), breast cancer is a disease that causes breast cells to grow out of control, with the type of breast cancer depending on the cells themselves. Most common forms of breast cancer have receptors on the cell surface that can increase cancer growth when activated by estrogen, progesterone, or too much of the protein called HER2. Hormones generated by the endocrine system greatly influence hormone cancer incidents among humans (e.g., breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers). Several studies and reports, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, identify hundreds of chemicals as influential factors associated with breast cancer risk. One in ten women will receive a breast cancer diagnosis, and genetics can only account for five to ten percent of cases. There are grave concerns over exposure to endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals and pollutants that produce adverse health effects. Considering not only glyphosate but over 296 chemicals in consumer products can increase breast cancer risk through endocrine disruption, it is essential to understand how chemical exposure impacts chronic disease occurrence. 

Glyphosate has been the subject of a great deal of public advocacy and regulatory attention and is the target of thousands of lawsuits. Beyond Pesticides has covered the glyphosate tragedy extensively; see its litigation archives for multiple articles on glyphosate lawsuits. Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate-based herbicide use has put human, animal, and environmental health at risk. The chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion and loss of services). Exposure to GBHs can cause specific alterations in microbial gut composition and trophic cascades. Similar to this paper, past studies find a strong association between glyphosate exposure and the development of various health anomalies, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and autism. The risk assessment process used by EPA for its pesticide registration process is substantially inadequate to protect human health. Although EPA classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, “stark evidence demonstrates links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Moreover, EPA fails to adequately consider exposure effects on mammary gland development in its review of animal studies related to pesticide impacts. Thus, EPA’s classification perpetuates environmental injustice among individuals disproportionately exposed to chemicals, like farmworkers, especially in marginalized communities.

Several studies link pesticide use and residue to various cancers, from more prevalent forms like breast cancer to rare ones like kidney cancer nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor). Although the connection between pesticides and associated cancer risks is nothing new, past studies suggest glyphosate and GBHs act as endocrine disruptors, affecting the development and regulation of estrogen hormones that promote breast cancer. However, this study is one of the few to evaluate the molecular mechanisms involved in toxicological changes initiating breast cancer events. Phosphorylation with a Zn (II) ion stabilized the bond between the estrogen-imitating activity of glyphosate and GBHs to the Erα. Therefore, the bond promotes the overexpression of estrogen-sensitive genes, increasing consequences on breast cancer cell activity. The study concludes, “The results obtained in this study are of toxicological relevance since they indicate that glyphosate could be a potential endocrine disruptor in the mammalian system. ”

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Much pesticide use and exposure are associated with cancer effects. Studies concerning pesticides and cancer help future epidemiologic research understand the underlying mechanisms that cause cancer. Although the link between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses is stark, over 63 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent of commonly used school pesticides have links to cancer. Advocates argue that global leaders must fully understand the cause of pesticide-induced diseases before the chemicals enter the environment. Policy reform and practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use can end the uncertainty surrounding potential harm. For more information on the harms of pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database pages on breast cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases. This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency.

Prevention of the causes of breast cancer, not just awareness, is critical to solving this disease. In 1985, Imperial Chemical Industries and the American Cancer Society declared October “Breast Cancer Awareness Month” as part of a campaign to promote mammograms for the early detection of breast cancer. Unfortunately, most people are all too aware of breast cancer. Detection and treatment of cancers do not solve the problem. EPA should evaluate and ban endocrine-disrupting pesticides and make organic food production and land management the standard that legally establishes toxic pesticide use as “unreasonable.”

Moreover, proper prevention practices, like buying, growing, and supporting organics, can eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits that curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Regenerative organic agriculture nurtures soil health through organic carbon sequestration while preventing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. For more information on how organic is the right choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Chemosphere 

(Beyond Pesticides, November 24, 2021) On Thanksgiving, thank you for being a part of Beyond Pesticides and sharing and contributing to the vision necessary to protect the web and the fragility of life. We believe that there is no time like Thanksgiving to think about how we can more effectively join together as families and communities across divisions and different points of view to find a common purpose in protecting the health of the environment and all that inhabit it. Unfortunately, a host of pesticides, genetically engineered materials, and others in conventional Thanksgiving foods impact human health and threaten the environment. With far too many adverse health and ecological effects associated with toxic chemicals, organic practices are viable solutions to mitigate pesticide contamination and subsequent exposure. Read on as we consider the range of challenges we must confront and the solutions that can bring us all together.

Additionally, you can help Beyond Pesticides in educating and building a movement that will bring long-needed protection to humans, animals, and the entire environment by attending the third seminar on November 29 on Climate during the 2022 National Forum Series, Health, Biodiversity, and Climate: A Path for a Livable Future. The National Forum focuses on both the existential problems associated with current public health and environmental crises and charts a path for a future that solves these urgent problems. We classify existential crises into three challenging categories: public health threats, biodiversity collapse, and climate emergency. We bring together expert scientists, farmers, policymakers, and activists to discuss strategies to eliminate harm from toxic chemical use in favor of nontoxic organic solutions. Registration is open for the November 29^th climate session. All previous sessions are available through the webpage on this link. 

It starts with us!

Now more than ever, it is important to go organic:   

For Our Health

To Protect Ecosystem and Biodiversity

To Protect Climate

In Solidarity with Farmworkers

For Organic Benefits

For Our Health

Going organic drastically reduces the amount of pesticide in a person’s body. Although Thanksgiving is generally no time to think about dieting, we’ll aim to make it instructive: recent research finds that one of the biggest health benefits of the Mediterranean Diet comes when you go organic. Compared to individuals on a Mediterranean diet filled with chemically farmed foods, those that ate organic had 91% lower pesticide residue. This finding is backed up by a considerable body of prior research.

A 2015 study based on self-reported food intake found that those who eat organic generally have much lower levels of organophosphate insecticide metabolites in their urine. Additional research published in 2015 conducted an intervention study with children, finding that switching children to an organic diet decreased organophosphate metabolites in urine by 50% and 2,4-D by 25%. Research published in 2019 found that switching to organic reduced urine levels of certain organophosphates by up to 95%, and dropped neonicotinoid insecticide levels by 83%. A 2020 study found that switching to organic reduced glyphosate levels in the body by 70% over just a one-week period.

Pesticide levels in our bodies have important implications for children’s health. A 2013 study found that children with higher levels of pyrethroid insecticides in their urine were more likely to score high on reports of behavioral problems like inattention and hyperactivity. Many pesticides are also considered obesogens, which may modify an individual’s response to diet and fasting, and promote weight gain across generations. On the other hand, recent data indicate that children who eat higher amounts of organic food score higher on cognitive tests measuring fluid intelligence and working memory.

To Protect the Ecosystem and Biodiversity

Since the 1940s, ecological theory maintains that greater diversity promotes the stability of an ecosystem. An increase in toxic chemical use threatens human, animal, and environmental health, as well as food security. However, U.S. commercial agriculture has become more chemical-intensive in its management and less diverse. Commercial, chemical-intensive agriculture has implications on a much grander scale, as farmers more frequently apply pesticide treatments to larger, monoculture crop areas. A growing body of scientific research supports the finding that larger, monoculture croplands contain higher pest concentrations. These regions can foster specific pests that persist as they have ample quantities of the same food source, thus resulting in greater insecticide use. Perversely, monoculture crops induce biodiversity and pollinator loss as exposure causes harm to pollinators and other animals. Pesticides can drift from treated areas and contaminate non-commercial landscapes, limiting pollinator foraging habitat. Pollinator habitat destruction results in the loss of species biodiversity and stable ecosystem processes that are integral to sustainability. Pollinator population declines show no sign of stopping, and in many ways, the crisis is entering a new phase. After over a decade of consistent losses in managed pollinators (2021 being the second-to-worst year ever), driven by acute and chronic exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides, many beekeepers are being forced out of their profession. And with wild pollinators, researchers are now seeing the devastation caused by leaving pollinator-toxic pesticides on the market despite overwhelming evidence of their hazards. The Rusty-patched bumblebee was officially listed as endangered, as were monarch butterflies, and the American bumblebee is now under listing consideration.

One in three bites of food relies on the tireless pollinating efforts of these small and mighty insects. Combine that with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assessments that pollination contributes between $20 and $30 billion in economic value to agriculture each year. You have not only a necessary link to the food production chain but an incredibly economically valuable one as well.

Imagine if you will have your Thanksgiving dinner without the help of this small but invaluable worker. That tangy and sweet cranberry sauce? Gone. Those crispy morsels of onion on top of the green bean casserole? History. Those honey-sweetened carrots? Extinct. And last but not least, the pumpkin pie and cup of coffee you somehow make room for in your stomach? A figment of your imagination. As strange as a Thanksgiving without pumpkin pie or any of these staples might seem, it is an all-too-real scenario we might face if pollinators are not protected. To stop this crisis, we must stop the use of toxic pesticides that harm these important species. Supporting organic agriculture, which never allows the use of neonicotinoids or other toxic synthetic insecticides, helps grow the market for pollinator-protective practices.

If one component of an agricultural system is unsustainable, then the entire system is unsustainable. Therefore, agricultural systems must commit to regenerative organic agriculture and land management to meet future sustainability goals and alleviate the effect these chemicals have on humans and wildlife.

To Protect Climate

As climate impacts grow, an increase in the use of synthetic pesticides in agriculture is likely — because of the waning efficacy (pesticide resistance) of these compounds, and mounting pest pressure (i.e., increasing insect population and metabolism). The production of pesticides contributes to greenhouse gas emissions gas (e.g., nitrous oxide). In addition to synthetic fertilizers often used alongside pesticides in conventional agriculture, these products contribute to the heating of the atmosphere.

The world faces an existential climate emergency. It also is contending with crises related to biodiversity and pollinator decline; chemical pesticides that cause disease; pollution of water bodies, waterways, and drinking water sources by tens of thousands of chemicals deployed into the environment; increasing resistance to medically critical antibiotics caused to great extent by their use in livestock industries; food systems rife with pesticide residues and compromised nutritional value because of soil maltreatment with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers; and harm to critical ecosystems that provide environmental services that support all life. As global warming associated with the climate crisis continues to melt glaciers, banned and current-use pesticides pose a risk to human and animal health upon release into the atmosphere and waterways. The lack of adequate persistent pesticide regulations highlights the need for better policies surrounding pesticide use. By contrast, organic agricultural strategies have been shown to increase significantly the carbon drawdown and holding capacity of soils in field trials. Read more from Beyond Pesticides about the relationship between agriculture and the climate crisis.

In Solidarity with Farmworkers

Farmworkers are the backbone of the American agricultural economy. As we sit with friends and family this Thanksgiving, let us appreciate how our delicious meal got to our tables. The turkey, potatoes, stuffing, and cider all originated in fields far from our homes, and those working in those fields deserve our appreciation and engagement in their struggle. Many of these workers work long hours, under deplorable conditions, and are exposed to pesticides that put them and their families’ health at risk. Moreover, compared to the general population, farmworkers experience greater health risks from climate-related impacts like extreme heat and poor air. Farmworkers, and their families who live near production fields, already experience greater health problems from pesticide use than the average state resident. So, as we enjoy our pumpkin pie, cranberry sauce, and apple crumble, remember all the hardworking farmworkers who worked to bring our meal to the Thanksgiving table. But don’t just give thanks, work to improve their conditions.

Our food choices have a direct effect on those who, around the world, grow and harvest what we eat. This is why food labeled organic is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food-buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices and the protection of farmworkers and farm families. See Beyond Pesticides’ guide to Eating with a Conscience to see how your food choices can protect farmworkers. To complement the contribution you are making by purchasing organic food, consider contacting the following organizations to learn what more you can do; Campesinos sin Fronteras; Centro Campesino; Coalition of Immokalee Workers; Domestic Fair Trade Association; Farmworker Association of Florida; Farmworker Health and Safety Institute; Farmworker Justice; Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO; Farmworker Support Committee (CATA); Lideres Campesinas; Northwest Treeplanters and Farm Workers United; United Farm Workers.

How can you combat the shortcomings of chemical agriculture? Go organic.

Our food choices have a direct effect on the health of our environment and those who grow and harvest what we eat. That’s why food labeled organic is the right choice. USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, ensuring that the toxic, synthetic pesticides used in chemical-intensive agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic–pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish, and other wildlife.

Fortunately, the majority of common Thanksgiving products can easily be substituted with organic counterparts. Canned yams, for instance, often contain GE ingredients, but can be replaced by fresh organic yams. Another staple, like Pepperidge Farm Crackers, can be substituted with organic crackers like Mary’s Gone Crackers or Nature’s Pathway Crackers. Consider substituting GE cranberry sauce with home-made jellies made with organic cranberries and fair trade sugar. Organic jellied cranberries, such as Tree of Life or Grown Right, are fast alternatives. Finally, pre-made stuffing, like Kraft’s Stove Top stuffing, can be replaced with homemade stuffing or organic stuffing mix from Arrowhead. Simply Organic has a range of organic recipes posted on their website if you need more ideas.

The turkey is the symbol of a traditional Thanksgiving meal. However, turkeys are often fed grains treated with pesticides, medicated with antibiotics, and engorged with steroids and hormones. Additionally, turkeys are often fed an inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, which is used to promote growth and for pigmentation. In order to avoid all these, your best bet is to invest in an organic free-range turkey.

While the organic label dramatically increases protection for consumers and agricultural workers from exposure to toxic pesticides, it also creates essential benefits for environmental restoration. Research from the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial ® (FST) has revealed that organic, regenerative agriculture actually has the potential to lessen the impacts of climate change. This occurs through the drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage to produce crops (approximately 75% less than conventional agriculture) and the significant increase in carbon sequestration in the soil.

Eating organic is the first step as committed consumers, but we still must protect the true core values and principles of the organic label, as they are meant to be. Recent research shows that, at every level, organic outshines conventional practices. Organic farms spray fewer pesticides, and those that they use are significantly less toxic on an acute and chronic basis. Organic packaged foods offer greater health benefits than their conventionally processed counterparts. Environmental and socioeconomic systems are better served by organic practices, as research shows that organic provides quadruple aim performance, synergizing financial, human health, ecological, and socio-economic well-being.

This Thanksgiving, you can avoid exposure to harmful chemicals like glyphosate, steer away from genetically engineered food, and protect your family, pollinators, and farmworkers from the shortcomings of federal agencies by striving for a 100% organic, healthy meal.

And don’t stop there!

It is important every day of the year to look towards organic to keep your family and friends safe from toxic chemicals. You can continue to fight for the well-being of organic by helping to defend organic standards against USDA changes that will weaken public trust in the organic food label. Organic practices follow tough standards that do not compromise the health of people and the planet. Let’s grow the organic food label as a symbol that honors this tradition. To learn more, visit the Beyond Pesticides’ Save Our Organic webpage.

Best wishes for a Healthy and Happy Thanksgiving!

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

SIGN UP to get our Weekly News Update and Action of the Week delivered to your email inbox.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 23, 2022) A new study throws into question the value of the pest management concept of setting action levels around pest infestations. In the course of watermelon production over a span of two years, pollination, not pest levels, was the key determining factor for yield. “These data advocate for a reprioritization of management, to conserve and protect wild bee pollination, which could be more critical than avoiding pest damage for ensuring high yields,” the study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, indicates.

Action levels are considered an important aspect of an integrated pest management (IPM) approach in agriculture, whereby a pest infestation reaches levels considered economically unacceptable, leading to a decision to engage in pest control. The concept of IPM however has been influenced by the chemical industry over the decades since its original definition and recent data indicates that it has failed to stop toxic pesticide use. The original intent of IPM was the adoption of preventive practices and utilization of nonchemical tools, placing pesticide use as a last resort when pest control is warranted. However, farms that self-identify as IPM operations use pesticides, sometimes as the first line of defense, while attempting to “minimize” nontarget damage when applying a chemical. This continuing dependence on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers is disruptive of ecological balance, healthy soil biology, natural nutrient cycling, and the overall benefits are working with nature, now referred to as ecosystem services.

It is often said that IPM rejects the concept of “spraying by the calendar” or prophylactic use of pesticides. However, many so-called IPM operations, for example, use treated seeds, like those coated with neonicotinoid insecticides that contaminate pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets—a classic example of a prophylactic pesticide use before threshold pest populations are identified with devastating, indiscriminate poisoning effects to pollinators. 

Beyond the choice of management approaches, the results of the study cast doubt on the importance of following action levels that establish thresholds of pest populations that trigger chemical use. To evaluate the interaction between pollination, pests, and crop yields, researchers set up field trials at a watermelon farm, observing the interaction between wild and managed honey bee pollination, striped cucumber beetles, and watermelon yields.

An initial field trial focused on the impact of varying pollination approaches on watermelon yield and fruit quality. It determined that honey bee pollination led to the lowest fruit set and weight, while open and wild bee pollination were significantly higher.

A second field trial applied striped cucumber beetles to rows of watermelon plants at varying densities – either zero, three, six, or nine beetles per plant. Rows were subsequently covered for a total of three weeks. For each row, six plants were then assessed for their beetle damage. Additionally, researchers applied six different pollination treatments to each of the beetle infested rows, including two honey bee visits, two wild bee visits, four honey bee visits, four wild bee visits, open pollination and hand pollination.

Researchers found that watermelon damage corresponded with pest density. For example, the highest beetle density had 50% smaller roots than the beetle-free control group. However, beetle damage had no effect on yield. Based on statistical analysis, the most important factor for watermelon yield was pollinator visitation. In fact, fruit set resulting from wild bee visitation was found to increase yield by 1.5-3 times more than honey bee visitation. The same factors held true for the weight and quality of the watermelons produced in the trial.

The results are surprising since the striped cucumber beetle is considered a major pest of the watermelon. Widely accepted thresholds for beetles on watermelon crops are fewer than five beetles per plant, and many growers apply pesticides on a consistent basis to keep populations below two beetles per plant. The study indicates that these insecticide applications are likely doing more harm than good.

As the study finds, “This collective work, including the data reported here, strongly suggest that in watermelon, and potentially other pollinator-dependent crops, insecticide applications, counterintuitively, have a higher likelihood of reducing than increasing yields due to interference with bee foraging and the lack of threat posed by the pest community. Given this imbalance (i.e. pollinators outweigh pests), insecticide use decisions by growers should consider wild bee presence and activity to optimize yield, which is currently not common practice.”

When a broader view of the environment is considered, including the complex interactions between a range of pests, predators, and pollinators, often a different picture emerges that changes one’s outlook on how to best manage land. Beyond Pesticides has recently reported on similar issues with fungicides. A study last month found their use to be self-defeating and yield-jeopardizing by reducing the prevalence of beneficial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi that help facilitate nutrient uptake. Earlier this week a study was published showing how fungicides fail to kill certain plant pathogenic fungi, which are able to subsequently multiply and thrive as a result of reduced competition.

We must work toward a holistic approach to farming and land management. Rather than attempt a one-size-fits-all, regimented approach to food production that simplifies nature through industrial processes, regenerative organic, and traditional farming practices embrace complex natural processes and aim to enhance existing ecological processes. Join Beyond Pesticides in urging aid programs support traditional and organic farming, rather than chemical-first approach that jeopardizes our health and biodiversity.

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

Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society B

(Beyond Pesticides, November 22, 2022) Fungus that survive a fungicide application may be able to multiply and thrive, putting plant yields at risk. This finding comes from research recently published by scientists at University of Illinois, focusing on the impact of fungicide use on soybean yields and the disease Septoria brown spot, caused by the fungus Septoria glycines. The research underlines the danger of preventive chemical applications in an attempt to protect yield and shows how precarious pesticide use can be when subject to the complexity seen in field conditions.

Scientists began with the intent of analyzing the soybean’s phyllosphere mycobiome, the fungal microbial make-up of the outside of the plant, including all its surfaces above-ground. A field trial was established near Urbana, Illinois, and soybeans plants were separated into four different plots according to their treatment. One group was inoculated with Septoria glycines, another inoculated and sprayed with a fungicide, a third not inoculated yet sprayed with a fungicide, and a final control group neither inoculated nor treated with a fungicide. A range of different analyses were conducted to view changes in the disease development and mycobiome composition over time.

Soybean plants that had been inoculated with Septoria showed the greatest progression of the disease when compared to uninoculated plants. Prior to the fungicide application, scientists classified a range of fungal biota to determine a baseline of diversity, identifying over 3,300 distinct fungi on the soybeans analyzed. After fungicide application, scientists found results they did not expect. “When we applied the fungicide, most of the fungi on plant surfaces decreased,” said Santiago Mideros, PhD, study coauthor and professor at the University of Illinois. “But a few of the fungi increased, Septoria among them. It was very surprising.”

Scientists employed a mixture of the fungicides fluxapyroxad and pyraclostrobin, which are commonly used throughout the Midwest to manage fungal diseases in soybean crops. “We know – based on previous research – that when we spray a lot of fungicide, such as every week, Septoria symptoms are kept in check and yield increases,” Dr. Mideros said. “But that application frequency isn’t feasible for farmers. This study is a closer approximation of what producers actually do, with one to three applications during the season.”

The takeaway is to not proceed down the path of incessant preventive spraying but instead to reconsider the need for any pesticide application in the context of complex processes occurring on the leaf surface of soybean plants. “But what I’m learning from the study is that we don’t know exactly what we’re doing when we apply fungicides to protect yield. We need to learn more about the unintended effects of chemical applications.”

As the plants grew and fungicide applications occurred, scientists watched for changes to the phyllosphere mycobiome. While fungicides did change community composition, inoculation with Septoria did not result in significant changes compared to uninoculated plants. “One of the things we were trying to address with the analysis was to see which fungi are associated with each other,” Dr. Mideros said. “If we found patterns where one fungus seemed to have a suppressive effect on another, it could be used as a biocontrol agent. We did find some negative associations but not many and, unfortunately, none with Septoria. But there are several organisms that have a negative association with other fungi, so it’s something we could study further.”

Rather than use synthetic chemicals to suppress the growth of Septoria, scientists are aiming to develop biological controls that work with natural competition observed on plant surfaces. “There’s a lot of interest in finding more sustainable management practices. It could come in the form of biofungicides or manipulations of the mycobiome that could result in less disease and greater yields. There’s a world of hidden microorganisms associated with crops into which we could tap,” Dr. Mideros concludes.

Fungal pathogens represent a significant threat to crops and people. Researchers did not determine why Septoria persisted and thrived after fungicide application, but a reasonable hypothesis is that the pathogen has developed resistance to commonly used chemicals. The consistent, incessant use of fungicides in agriculture results in resistance in the field, but there is evidence that in certain fungi, this resistance is impacting our ability to address disease of public health concern. As the study shows, there can be thousands of different fungi on a plant. The repeated spraying of human pathogenic fungi in agriculture, particularly strains of Candida and Aspergillus, has been shown to lead to outbreaks in hospitals and other medical settings.

Take action today to tell EPA to cancel all uses of a pesticide when resistance is discovered or predicted to occur.

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

Source: Agri-view, APS Publications

Photo Source: Alabama Coop Extension (photo of Septoria leaf spot on soybean leaf)

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2022) Once again, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered a new pesticide without performing a thorough review of its impacts on biodiversity as well as threatened and endangered species. Inpyrfluxam was registered in 2020 and only after being sued by the Center for Biological Diversity for failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) did EPA commit to completing draft effects determinations by Fall 2022. Once again, EPA’s draft biological evaluation is incomplete and inadequate. EPA is accepting comments on its draft biological evaluation at Regulations.gov. 

Tell EPA and Congress that Pesticide Registrations Require Complete Science. The Review of Inpyrfluxam is Incomplete and Inadequate. 

The agency’s draft effects assessment is flawed and incomplete. We share the details because it shows that EPA is out of step with the science and its regulatory responsibility when it comes a thorough review for ecosystem effects of pesticides.  

The agency used fish early life stage (ELS) tests to estimate chronic fish toxicity. This is inappropriate. The fish ELS is a sub-chronic test of sensitive life stages. Although it is often used as a surrogate or predictor of chronic toxicity, it does not adequately address potential adverse effects on reproduction or transfer of the test chemical to eggs/offspring from parental exposure. Only a complete life-cycle test can satisfy the 40 CFR Part 158 requirements for a valid fish chronic toxicity test. An early life-stage test cannot be appropriately substituted. A full life-cycle test (OSCPP 850.1500) or medaka extended one-generation test (OSCPP 890.2200) is needed to correctly assess reproduction impairment and chronic toxicity from long-term exposures. Such chronic reproductive toxicity testing in fish is further warranted by the observation of reproductive impairment in another vertebrate taxon (bobwhite quail). Additionally, the reduced egg production in a non-monotonic dose response seen in the bobwhite quail reproduction study suggests the potential for an endocrine disrupting modality. The higher toxicity of inpyrfluxam to another bird species (zebra finch) in a sub-acute dietary study warrants a full reproduction test with this passerine species to fully assess serious risks posed to listed avian species. An Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program evaluation of inpyrfluxam has not been completed and is also necessary for an adequate endangered species consultation with the Services. 

The lack of appropriate chronic toxicity and endocrine disruption data is especially worrisome given the recognized environmental persistence of inpyrfluxam. Further, the registration of inpyrfluxam should not have been approved in the first place with such important data missing from the ecological risk assessment. Without these data and with the somewhat marginal benefits of inpyrfluxam use, the agency cannot honestly conclude, as statutorily required, that the use of this fungicide does not pose an unreasonable risk. The agency should immediately suspend the uses of inpyrfluxam until data addressing the chronic reproductive toxicity in fish and birds are available and the Services are consulted on potential jeopardy to these taxa. The agency should be reminded that it should not make any registration decisions until a thorough ecological risk assessment has been completed and as mandated in the Endangered Species Act that the Services have been consulted for any may affect findings noted. 

Beyond Pesticides has previously pointed out deficiencies in EPA’s ecological risk assessments for atrazine, fludioxonil, neonicotinoids, carbaryl and methomyl, indaziflam, pyrethroids, paraquat, glyphosate, and wood preservatives. In addition, the Center for Biological Diversity and others have successfully sued EPA for numerous failures to perform complete assessments of impacts of pesticides on threatened and endangered species. All this is occurring amid documented threats to biodiversity from the combined impacts of pesticides and climate change. 

Tell EPA and Congress that Pesticide Registrations Require Complete Science. The Review of Inpyrfluxam is Incomplete and Inadequate. 

Letter to EPA Administrator:

Once again, EPA has registered a new pesticide without performing a thorough review of its impacts on threatened and endangered species. Inpyrfluxam was registered in 2020, and only after being sued by the Center for Biological Diversity for failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) did EPA commit to completing draft effects determinations by Fall 2022. Once again, EPA’s draft biological evaluation is incomplete and inadequate. EPA is accepting comments on its draft biological evaluation at Regulations.gov.

The agency’s draft effects assessment of inpyrfluxam is flawed and incomplete. The agency used fish early life stage (ELS) tests to estimate chronic fish toxicity. This is inappropriate. The fish ELS is a sub-chronic test of sensitive life stages. Although it is often used as a surrogate or predictor of chronic toxicity, it does not adequately address potential adverse effects on reproduction or transfer of test chemical to eggs/offspring from parental exposure. Only a complete life-cycle test can satisfy the 40 CFR Part 158 requirements for a valid fish chronic toxicity test. An early life-stage test cannot be appropriately substituted. A full life cycle test (OSCPP 850.1500) or medaka extended one-generation test (OSCPP 890.2200) is needed to correctly assess reproduction impairment and chronic toxicity from long term exposures. Such chronic reproductive toxicity testing in fish is further warranted by the observation of reproductive impairment in another vertebrate taxon (bobwhite quail). Additionally, the reduced egg production in a non-monotonic dose response seen in the bobwhite quail reproduction study suggests the potential for an endocrine disrupting modality. The higher toxicity of inpyrfluxam to another bird species (zebra finch) in a sub-acute dietary study warrants a full reproduction test with this passerine species to fully assess serious risks posed to listed avian species. An Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program evaluation of inpyrfluxam has not been completed and is also necessary for an adequate endangered species consultation with the Services.

The lack of appropriate chronic toxicity and endocrine disruption data is especially worrisome given the recognized environmental persistence of inpyrfluxam. Further, the registration of inpyrfluxam should not have been approved in the first place with such important data missing from the ecological risk assessment. Without these data and with the somewhat marginal benefits of inpyrfluxam use, the agency cannot honestly conclude as statutorily required that the use of this fungicide does not pose an unreasonable risk. The agency should immediately suspend the uses of inpyrfluxam until data addressing the chronic reproductive toxicity in fish and birds are available and the Services are consulted on potential jeopardy to these taxa. The agency should not make any registration decisions until a thorough ecological risk assessment has been completed and as mandated in the Endangered Species Act that the Services have been consulted for any may affect findings noted.

Beyond Pesticides has previously pointed out deficiencies in EPA’s ecological risk assessments for atrazine, fludioxonil, neonicotinoids, carbaryl and methomyl, indaziflam, pyrethroids, paraquat, glyphosate, and wood preservatives. In addition, the Center for Biological Diversity and others have successfully sued EPA for numerous failures to perform complete assessments of impacts of pesticides on threatened and endangered species. All this is occurring amid documented threats to biodiversity from the combined impacts of pesticides and climate change.

EPA must cancel the registration of inpyrfluxam and perform complete biological evaluations of all pesticides.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

Once again, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered a new pesticide without performing a thorough review of its impacts on threatened and endangered species. Inpyrfluxam was registered in 2020, and only after being sued by the Center for Biological Diversity for failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) did EPA commit to completing draft effects determinations by Fall 2022. Once again, EPA’s draft biological evaluation is incomplete and inadequate. EPA is accepting comments on its draft biological evaluation at Regulations.gov.

The agency’s draft effects assessment of inpyrfluxam is flawed and incomplete. The agency used fish early life stage (ELS) tests to estimate chronic fish toxicity. This is inappropriate. The fish ELS is a sub-chronic test of sensitive life stages. Although it is often used as a surrogate or predictor of chronic toxicity, it does not adequately address potential adverse effects on reproduction or transfer of test chemical to eggs/offspring from parental exposure. Only a complete life-cycle test can satisfy the 40 CFR Part 158 requirements for a valid fish chronic toxicity test. An early life-stage test cannot be appropriately substituted. A full life cycle test (OSCPP 850.1500) or medaka extended one-generation test (OSCPP 890.2200) is needed to correctly assess reproduction impairment and chronic toxicity from long term exposures. Such chronic reproductive toxicity testing in fish is further warranted by the observation of reproductive impairment in another vertebrate taxon (bobwhite quail). Additionally, the reduced egg production in a non-monotonic dose response seen in the bobwhite quail reproduction study suggests the potential for an endocrine disrupting modality. The higher toxicity of inpyrfluxam to another bird species (zebra finch) in a sub-acute dietary study warrants a full reproduction test with this passerine species to fully assess serious risks posed to listed avian species. An Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program evaluation of inpyrfluxam has not been completed and is also necessary for an adequate endangered species consultation with the Services.

The lack of appropriate chronic toxicity and endocrine disruption data is especially worrisome given the recognized environmental persistence of inpyrfluxam. Further, the registration of inpyrfluxam should not have been approved in the first place with such important data missing from the ecological risk assessment. Without these data and with the somewhat marginal benefits of inpyrfluxam use, the agency cannot honestly conclude as statutorily required that the use of this fungicide does not pose an unreasonable risk. The agency should immediately suspend the uses of inpyrfluxam until data addressing the chronic reproductive toxicity in fish and birds are available and the Services are consulted on potential jeopardy to these taxa. The agency should be reminded that it should not make any registration decisions until a thorough ecological risk assessment has been completed and as mandated in the Endangered Species Act that the Services have been consulted for any may affect findings noted.

Beyond Pesticides has previously pointed out deficiencies in EPA’s ecological risk assessments for atrazine, fludioxonil, neonicotinoids, carbaryl and methomyl, indaziflam, pyrethroids, paraquat, glyphosate, and wood preservatives. In addition, the Center for Biological Diversity and others have successfully sued EPA for numerous failures to perform complete assessments of impacts of pesticides on threatened and endangered species. All this is occurring amid documented threats to biodiversity from the combined impacts of pesticides and climate change.

Please ensure through your oversight that EPA fulfills its responsibilities according to law. EPA must cancel the registration of inpyrfluxam and perform complete biological evaluations of all pesticides.

Thank you.

Your action is even more effective if you submit your comment at Regulations.gov following this link.

Please also submit a comment to EPA at this link at Regulations.gov. See suggested language that you can copy into Regulations.gov. Adding a personal comment of concern at the beginning of the comment is helpful but not necessary.

Suggested language for a comment at Regulations.gov:

Once again, EPA has registered a new pesticide without performing a thorough review of its impacts on threatened and endangered species. Inpyrfluxam was registered in 2020, and only after being sued by the Center for Biological Diversity for failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) did EPA commit to completing draft effects determinations by Fall 2022. Once again, EPA’s draft biological evaluation is incomplete and inadequate. EPA is accepting comments on its draft biological evaluation at Regulations.gov. 

The agency’s draft effects assessment of inpyrfluxam is flawed and incomplete. The agency used fish early life stage (ELS) tests to estimate chronic fish toxicity. This is inappropriate. The fish ELS is a sub-chronic test of sensitive life stages. Although it is often used as a surrogate or predictor of chronic toxicity, it does not adequately address potential adverse effects on reproduction or transfer of the test chemical to eggs/offspring from parental exposure. Only a complete life-cycle test can satisfy the 40 CFR Part 158 requirements for a valid fish chronic toxicity test. An early life-stage test cannot be appropriately substituted. A full life cycle test (OSCPP 850.1500) or medaka extended one-generation test (OSCPP 890.2200) is needed to correctly assess reproduction impairment and chronic toxicity from long-term exposures. Such chronic reproductive toxicity testing in fish is further warranted by the observation of reproductive impairment in another vertebrate taxon (bobwhite quail). Additionally, the reduced egg production in a non-monotonic dose response seen in the bobwhite quail reproduction study suggests the potential for an endocrine disrupting modality. The higher toxicity of inpyrfluxam to another bird species (zebra finch) in a sub-acute dietary study warrants a full reproduction test with this passerine species to fully assess serious risks posed to listed avian species. An Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program evaluation of inpyrfluxam has not been completed and is also necessary for an adequate endangered species consultation with the Services. 

The lack of appropriate chronic toxicity and endocrine disruption data is especially worrisome given the recognized environmental persistence of inpyrfluxam. Further, the registration of inpyrfluxam should not have been approved in the first place with such important data missing from the ecological risk assessment. Without these data and with the somewhat marginal benefits of inpyrfluxam use, the agency cannot honestly conclude, as statutorily required, that the use of this fungicide does not pose an unreasonable risk. The agency should immediately suspend the uses of inpyrfluxam until data addressing the chronic reproductive toxicity in fish and birds are available and the Services are consulted on potential jeopardy to these taxa. The agency should not make any registration decisions until a thorough ecological risk assessment has been completed and as mandated in the Endangered Species Act that the Services have been consulted for any may affect findings noted. 

Beyond Pesticides has previously pointed out deficiencies in EPA’s ecological risk assessments for atrazine, fludioxonil, neonicotinoids, carbaryl and methomyl, indaziflam, pyrethroids, paraquat, glyphosate, and wood preservatives. In addition, the Center for Biological Diversity and others have successfully sued EPA for numerous failures to perform complete assessments of impacts of pesticides on threatened and endangered species. All this is occurring amid documented threats to biodiversity from the combined impacts of pesticides and climate change. 

EPA must cancel the registration of inpyrfluxam and perform complete biological evaluations of all pesticides. 

Thank you. 

(Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2022) A new meta-analysis, from researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the University of Copenhagen, among others, finds that the drop in global sperm count is accelerating and the problem has become global. The study shows that sperm count (until this study measured largely in North America, Europe, and Australia) has dropped by 51.6% from 1973 through 2018, and that the rate of decline is gaining speed worldwide. 

A primary culprit, among a plexus of factors, is widespread exposure to toxic chemicals, including pesticides, in the environment. Beyond the implications for individuals and families, this global decline in sperm counts has the potential for population-level impacts and, according to Dr. Shanna Swan, an expert environmental–reproductive epidemiologist, could mean that “in the coming decades, large swaths of the global population of men could be subfertile or infertile.” Beyond Pesticides has long highlighted the relationship between reproductive anomalies and toxic pesticides, particularly the role of endocrine-disrupting (ED) compounds. Most recently, we covered a meta-study on pesticides and fertility that “finds exposure associated with lower semen quality, DNA fragmentation, and chromosomal abnormalities.” The new study is covered in Environmental Health News (EHN).

From 1972 to the present, the count dropped by approximately 1% per year; since 2000, that rate has accelerated to more than 2.6% annually. A 2017 study by the same team showed a decline, between 1973 and 2011, of 28.5% across North America, Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia. This 2022 analysis added data, from another 38 studies, that provide further evidence that the rate of decline has picked up substantially in the past decade.

Average global sperm concentration, the research team found, was 49 million per milliliter of semen in 2018. Dr. Swan pointed out that when sperm count drops below roughly 45 million per milliliter, the ability to cause a pregnancy begins to plummet dramatically. She warned that the future of reproduction could change markedly, with many, many men potentially requiring assisted reproduction techniques, such as IVF (in vitro fertilization), hormone treatment, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (a technique in which sperm are injected directly into an egg). It is worth noting that the burden of male infertility will, and may already, almost certainly fall most heavily on low-income populations, who may have less access to high-quality healthcare, and less financial ability to pursue assisted reproduction.

The comments of Dr. Swan, one of the paper’s coauthors and a reproductive epidemiologist at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, and of Dr. Hagai Levine, paper co-author and epidemiologist at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, complement one another. Dr. Levine’s: “We have clear evidence that there is a crisis in male reproduction,” is followed by Dr. Swan’s: “It’s really alarming.”

The study did not directly address causes of this phenomenon, per se, but science has recognized for years the significant role that pesticides exposures (especially to endocrine-disrupting ingredients, such as those in diazinon, alachlor, atrazine) likely play in degraded sperm quantity and quality. Other toxic chemicals, such as phthalates, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), and bisphenol A (BPA), can also impair reproductive functions. ED chemicals are ubiquitous — they are found in many industrial products, as well as in consumer products, such as plastics, furniture, clothing, canned food, water bottles, toys, cosmetics, electronics, food packaging, and fertilizers and pesticides. People are exposed through these products, as well as vocationally and dietarily.

Central to many of these chemicals’ impacts on male sperm production (and on reproduction broadly) is endocrine disruption — the disturbance of endocrine function by exposures to an exogenous chemical — that may happen in several ways. Those include mimicking a natural hormone and fooling the body into over-responding to a stimulus, responding at inappropriate times, or blocking the effects of a hormone from certain receptors, and/or directly stimulating or inhibiting the endocrine system, cause over- or under-production of hormones. The National Institutes of Health explainer says that exposures to ED chemicals can cause “deleterious effects on human reproductive health by interfering with the synthesis and mechanism of action of sex hormones. Any change during the synthesis or action of the sex hormones may result in abnormal reproductive functions which includes developmental anomalies in the reproductive tract and decline in semen quality.”

Additional factors influencing sperm quality and quantity include obesity, activity level, diet, stress, smoking, and even climate change (via heat waves, which can reduce sperm quality). Some factors — such as diet and pesticide exposures — are hard to tease apart, given the extent of pesticide residues in the food supply.

To make the epidemiology even more complex, ED chemical exposures during the prenatal “window” during which reproductive organs and traits develop may have a big impact on adult sperm quality. Dr. Swan cited to EHN examples of the magnitude and scope of some ED exposures by noting that “[W]hen a man smokes — a known endocrine-disrupting activity — he lowers his sperm count by about 20%. When a male is born to a woman who smokes, his sperm count is reduced by about 50%. Those effects may last for generations before subsequent children and grandchildren return to normal sperm counts.”

Beyond the reproductive impacts of declining sperm counts, the authors chronicle other aspects of a network of concerns. They note the strong and evidenced association between sperm concentration and increased mortality and morbidity from all causes, and the parallel (to decreasing sperm count) between decline in testosterone and increase in testicular cancer and male genital anomalies.

Commenting on publication of the subject research, Professor Richard Sharpe, of the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Edinburgh, noted, “[T]his is desperately bad news for couple fertility, because in our modern world (across the globe) couples are delaying putting their fertility to the test until the female partner is in her 30s–40s, when her fertility . . . is already reduced by 30–60% compared with in her 20s and will continue to decline with her age. . . . [and] recourse to assisted reproduction is unlikely to be of much use as its effectiveness also reduces progressively with age.”

Dr. Channa Jayasena, Reader* in Reproductive Endocrinology at London’s Imperial College, commented, “The [study’s] conclusions fit with a growing narrative that the [health of] average . . . men is declining from reasons such as obesity, reduced exercise, pollution, and environmental chemical exposure.” [*In the United Kingdom and some Commonwealth nations, the title of “Reader” connotes a senior academic with a distinguished international reputation in research or scholarship.]

Dr. Sarah Martins da Silva, Reader in Reproductive Medicine at the University of Dundee, warned, “The conclusion is that sperm counts are falling. The human race is not at immediate risk of extinction, but we really need research to understand why sperm counts are falling and to prevent other unintended implications for male health.” Professor Sharpe added, “Aging societies, such as those across Europe/UK, means that these issues are not just a problem for couples trying to have kids, they are also a HUGE problem for society in the next 50 odd years as less and less young people will be around to work and support the increasing bulge of elderly folk.”

The study authors conclude, “This substantial and persistent decline is now recognized as a significant public health concern. In 2018, a group of leading clinicians and scientists called for governments to acknowledge decreased male fertility as a major public health problem and to recognize the importance of male reproductive health for the survival of the human (and other) species. Research on the causes of this continuing decline and an immediate focused response to prevent further disruption of male reproductive health are needed.”

Nearly every research paper concludes with some version of “more study is needed.” True enough, but Beyond Pesticides notes that “time’s a wasting,” and that action is critical. It is clear that toxic, ED chemicals play a big part in this huge male fertility problem, and that reducing exposures to such compounds is imperative and urgent. Around the world, and here in the U.S., a transition away from chemically intensive agriculture and land management — to organic regenerative practices — would be an enormous and concrete step in addressing the problem. Failing to do so will continue to exacerbate (at least male) infertility, with potentially extreme consequences.

View Dr. Swan’s talk, Modern Life and the Threat to the Future, at Beyond Pesticides 2021 National Pesticides Forum, Cultivating Healthy Communities. Click here.

Learn more about the relationship between pesticide (and other chemical) exposures and the impacts on reproductive health and function; see Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet on pesticides and endocrine disruption, and our Daily News archives on Endocrine Disruption, Infertility, and Reproductive Health.

Sources: https://www.ehn.org/sperm-count-decline-chemicals-2658635273.html and https://academic.oup.com/humupd/advance-article/doi/10.1093/humupd/dmac035/6824414

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 17, 2022) A report published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology finds organophosphate (OP) insecticides and the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19) illicit similar damage to the heart and co-occurring exposure to both can escalate cardiac (heart) injury. Previous research suggests OPs may increase the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to cause COVID-19, especially among vulnerable individuals with underlying medical conditions. OPs have a wide range of biological uses—from insecticides to flame retardants—that make these chemicals ubiquitous, significantly contributing to ecosystem contamination. These compounds have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. OPs are highly toxic, originating from the same compounds as World War II nerve agents, and residues are consistently present in human and animal blood, urine, tissues, and milk. Moreover, OPs are one of the leading causes of poisoning globally. Therefore, it is vital to understand how OP exposure will impact human health in conjunction with other immunologically compromising diseases like COVID-19.

Cardiovascular diseases are among the leading causes of death globally. Additionally, heart conditions are one leading cause of disability in the U.S., as research demonstrates environmental pollutant exposure can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, including stroke, heart attack, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and cardiac arrest. Therefore, it is essential to mitigate harmful chemical exposure to safeguard human health, especially during serious health crises. Considering COVID-19 and OP exposure act similarly on the cardiovascular system, exacerbating adverse inflammatory responses, reviews like these highlight the significance of evaluating synergism between diseases and toxic chemicals to safeguard human health. The report notes, “[T]he co-exposure and synergistic action of both agents may increase the possibility of severe cardiac injuries. Hence, indiscriminate use of these OP pesticides might escalate the severity of cardiac damage in the patients exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Proper instructions of usage should be followed to minimize human exposure to OP pesticides.”

The review examines literature discussing the impacts of SARS-CoV-2 on patients’ heart and how exposure to the virus and OPs could intensify cardiovascular injury. Using studies on cardiovascular health and Covid-19 patients, researchers compare the results to cardiovascular health and OP exposure patients. The review observes the overlapping health issues among COVID-19 and OP-exposure patients to determine the collective impact on the cardiovascular system. Overall, symptoms of cardiotoxicity include weakened heart muscles (myocarditis), elevated levels of proteins (troponins) in heart muscles, abnormal electrical activity in the heart (ECG), heart attack (myocardial infarction), heart failure (systolic dysfunction), blood clotting impairment (coagulopathy), inflamed blood vessels (endotheliitis), heart cell death (necroptosis), vascular damage, hypertrophy, fluid leakage around heart sac (myocardial edema) and tissue scarring of the heart (myocardial fibrosis). The researchers review the viral and chemical impact on redox reactions (oxidative state changes), Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS) responsible for water and sodium (liquid) homeostasis, blood pressure, cardiac physiology, and proteins for signaling cells (cytokine) to produce the cardiotoxic symptoms. 

The review finds both OPs and SARS-CoV-2 can disrupt redox, RAS, and cytokine homeostasis, promoting cardiovascular illnesses. Simultaneous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and OPs disrupts RAS via down-regulation of the enzyme ACE-2 (blood pressure regulation), up-regulation of ANG II (vasoconstriction and blood pressure), and hyperactive ANG/AT1R signaling pathway. The down-regulation of Nrf antioxidant (a cellular defense against oxidative stress) and ensuing excessive production of reactive oxygen species is evidence of altered redox homeostasis, indicative of oxidative stress. Oxidative stress results in cardiovascular tissue damage that can lead to myocarditis. Lastly, stimulation of NF-kB (a protein controlling of transcription of DNA, cytokine production, and cell survival) mediated signaling cascade via viral and chemical exposure increases proinflammatory cytokine levels. Thus, these subcellular alterations in cardiologic function lead to various aforementioned heart diseases. The review notes exposure to specific OPs like malathion, paraoxon, and chlorpyrifos stimulates ROS, cardiac-lipid peroxidation (oxidative degradation of lipids leading to lipoxidation, which plays a role in the onset of heart diseases), and protein damage in heart tissues.

The immune system offers the best defense against coronavirus-infection, as the virus stimulates an innate and adaptive immune response to expel viral particles from the body. Innate immune responses are the first line of defense against viral infections. However, coronavirus infections can suppress/delay protein production responsible for defending against viral infections, causing a lapse in the innate immune response. Injury to cells responsible for safeguarding against viral infections can induce more severe disease progression, immunocompromising the cardiovascular system of COVD-19 patients. COVID-19 is a systemic (general) disease that overwhelmingly impacts the respiratory system of many patients. The respiratory system is essential to human survival, regulating gas exchange (oxygen-carbon dioxide) in the body to balance acid and base tissue cells for normal function. Damage to the respiratory system can cause many issues—from asthma and bronchitis to oxidative stress that triggers the development of extra-respiratory, systemic manifestations like rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease. However, like this review demonstrates, the respiratory system is far from the only bodily system affected by the virus. Furthermore, underlying medical conditions (i.e., heart/kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity, etc.) heighten risks associated with severe illness from disease, including COVID-19. 

Overall, OP compounds are immunotoxicants (toxic to the immune system), causing injury and alterations to various cells within the body. Additionally, these compounds lower antibody concentration and reduce autoimmune response to stimuli. The review finds current OPs, including chlorpyrifos and malathion, induce oxidative stress, DNA, and cellular damage in the cardiovascular system. Moreover, OPs can disrupt the homeostasis of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses of cytokine proteins responsible for immune protection.

This review adds to the growing body of research demonstrating the many immunotoxic similarities between OP exposure and coronavirus. Both OPs and the virus cause injury and alteration to the cells in the heart. Additionally, these compounds lower antibody concentration and reduce autoimmune response to stimuli. The review finds current OPs, including the insecticides chlorpyrifos and malathion, induce oxidative stress, DNA, and cellular damage in the cardiovascular system. Moreover, OPs can disrupt the homeostasis of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses of cytokine proteins responsible for immune protection. Although coronavirus can induce other adverse immunological outcomes, such as cardiac dysfunction, gastrointestinal issues, kidney damage, and dermal reactions, studies find OP exposure can have similar adverse multi-organ effects. Therefore, co-exposure to OPs and coronavirus can exacerbate disease effects in COVID-19 patients, with additional exposure to OPs intensifying inflammatory response and respiratory issues that can lead to death.

Cardiovascular disease is becoming increasingly prevalent and is the leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2022, followed by cancer. Therefore, understanding the risk that pesticide exposure plays in disease development is essential to consider since these chemicals can cause disproportionate health effects on individuals working in occupations like firefighters, farm workers, and landscapers. With too many diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, reducing pesticide use is a critically important aspect of safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities. Policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on pesticide-related illnesses, see PIDD pages on cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other diseases. Learn more about how pesticides can adversely affect human and environmental health by reading Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

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

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

Source: Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2022) Putting up with moderate pest levels can attract and maintain predators and parasitoids that provide important biological control services throughout the landscape, according to research recently published in Environmental Entomology. While scale insects can be a problem in urban areas, dropping sticky ‘honeydew’ on cars and structures, they also play a critical role in maintaining native populations of pest predators. Scientists at NC State University (NCSU) set out to understand just how important these pest populations are at maintaining their own natural enemies.

To do so, researchers worked through a series of three hypotheses on the connection between urban trees, scale insects, and pest predators. Focus was first placed on investigating different oak species and comparing the number of predators between trees infested and not infested with scale. Twigs from willow oaks, sawtooth oaks, and overcup oaks were collected from scale infested and scale uninfested trees on the NCSU campus over the course of spring, and counted for their scale abundance. Then, through the summer, researchers used a sampling tool that effectively shook insects out of the tree and into a funnel collection.

Unsurprisingly, scale infested oaks contain more scale insects. But these trees also host significantly higher numbers of pest predators, with greater numbers of spiders, parasitoids, ants, and lady beetles found in infested oaks.

Scientists next aimed to see whether more predators were disbursing into the landscape from infested oaks than uninfected oaks. This was measured by hanging intercept traps – plastic cups filled with soapy water – under the oaks for two days, repeated for a total of five replicates. Results show no difference between the predators captured in either infested or uninfested trees, with no significant differences between tree types.

The last experiment aimed to test the hypothesis that shrubs underneath infested trees hosted higher levels of pest predators than uninfested trees. This was revealed by the use of a vacuum sampler on holly shrubs located beneath the trees. Vacuuming was repeated for a total of 26 scale infested trees and 23 uninfested trees. Multiple different sampling methods were conducted, including three, six, and nine day comparisons over the course of several months.

In general, shrubs underneath scale infested trees contain significantly more pest predators than those underneath uninfested trees. This difference built over the course of sampling time, with three day samples showing less difference than nine day samples.

These findings underscore the importance of patience and timing within the natural pest management approach. After identifying a tree pest, for many community land managers there is a knee jerk reaction to spray as soon as it is identified. But as study coauthor Caleb Wilson, PhD, notes in an article discussing the paper, “Treating a tree with pesticides could kill off natural enemies that would otherwise help manage nearby pests. In other words, treating a tree with pesticides could alleviate pest problems within the tree but could result in pest outbreaks in shrubs beneath the tree as natural enemies are killed off.”

By taking a broader, systems view of the landscape, rather than focusing on a single tree with a single pest, moderate levels of pest populations in trees can be considered a resource rather than a liability.

Biological approaches to pest management are critical for a sustainable future yet are in need of considerably more research and investment. The return on investment is sound – biological management has resulted in billions of dollars in benefits to agricultural economies, placing it on equal footing with the impact of the green revolution, according to a 2020 study.

Take steps to move toward a pesticide free, organic systems approach to pest management on your yard and in your community by learning more and sending a letter to your local elected officials today.

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

Source: Environmental Entomology, Entomology Today

Image Source: Joe Boggs, OSU Extension

(Beyond Pesticides, November 15, 2022) Spraying a flowering plant with synthetic fertilizers makes it less attractive to bumblebees, according to research published this month in PNAS Nexus.  “A big issue is thus—agrochemical application can distort floral cues and modify behaviour in pollinators like bees,” said study author Ellard Hunting, PhD, of the University of Bristol, UK. The findings underscore the limited understanding that proponents of chemical agriculture have for the complex processes that food production relies upon and reinforce calls for a broad scale transition to regenerative, organic farming practices.

Scientists began with the knowledge that spray applications of various agrichemicals affect the visitation patterns of bumblebees and other pollinators through a range of different processes. Past research finds that notorious bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides not only kill bees outright, but also result in a range of complex damage, including their ability to impede bees’ olfactory senses and adversely affect their vision and flying ability. Other chemicals like glyphosate weaken bees’ ability to distinguish between colors.  

A growing area of research is investigating the ways in which pollinators use static electric fields surrounding flowers to find food sources. A 2013 study found that bumblebees use floral electrical fields to discriminate between potential food sources. Subsequent reporting shows that bees use “mechanosensory” hairs on their body to detect these fields, that find that other pollinators like the hoverfly also use these cues. Flowers produce these fields “from the negative bio-electric potential within the flower and positive charges in the atmosphere, including the electrosphere and positively charged insects such as bees,” the study explains. Pollinators interacting with flowering plants can change a flower’s electric field, as the plant responds by producing more sap, for instance.

The authors confirm that applications of synthetic fertilizers and the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid to flowering plants both resulted in significantly reduced foraging by bumblebees. To make this determination, a series of experiments were conducted to rule out other factors. To test whether the fertilizer was adversely affecting visual cues, researchers observed the reflectance spectra of spray applications with fertilizer, finding that they were no different than simple demineralized water. To rule out odor as a factor in their findings, bees were provided sugar solution with and without fertilizer, and found that the bees showed no preference for one or the other.

Then researchers began exploring the effect of agrichemicals on the electric fields flowers produce. Cut flowers (Geranium pratense) were sprayed with simple water, or water with fertilizer, both with the addition of positively charged colored particles in order to observe the electrostatic deposition of the colored particles. The colored particles show significant differences between the two applications.  The experiment was then repeated with a rooted, still growing flowering plant (Jacobaea vulgaris), and this time researchers measured the electrical field around the flower. Scientists found that fertilizers increase the flower’s electric field, which then slowly returned to its previous state.

Digging deeper into the issue, researchers focused in on the bio-electric potential energy within a plant’s stem. Plants are known to respond to environmental stressors like cutting/herbivory and chemicals by changing the water flow and ion transport within their stems, which can subsequently be measured and manipulated. Moreover, changes observed within the bio-electric potential of a plant’s stem are directly proportional to a plant’s floral electric field. To test this process, cut Lavandula angustifolia flowers were sprayed with either water or a water-synthetic fertilizer solution, and their stem potential changes were measured. While water resulted in a change in stem potential that lasted up to a minute, synthetic fertilizers changed stem potential for 16 minutes, and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid showed alterations that lasted for up to 25 minutes. These measurements aligned directly with observed declines in bumblebee foraging interest in flowers recently sprayed with the agrichemcials. The authors note, “Since many chemicals used in agriculture and horticulture carry an electric charge, the observed mechanism could potentially be relevant for a wide array of chemicals.”

To add additional weight to their findings, scientists conducted another experiment in which they artificially maintained flower stems with altered electrical signals mimicking the changes seen with a fertilizer or insecticide application. Manipulated flowers experienced 62 bumblebee approaches, while unaltered control flowers saw 47. However, only out of this 62 only 35 bumblebees landed on the manipulated flowers, while control flowers received 43 landings. “This suggests altered floral E-fields affect bee foraging when approaching the flower, and that bumblebees can detect and discriminate small and dynamic alterations in the electric landscape induced by agrochemical deposition,” the study explains. To provide further context, study co-author Sam England, PhD adds, “It’s much like motorboat noise that hinders the ability of fish to detect their predators, or artificial light at night that confuses moths; the fertilisers are a source of noise to bees trying to detect floral electrical cues.”

Not only do these chemicals interrupt the daily foraging of pollinators, they may also represent a longer-term threat for pollinators. In a final experiment, researchers mimicked a rain event after an initial fertilizer treatment. Plants responded with a similarly prolonged alteration of their electrical signal. The authors note that fertilizer applications may thus chronically reduce pollinator foraging either by recurring electric alterations after a rain event or from learned negative associations with the altered plant.

“The fact that fertilisers affect pollinator behavior by interfering with the way an organism perceives its physical environment offers a new perspective on how human-made chemicals disturb the natural environment,” Dr. Hunting notes.

These results fly in the face of outdated toxicological approaches that agrichemical companies hide behind when confronted with the on the ground impacts of their dangerous products, such as 15^th century Paracelsian concept that “dose makes the poison.” As modern science delves deeper into the inner working of plants and insects and the interactions between these critically important groups, it finds the world to be incredibly more complex than an inaccurate truism.

Solutions to the problems of chemical-intensive agriculture exist and provide proof of concept that farming can occur without a range of negative impacts on the surrounding environment. Organic agriculture has never permitted the use of synthetic fertilizers, nor do organic farmers ever use synthetic insecticides like the bee-killing neonicotinoid imidacloprid. Instead, regenerative organic farming embraces a natural systems approach, taking efforts to work with and enhance the existing ecological services in their region. Organic farming yields multiple bottom line benefits for wildlife and the wider environment, human health and the economy.

For more information on the dangers of synthetic fertilizers and alternative, organic companies you can support, see Beyond Pesticides page on Fertilizers Compatible with Organic Landscape Management. Get active in your own community to eliminate synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides by sending a letter to your local officials today.

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

Source:  PNAS Nexus, University of Bristol press release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2022) Glyphosate weed killers induce antibiotic resistance in deadly hospital-acquired bacteria, according to a new study published late last month in the journal Scientific Reports. This is the latest finding connecting commonly used herbicides to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. To put this finding in context, antibiotic resistance is rising to dangerously high levels in all parts of the world, according to the World Health Organization. In the May 1, 2022, issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Samira Choudhury, PhD, et al. writes, “Often referred to as the silent pandemic, antimicrobial resistance claims the lives of over 700,000 people annually.” The authors continue, “A study suggests that if no actions are taken, antimicrobial resistance will cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050 and an economic impact of over 100 trillion United States dollars.”

Tell EPA and Congress that antibiotic pesticides in agriculture, lawns, and landscapes must be eliminated.

Use of antibiotics in animal agriculture has long been recognized as a contributor to widespread antibiotic resistance. More recently, recognition of the contribution of antibiotics in plant agriculture has led to pressure to eliminate agricultural uses of antibiotics used in medicine. However, two facts lead to the conclusion that even that is too shortsighted. First, science shows that use of any antibiotics anywhere can increase antibiotic resistance everywhere. Second, many pesticides not intended to kill microbes—such as the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba—also induce antibiotic resistance in deadly human pathogens.

These two facts lead to the conclusion that we must stop broadcasting pesticides in the environment and applying them to food. The crisis in antibiotic resistance, which creates a threat of another pandemic, is ignored in the registration of pesticides. The antibiotic impacts of pesticides cited above were discovered only after the pesticides have been disseminated in the environment for decades. At the same time, it is understood that underlying practices and conditions that could be changed in land and agricultural management are the principle reasons for antibiotic use in these areas. As Michael Greger, M.D., Ph.D., author of Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching, explains, “When we overcrowd animals by the thousands, in cramped football-field-size sheds, to lie beak to beak or snout to snout, and there’s stress crippling their immune systems, and there’s ammonia from the decomposing waste burning their lungs, and there’s a lack of fresh air and sunlight — put all these factors together and you have a perfect-storm environment for the emergence and spread of disease.” In addition to animal agriculture, the regulation of antibiotics in chemical-intensive crop production is alarmingly weak, allowing residues of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria to emerge on agricultural lands, move through the environment, contaminate waterways, and ultimately reach consumers and the general public.

EPA must consider the availability and viability of organic practices, which under USDA organic certification do not allow the use of antibiotics.

EPA must not register pesticides unless they have been demonstrated not to contribute to antibiotic resistance and must cancel the registration of those that do.

 Letter to EPA Administrator and OPP:

I am writing to ask EPA to act on a serious threat to human health from antibiotic resistance. According to a new study published late last month in the journal Scientific Reports, glyphosate weed killers induce antibiotic resistance in deadly hospital-acquired bacteria. To put this in context, antibiotic resistance is rising to dangerously high levels in all parts of the world, according to the World Health Organization. In the May 1, 2022, issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Samira Choudhury, PhD, et al. write, “Often referred to as the silent pandemic, antimicrobial resistance claims the lives of over 700,000 people annually.” The authors continue, “A study suggests that if no actions are taken, antimicrobial resistance will cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050 and an economic impact of over 100 trillion United States dollars.”

Use of antibiotics in animal agriculture has long been recognized as a contributor to widespread antibiotic resistance. More recently, recognition of the contribution of antibiotics in plant agriculture has led to pressure to eliminate agricultural uses of antibiotics used in medicine. However, two facts lead to the conclusion that even that is too shortsighted. First, science shows that use of any antibiotics anywhere can increase antibiotic resistance everywhere. Second, many pesticides not intended to kill microbes—such as the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba—also induce antibiotic resistance in deadly human pathogens.

These two facts lead to the conclusion that we must stop broadcasting pesticides in the environment and applying them to food. The crisis in antibiotic resistance, which creates a threat of another pandemic, is ignored in the registration of pesticides. The antibiotic impacts of pesticides cited above were discovered only after the pesticides have been disseminated in the environment for decades.

EPA must not register pesticides unless they have been demonstrated not to contribute to antibiotic resistance and must cancel the registration of those that do. EPA must consider the availability and viability of organic practices, which under USDA organic certification do not allow the use of antibiotics.

Thank you for your attention to this serious problem.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

I am writing to ask you to ensure that EPA acts on a serious threat to human health from antibiotic resistance. According to a new study published late last month in the journal Scientific Reports, glyphosate weed killers induce antibiotic resistance in deadly hospital-acquired bacteria. To put this in context, antibiotic resistance is rising to dangerously high levels in all parts of the world, according to the World Health Organization. In the May 1, 2022, issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Samira Choudhury, PhD, et al. write, “Often referred to as the silent pandemic, antimicrobial resistance claims the lives of over 700,000 people annually.” The authors continue, “A study suggests that if no actions are taken, antimicrobial resistance will cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050 and an economic impact of over 100 trillion United States dollars.”

Use of antibiotics in animal agriculture has long been recognized as a contributor to widespread antibiotic resistance. More recently, recognition of the contribution of antibiotics in plant agriculture has led to pressure to eliminate agricultural uses of antibiotics used in medicine. However, two facts lead to the conclusion that even that is too shortsighted. First, science shows that use of any antibiotics anywhere can increase antibiotic resistance everywhere. Second, many pesticides not intended to kill microbes—such as the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba—also induce antibiotic resistance in deadly human pathogens.

These two facts lead to the conclusion that we must stop broadcasting pesticides in the environment and applying them to food. The crisis in antibiotic resistance, which creates a threat of another pandemic, is ignored in the registration of pesticides. The antibiotic impacts of pesticides cited above were discovered only after the pesticides have been disseminated in the environment for decades.

EPA must not register pesticides unless they have been demonstrated not to contribute to antibiotic resistance and must cancel the registration of those that do. EPA must consider the availability and viability of organic practices, which under USDA organic certification do not allow the use of antibiotics.

Thank you for your attention to this serious problem.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 11, 2022) A paper published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution in late October sounds an unnerving alarm about the globally ubiquitous use of herbicides and the ecological destruction being caused. It asserts that widespread environmental contamination with these herbicide compounds is influencing soil, plant, and animal microbiomes in ways that are not only not well understood, but also, can have significant impacts on the functioning of organisms and their ecosystems — with evolutionary implications. Impacts of herbicides on microbiota in soils include, for example, those on nutrient cycling, and altered organism and plant performance, which can affect pollination and animal consumption of plants. This research reinforces what Beyond Pesticides wrote in covering a 2021 study: “The popular herbicide glyphosate negatively affects microbial communities, indirectly influencing plant, animal, and human health. Exposure to sublethal concentrations of glyphosate shifts microbial community composition, destroying beneficial microorganisms while preserving pathogenic organisms.”

Herbicides are a category of pesticide used to control weeds in agriculture and commercial forests, on managed landscapes, byways, gardens, and lawns, and directly on surface waters to control aquatic weeds. They are designed to kill “target” plant species considered undesirable in any of those circumstances. Herbicide use has exploded in the past two decades, in large part due to the advent of the agro-biotech industry’s deployment of genetically modified, herbicide tolerant crop seeds that pair with herbicide use.

This increased use has ramped up the development of weeds’ resistance to multiple herbicides. Glyphosate formulations (including the infamous Roundup) are the most commonly used, in agriculture, horticulture, silviculture, and urban environments. In the aggregate, glyphosate contributes mightily to global environmental contamination; other widely used herbicides include [triazines (e.g., atrazine), acetochlor and metolachlor, paraquat, and dicamba. Residues of herbicides are found in soil, water, non-target plants, animals, and humans, and are associated with pollinator and insect declines and biodiversity losses, compromise of other organisms (including keystone species), ecosystem dysfunction, and human health anomalies.

The study authors also note that adjuvant, “inert” ingredients in herbicide formulations can sometimes be even more toxic to non-target organisms than the active ingredients themselves, and that in the U.S., such co-formulants are not required to be tested for toxicity to non-target organisms. To make matters worse, information about such adjuvants is usually considered “proprietary” and therefore, is not shared with regulators or the public. Beyond Pesticides has covered this “inert” ingredient phenomenon.

If present patterns persist, the use of herbicides is predicted, by BusinessWire, to increase annually by 2–3% through 2025. Most of that increase is expected in the agricultural sector because of (1) increasing resistance to herbicides by weed species, (2) an increase in agricultural intensity in Central and South America and the Asian/Pacific region, and (3) the ongoing development of new herbicide formulations (in part because of #1) and “herbicide use education” in developing markets.

Though herbicides are designed for target species, they also expose nontarget plants, animals, humans, and ecosystem function to risks. This study focuses on the compounds’ effects on microbiota in flora, fauna, and soils. The authors assert that, “While many herbicides were initially considered safe for non-target taxa, as their mechanism of action was thought to be absent in these organisms, it has been understood only recently that herbicides may have profound effects on non-target taxa via alterations of microbial communities and microbial function in soil, plants, and animals. Given the imperative role of microbes in driving eco-evolutionary adaptations since the origin of life, and that microbes and their hosts comprise coevolving, multipartite entities [known as holobionts], a comprehensive understanding of the risks associated with altered microbiomes is needed.” (A holobiont is an assemblage of a host and the many other species living in or around it, which together form a discrete ecological unit through symbiosis.)

The assumption that herbicides would be safe for nontarget taxa was based on the idea that their modes or mechanisms of action — how the compounds actually work to kill or disable weeds — were lacking in nontarget organisms. More-recent research has shown, however, that these compounds’ mechanisms of action can have profound effects on the microbial communities harbored by non-target organisms. These communities, or microbiota, are present in all living things and are critical to healthy organism function — and to optimal immune response in particular, a primary task being the control of pathogens. When herbicides damage or kill a plant or animal’s resident microbes, they alter the organism’s ability to execute this protective function.

The study identifies classes or modes of action for a host of herbicide active ingredients, including whether they act directly or indirectly on microbiota, and their respective effects on soil, plant, or animal microbiomes. Among the modes (and sample compounds) that have direct impacts on microbes are:
• ACC (acetyl-CoA carboxylase) inhibitors (e.g., diclofop-methyl, haloxyfop)

• ALS (acetolactate synthase) inhibitors (sulfonylureas, triazolopyrimidines)
• EPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) inhibitors in the shikimate pathway (glyphosate)
• glutamine synthetase inhibitors (glufosinate)

Effects on resident microbiomes include those that damage microbes’ role in nutrient cycling, compromise immune response, alter soil carbon and phosphorous dynamics, and degrade population levels.

The mechanisms that exhibit indirect impacts, including on cellular metabolism and hormone synthesis, are auxin-like herbicides (2,4-D, dicamba); photosystem (related to photosynthesis) inhibitors (triazines, paraquat, diphenyl ether); and gibberellin (plant hormone that stimulates stem elongation, germination, and flowering) inhibitors (acetochlor, metolachlor, pendimethalin). The indirect impacts on microbiota include those that degrade bacterial diversity, erode microbial community structure, and disable nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

Herbicides alter microbial communities through multiple pathways; factors that influence such alterations include differing vulnerability to the compounds across microbe type; some microbes’ utilization of herbicides as nutritional sources; and functional changes that can cascade to have “community-wide” impacts. An example of that last is that healthy microbiomes exhibit successful, long-term self-regulation; herbicide exposures can have damaging effects on that ability.

Soil- and root system–associated microbes are critical to functioning ecosystems, and herbicides’ impacts on them depend on several elements: the compounds’ chemical composition and mode of action, soil health, and climate, among others. The dynamics of herbicides in soil microbiota are complex, and thus, can be hard to predict. Examples the study cites are these: “Glyphosate negatively affects shikimate pathways present in the majority of microbes, but their genetic resistance to glyphosate varies. Therefore, some of the resistant and glyphosate-degrading microbes that can use glyphosate as a nutrient source may become prevalent in the microbial community. . . . Similarly, in some environments atrazine may not affect the overall microbial community, while in other environments it can decrease soil microbial biomass or increase atrazine-degrading bacteria due to strong selection favoring them, thus leading to atrazine degradation.” (The shikimate pathway is one of many physiological pathways that impact plant defense and signaling chemistry.)

The study concludes that the ecological and evolutionary consequences for microbial soil communities are poorly understood and require further research. But the authors posit that other research has demonstrated a negative correlation between pesticide use and (1) beneficial soil- and root-associated microbes, and (2) herbicide-modulated nutrient cycling.

The team also asserts that herbicide residues can cause disruptions in dynamic relations between mycorrhizal fungi and their associated plant communities, and reduction in abundance of nitrogen-fixing bacteria. They note: “As many plant traits, including growth, phenology, and resistance to abiotic stressors and pathogens, are modulated by rhizosphere microbiome, changes in rhizosphere composition and functioning are likely to be reflected in host fitness and growth. . . . [S]ublethal doses of glyphosate [for example] can potentially disrupt virtually all plant above-ground interactions with other coevolving organisms, such as pathogens, plant-mutualistic microbes, herbivores, and pollinators.”

The study also points to deleterious impacts on animal gut and skin microbiomes, which play important roles in digestion, pathogen management, and neurobehavioral coordination. Glyphosate, the paper notes, “has been shown to increase pathogenic and decrease symbiotic bacteria, which may affect the susceptibility of bees to viral and fungal pathogens, with survival effects cascading to the ecosystem level. . . . [H]erbicide-altered plant microbiomes and/or metabolomes in plant leaves, pollen, and nectar may alter the exposure and consumption of pollinators and herbivores, which can have cascading effects on their gut microbiomes and, therefore, the health of the pollinators and herbivores.” This is a demonstration of how herbicide-driven alterations in animal-host gut microbiomes can lead to ecosystem-level changes.

Last, the research addresses the “widely known evolutionary consequence of repeated herbicide exposure” — selection for increased herbicide resistance in soil bacteria. This resistance, the authors assert, can feed back to the ecosystem level when changes in the microbial community composition influence soil processes; they cite nitrogen and carbon flows as examples. They add, “Long-term exposure to herbicides may influence not only microbial evolution but also the evolution of the animal hosts driven via microbes,” and cite the example of a particular wasp variety’s chronic atrazine exposure causing adaptive gut changes that then exerted selective pressure on its host genome.

The health of microbial communities is hugely important. These tiny organizations of organisms maintain individual plant, animal, and human health, and that of ecosystems. Altering these communities — particularly in our soils, through prolonged assault with toxic herbicides (and other pesticides) — can have, the authors assert, “far-reaching, long-term, and unforeseen impacts on ecosystems.” We are witnessing these chemical impacts unfold in the current trend toward a collapse of biodiversity that threatens all life on Earth. (Other factors contribute, of course —the climate crisis, human-caused development that destroys habitat, pollution, overexploitation of natural resources, and problematic invasive species.)

But this research (and more here) identify a threat that has great potential to accelerate the distortion and potential destruction of organisms and ecosystems. The issue of herbicides’ and pesticides’ impacts on microbiomes, especially in our soils, needs more research and certainly, should be part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) risk evaluations of herbicides and pesticides.

Meanwhile, as Beyond Pesticides advocates with growing volume and urgency, the “fix” for insect, weed, and animal “pests” (in agriculture, and in other land and building management) is not the agrochemical industry’s never-ending chase of evolving organisms’ resistance to chemical assaults with new, more, and more-intensive chemical applications. This approach will never “win” the contest with the living world’s mutation-plus-selection strategy for organismic survival.

What can work is a change in approach, on the order of “work smarter, not harder.” Organic approaches to agriculture, in particular, but to all land and pest management, are effective, holistic, protective, and benign ways to deal with pests, and can achieve production and land management goals — without the toxic, systemic, destructive, and sometimes unknown, impacts of chemical saturation of the environment and ecosystems, natural resources, and organisms across the living spectrum.

Learn more about the environmental, health, and socioeconomic benefits of organic, and please advocate for this critical transition (see our Tools for Change). You can reach out to us for assistance with this work in your community: email us at [email protected] or call 202.543.5450.

Source: Trends in Ecology & Evolution

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 10, 2022) A meta-analysis by the University Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada, adds to the plethora of research linking prenatal (before birth/during pregnancy) pesticide exposure to carcinogenic (cancer) tumor development. The analysis, published in Human & Experimental Toxicology, finds parental exposure to pesticides during the preconception (before pregnancy) or pregnancy period increases the risk of Wilms’ tumor (a type of kidney cancer) occurrence among children. Already, studies find low levels of pesticide exposure during pregnancy or childhood cause adverse health effects, from metabolic disorders to mental and physical disabilities. Although medical advancements in disease survival are more prominent nowadays, childhood cancer remains the leading cause of death from disease among children. Furthermore, childhood cancer survivors can suffer from chronic or long-term health complications that may be life-threatening.

Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of pesticide exposure as their developing bodies cannot adequately combat exposure effects. Moreover, a mother’s pesticide exposure can have a stronger association with cancer among a child than childhood exposure, and a newborn can still encounter pesticides. Therefore, it is essential to understand how pesticides impact the health and well-being of individuals during critical developmental periods, especially for latent diseases (e.g., cancers).

The researchers performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on case-control studies to determine a link between pesticide exposure (e.g., insecticides, herbicides) and Wilms’ tumor occurrence in children. To establish the connection, researchers used monographs (commentary studies) on specific organophosphate insecticides and herbicides from the International Association for the Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO). Researchers systematically reviewed PUBMED, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar studies (1960–2021) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

The report also examines occupational versus residential exposure and before-birth (prenatal) versus after-birth (postnatal) exposure. These results strengthen the finding that parental pesticide exposure before or during pregnancy correlates with increased risk for Wilms’ tumor in a child. The IRAC/WHO monographs support this conclusion and policies to stop specific pesticide use to prevent future cases of cancer.

The connection between pesticides and cancer is significant as several studies link pesticide use and residues to various cancers (e.g., breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer). Sixty-six percent of all cancers have links to environmental factors, especially in occupations of high chemical use. In addition to links between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses, over 65 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent of commonly used school pesticides have links to cancer. Although general pesticide exposure can increase susceptibility to cancer, prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants can increase cancer risk.

Exposure to the now-banned insecticide DDT increases the risk of developing breast cancer later in life. Moreover, a 2021 study finds previous maternal exposure to the chemical compound during pregnancy can increase the risk of breast cancer and cardiometabolic disorders (e.g., heart disease, obesity, diabetes) up to three times in successive generations. 

This study reinforces concepts around “critical windows of exposure,” which suggests that prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increase susceptibility to health impacts. Thus, a parent’s exposure to pesticides during these critical periods is indicative of increased childhood disease risk. While Wilms’ tumor generally afflicts children under ten years of age, other early life exposures can take years and even decades before adverse health effects arise. Although 90 percent of kidney tumors among children are Wilms tumors, co-occurring diseases may arise from weakened immune function. Similar to this study, previous research demonstrates that even pregnant mothers’ exposure to household cleaners, many of which are pesticides, can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children. The etiology or cause of childhood cancer involves the interaction of multiple components including lifestyle and genetics. However, emerging evidence indicates that environmental contaminants like pesticides (e.g., occupational exposures, air pollution, pesticides, solvents, diet, etc.) play a role in disease etiology. Pesticide contamination is widespread in all ecosystems, and chemical compounds can accumulate in human tissues resulting in chronic health effects. The study concludes, “Pesticide exposure in household/residential settings seems to contribute to Wilms’ tumor etiology. Additional investigations with an extensive sample size are required to conclude more confidently, probably involving low-/middle-income and high-income countries. This may be considered important in the post-pandemic era. In our opinion, there is some compelling evidence to robustly educate parents and/or guardians more regarding the appropriate use of chemical compounds and take necessary precautions to minimize the potential risks associated with their application.”

There is a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical windows of development. However, the general population should follow this advice as the effects of pesticide exposure can affect every individual. Fortunately, the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies allows for choices in residential and agricultural management to promote 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 both 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 news and studies on pesticides through the Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the adverse effects of pesticides on human health, see PIDD pages on cancer, birth/fetal defects, and other diseases. Additionally, since pesticides can have multi-generation impacts on our health, you can learn more about the hazards posed to children’s health through Beyond Pesticide’s Pesticide and You Journal article, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.”

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

Source: Human & Experimental Toxicology