(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2023) Pollinator losses are responsible for reducing the global production of nuts, fruits, and vegetables by 3-5%, and this loss of healthy, nutrient-dense food is resulting in over 425,000 excess deaths each year, according to research published late last year in Environmental Health Perspectives. While the connection between pollination, food production and health is intuitive, the study’s ability to trace how these impacts are directly harming the well-being of people living right now is shocking, and is a clear sign that pollinator losses must be taken seriously and addressed through meaningful action. To those who consider the decline of pollinators to be some vague, amorphous future threat, let this study end that myth. According to researchers, “Today’s estimated health impacts of insufficient pollination would be comparable to other major global risk factors: those attributable to substance use disorders, interpersonal violence, or prostate cancer.

Per a United Nations report, 75 percent of the world’s food crops depend at least in part on pollination, with pollinators contributing an estimated $235 to $577 billion to global crop production annually. Pollinator declines are already adversely impacting food production. A 2016 paper by many of the scientists in the current study determined that in general, when there is a difference between high and low production on a farm, regardless of crop type, lack of pollinator populations account for 25% of the yield gap.  

However, no study had yet investigated how these losses translate into real world impacts. Thus, the authors asked: if there were no pollinator losses, how much food would have been produced, who would have eaten it, and would that have averted any diet-related diseases or deaths? Further, the authors consider the economic cost of lost yields, particularly on low-income countries.

To answer how much food would have been produced were pollinators still thriving, scientists compare current yields to what they term ‘attainable yields,’ which represent the 90^th percentile of yield within a given region on a global scale. Having determined the yield gap, an average weight is then assigned to determine the contribution of pollinators to this disparity. Economic impacts are more complicated, as there are a multitude of variables for both supply and demand; on the supply side farmers may change what or how much they plant, and demand is determined by price and a consumer’s ability or willingness to pay. Researchers focuse their economic review on three low income countries – Nepal, Honduras, and Nigeria.

When cost increases, many consumers will not be able to afford to eat enough nutrient-dense, pollinator-dependent foods like fruits, vegetables, and nuts. To determine how this translates to health outcomes, a global risk-disease model is utilized, looking at risk factors associated with low consumption of fruits, vegetable, legumes, and nuts. Diseases used in the model include stroke, type 2 diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and an aggregated ‘all cause mortality’ associated with weight changes.  

Final calculations show that pollinator declines account for losses of 4.7% of all fruit production, 3.2% of vegetables, and 4.7% of nuts. Yield gaps are determined to be independent of other variables like geography and other landscape characteristics. Low income countries (as defined by the World Bank) are experiencing the most pronounced yield gaps, with an estimated 26% and 8% loss in overall vegetable and nut production in those areas on average.

Pollination declines also hit the economy of low-income countries hard. The annual lost economic value of all agricultural crops, as determined by researchers, is  -12% in Hondoras, -17% in Nigeria, and -31% in Nepal. Economic losses do not match up directly with production losses, which are -3%, -15%, and -19%, respectively, for the same countries. “The greater percentage economic loss compared with production loss (by weight) suggests that pollinated crops constituted high-value commodities for these countries,” the authors note, indicating that most value is lost through declines in fruit and vegetable production. In sum, these impacts result in annual lost value per farmer of $209, $250, and $325 (U.S. dollars) for the same countries, respectively. Such losses are staggering in the context where per farmer annual GDP tops out at less than $1,500 in these countries.

Not only are pollinator losses throwing farmers into financial turmoil, the impacts also result in a shocking 427,000 excess deaths each year, primarily from chronic disease. Interestingly, it is middle and high income countries where these excess deaths are most pronounced. According to the study, 1% of total annual mortality in upper-middle and high income countries can be attributed to loss of pollination. Lower fruit and vegetable intake accounts from 189,000 and 151,000 deaths, respectively, from stroke, heart disease, and cancer, and a reduction in nut consumption is resulting in an estimated 99,000 deaths each year.

Prior studies have shown that pollinator declines will result in increased malnutrition from lost micronutrient consumption, and nutrient deficiencies. But this latest research deals less with ‘the potential for’ impacts and makes determinations based on what is happening currently. To be clear: this study shows that people today, in the United States and around the globe, are dying because the loss of pollinators has resulted in them being unable to afford to eat healthy fruits and vegetables on a consistent basis. Extrapolating these data into the future paints an increasingly dismal picture should society not act on a coordinated basis to revive pollinator populations.

The authors note that there is hope, writing that, “Diverse research investigating the optimal policies to benefit pollination have shown remarkable consensus around a short list of highly effective strategies: increase flower abundance and diversity on farms, reduce pesticide use, and preserve or restore nearby natural habitat.” In order to reverse pollinator declines, these practices must be translated and institutionalized into enforceable policies.

We must continue to push lawmakers to take real and meaningful action. Not before it is too late – in many ways it is – but before even more harm is done. Act today to urge your member of Congress to  support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act, and tell the Biden Administration, EPA and Congress to adopt a new direction for pesticide regulation.

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

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, January 9, 2023) The Biden EPA still needs a new vision in order to meet the existential crises in public health, climate change, and biodiversity. The Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reversed in four years much of the progress made by the EPA in decades. Despite a broad new perspective embodied in President Biden’s Executive Memorandum (EM) Modernizing Regulatory Review issued on his first day in office, the Biden EPA has not adopted a new direction for regulating pesticides.

Tell President Biden, EPA, and Congress to adopt a new direction for pesticide regulation.

Immediately following his inauguration, President Joe Biden issued the EM, which directs the heads of all executive departments and agencies to produce recommendations for improving and modernizing regulatory review, with a goal of promoting public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations. This EM could reverse the historical trend of status-quo regulatory reviews required by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that typically support vested economic interests of polluters (e.g., petroleum-based pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers). The President’s EM sets the stage for the adoption of agency policy across government to seriously and with urgency confront the existential crises of climate change, biodiversity collapse, and public health threats, including disproportionate harm to people of color communities (environmental racism).

In order for EPA to live up to the vision embodied in the EM, the agency must make systemic changes that incorporate the new direction into every decision. Those systemic changes include:

 Challenge so-called “benefits” of pesticides.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to weigh risks against benefits when registering pesticides. Claimed “benefits” for toxic pesticides need to be judged in comparison to organic production, which is able to produce all types of food and feed. The Organic Trade Association reports that organic sales now exceed $63 billion per year, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finds that organic producers in the U.S. produced $11.2 billion worth of organic food on 4.9 million acres in 2021. EPA assumes benefits, rather than measuring them, and does not take into account the development of resistance in target insects or plants.

Protect pollinators.

Agriculture relies on insect pollinators to facilitate fertilization and maintain annual crop yield. Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. Yet, many agricultural pesticides are killing pollinators outright, making them more susceptible to parasites and disease, and destroying their habitat. Pollinator protection should be a priority of EPA.  

Protect workers.

Farmworkers are at greatest risk from pesticide exposure. A blatant example of systemic racism is imbedded in risk assessments in environmental regulation. In deciding on “acceptable” risks, exposure assessments inevitably discount the impact workers,  people of color, and those with preexisting health conditions or comorbidities. For example, EPA routinely calculates worker exposure separately from other exposures. In applying aggregate exposure assessments of pesticides, EPA does not include worker exposure. Risk assessments do not include exposures to multiple chemicals—and such exposures routinely occur in fenceline communities, farmworkers, and factory workers.

Protect biodiversity.

Roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been wiped out since 1990, according to research published in the journal Science. Monarchs are near extinction and beekeepers continue to experience declines that are putting them out of business. We continue to lose mayflies, the foundation of so many food chains, and fireflies, the foundation of so many childhood summer memories, for reasons that can be prevented with leadership in regulating pesticides. It is likely that the declines we are seeing in many bird species are closely linked to insect declines. Recent research finds that three billion birds, or 29% of bird abundance, has been lost since the 1970s. Pesticides cause biodiversity loss in aquatic ecosystems as well. Amphibians are also particularly at risk.

As if the loss of biodiversity was not bad enough in itself, it combines with the other existential threats to amplify the impacts. A study in the journal Nature finds that, “The interaction between indices of historical climate warming and intensive agricultural land use is associated with reductions of almost 50% in the abundance and 27% in the number of species within insect assemblages relative to those in less-disturbed habitats with lower rates of historical climate warming.” And a study in Environmental Health Perspectives finds that resulting from the loss of pollinators, “3%–5% of fruit, vegetable, and nut production is lost due to inadequate pollination, leading to an estimated 427,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 86,000-691,000) excess deaths annually from lost healthy food consumption and associated diseases.” That study also finds the economic value of crops to be “12%–31% lower than if pollinators were abundant.”

EPA does not factor these impacts into its cost-benefit analysis.

Get rid of endocrine-disrupting pesticides.

Despite the Congressional mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), EPA is not acting on endocrine disruptors linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. In 1998, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 21 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides.  Now the program has stalled entirely.

To ensure appropriate follow-through, Congress gave EPA a timeline 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. According to EPA, Tier 1 Screening (which looks at high exposure chemicals) is not sufficient to implicate a chemical as an endocrine disrupting chemical. It is instead a step to define which chemicals must undergo Tier 2 testing – the only stage that can influence regulatory decision making. 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.

Only those registrations supported by testing showing a lack of endocrine-disrupting effects should be approved or allowed to continue.

Get rid of neurotoxic pesticides that harm children.

The target of action by which many pesticides kill is the nervous system. It is not surprising, then, that pesticides also target the nervous system in humans. They are particularly hazardous to children, who take in greater amounts of pesticides (relative to their body weight) than adults, and whose developing organ systems are typically more sensitive to toxic exposures.

The body of evidence in the scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine system, even at low exposure levels. Several pesticide families, such as synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates, and carbamates, are also known to cause or exacerbate respiratory symptoms like asthma. The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote, “Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems.”

Action taken by this administration to ban food uses of the extremely neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos is an important first step in eliminating neurotoxic pesticides, but a small one. Even the uses of chlorpyrifos that remain allow continued exposure to workers and children. In addition, many other neurotoxic pesticides continue to be used and threaten public health.

Tell President Biden, EPA, and Congress to adopt a new direction for pesticide regulation.

Letter to the Biden Administration (Council on Environmental Quality Chair Barbara Mallory and  EPA Administrator Michael Regan):

Pesticide regulation needs a change of direction in order to meet the existential crises in public health, climate change, and biodiversity. Despite a broad new perspective embodied in President Joe Biden’s Executive Memorandum (EM) Modernizing Regulatory Review issued on his first day in office, the Biden EPA has not adopted a new direction for regulating pesticides. A program consistent with the EM requires EPA to:

1. Challenge so-called “benefits” of pesticides. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to weigh risks against benefits when registering pesticides. The standard for claimed “benefits” for toxic pesticides organic production. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finds that organic producers in the U.S. produced $11.2 billion worth of organic food in 2021. EPA assumes benefits, rather than measuring them, and does not take into account the development of resistance in target insects or plants.
2. Protect pollinators. Agriculture relies on insect pollinators to facilitate fertilization and maintain annual crop yield. Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. Yet, many agricultural pesticides kill pollinators outright, make them more susceptible to parasites and disease, and destroy their habitat.
3. Protect workers. Farmworkers are at greatest risk from pesticide exposure. Systemic racism is imbedded in risk assessments in environmental regulation. In deciding on “acceptable” risks, exposure assessments inevitably discount the impact workers, people of color, and those with preexisting health conditions or comorbidities. EPA routinely calculates worker exposure separately from other exposures. In applying aggregate exposure assessments of pesticides, EPA does not include worker exposure. Risk assessments do not include exposures to multiple chemicals—that routinely occur in fenceline communities, farmworkers, and factory workers.
4. Protect biodiversity. Roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been wiped out since 1990. It is likely that declines in many bird species are closely linked to insect declines. Recent research finds that three billion birds, or 29% of bird abundance has been lost since the 1970s. Pesticides cause biodiversity loss in aquatic ecosystems as well. A study in the journal Nature finds reductions of almost 50% in the abundance and 27% in the number of species due to interaction with climate change. A study in Environmental Health Perspectives calculates an estimated 427,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 86,000-691,000) excess deaths annually from lost healthy food consumption and associated diseases resulting from the loss of pollinators and subsequent loss of production, as well as reduction in economic value of crops of 12%–31%. EPA does not factor these impacts into its cost-benefit analysis.
5. Get rid of endocrine-disrupting pesticides. Despite the Congressional mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), EPA is not acting on endocrine disruptors linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility.
6. Get rid of neurotoxic pesticides that harm children. The target of action by which many pesticides kill is the nervous system. It is not surprising, then, that pesticides also target the nervous system in humans. They are particularly hazardous to children, who take in greater amounts of pesticides (relative to their body weight) than adults, and whose developing organ systems are typically more sensitive to toxic exposures.

Please ensure that EPA acts on these existential threats.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

Pesticide regulation needs a change of direction in order to meet the existential crises in public health, climate change, and biodiversity. Despite a broad new perspective embodied in President Joe Biden’s Executive Memorandum (EM) Modernizing Regulatory Review issued on his first day in office, the Biden EPA has not adopted a new direction for regulating pesticides. A program consistent with the EM requires EPA to:

6. Challenge so-called “benefits” of pesticides. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to weigh risks against benefits when registering pesticides. The standard for claimed “benefits” for toxic pesticides organic production. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finds that organic producers in the U.S. produced $11.2 billion worth of organic food in 2021. EPA assumes benefits, rather than measuring them, and does not take into account the development of resistance in target insects or plants.
7. Protect pollinators. Agriculture relies on insect pollinators to facilitate fertilization and maintain annual crop yield. Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. Yet, many agricultural pesticides kill pollinators outright, make them more susceptible to parasites and disease, and destroy their habitat.
8. Protect workers. Farmworkers are at greatest risk from pesticide exposure. Systemic racism is imbedded in risk assessments in environmental regulation. In deciding on “acceptable” risks, exposure assessments inevitably discount the impact workers, people of color, and those with preexisting health conditions or comorbidities. EPA routinely calculates worker exposure separately from other exposures. In applying aggregate exposure assessments of pesticides, EPA does not include worker exposure. Risk assessments do not include exposures to multiple chemicals—that routinely occur in fenceline communities, farmworkers, and factory workers.
9. Protect biodiversity. Roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been wiped out since 1990. It is likely that declines in many bird species are closely linked to insect declines. Recent research finds that three billion birds, or 29% of bird abundance has been lost since the 1970s. Pesticides cause biodiversity loss in aquatic ecosystems as well. A study in the journal Nature finds reductions of almost 50% in the abundance and 27% in the number of species due to interaction with climate change. A study in Environmental Health Perspectives calculates an estimated 427,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 86,000-691,000) excess deaths annually from lost healthy food consumption and associated diseases resulting from the loss of pollinators and subsequent loss of production, as well as reduction in economic value of crops of 12%–31%. EPA does not factor these impacts into its cost-benefit analysis.
10. Get rid of endocrine-disrupting pesticides. Despite the Congressional mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), EPA is not acting on endocrine disruptors linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility.
11. Get rid of neurotoxic pesticides that harm children. The target of action by which many pesticides kill is the nervous system. It is not surprising, then, that pesticides also target the nervous system in humans. They are particularly hazardous to children, who take in greater amounts of pesticides (relative to their body weight) than adults, and whose developing organ systems are typically more sensitive to toxic exposures.

Please ensure that EPA acts on these existential threats.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 6, 2023) Plaintiffs in a recent pesticide lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reprise, in their arguments, a critique proffered repeatedly by Beyond Pesticides: the agency has failed, for many years, to evaluate and regulate endocrine-disrupting pesticides adequately. The suit, according to Progressive Farmer, argues that the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) — legislation that mandated that EPA establish “tolerances” for pesticides in foods and regulate on those bases — required EPA to develop an endocrine disruptor screening program (EDSP) and to implement it by 1999. The litigation goes on to note that “more than twenty-five years after the passage of the FQPA, EPA has yet to implement the EDSP it created and further, has failed to even initiate endocrine testing for approximately 96% of registered pesticides.” Plaintiffs are asking the court, among other requests (see below) to order “EPA to complete all actions required under the FQPA at issue in this case as soon as reasonably practicable, according to a Court-ordered timeline.”

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can, even at low exposure levels, disrupt normal hormonal (endocrine) function. Endocrine disruptors function by: (1) mimicking the action of a naturally produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (2) blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of natural hormones; or (3) affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones.

ED compounds include many pesticides, exposures to which have been linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. ED chemicals can wreak havoc not only in humans, but also, in wildlife and their ecosystems.

The subject litigation was filed on December 20, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), the Center for Environmental Health, Pesticide Action Network of North America, Organizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, and the Rural Coalition. A press release from plaintiff CFS asserts: “In the 26 years since [FQPA], EPA has tested fewer than 50 of more than 1,315 registered pesticides for endocrine-disruption effects and completed only 34 of those tests.”

Although an EDSP was created by EPA in 1998, the agency was sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1999 after failing to implement the program by the court-ordered August 3, 1999 deadline. That litigation resulted in the agency’s 2001 agreement to prioritize chemicals for screening “based on both effect and exposure data.” Progressive Farmer reports, “‘EPA committed to publishing a list of initial chemicals to evaluate by 2002. . . . Instead, EPA released a draft list of chemicals for evaluation in 2007 and a final list of 67 chemicals in 2009, seven years after their original promise.’ . . . EPA created a second list of 109 additional chemicals in need of testing. ‘At the same time as EPA only managed to complete . . . testing for 52 pesticides, EPA completed registration for 425 new pesticides without consideration of their potential endocrine effects, flouting the whole point of Congress’s FQPA mandates — bringing the total number of registered pesticides from 890 in 1990 to 1,315 in 2020. . . . There is little doubt that EPA’s failure to complete screening of all pesticide chemicals for possible endocrine effects has caused damage to plaintiffs’ members’ health.’”

That 2009 list was recommended for so-called “Tier 1” screening, based only on their pesticide registration status and/or exposure potential through drinking water. As Beyond Pesticides has written, “Tier 1 Screening is not sufficient to implicate a chemical as an endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC). In other words, Tier 1 findings do not hold much weight on their own. Rather, they are a tool for defining which chemicals must undergo Tier 2 testing. Tier 2 testing is intended to confirm and characterize endocrine effects, establishing dose-response relationships and other metrics typically used in conducting EPA risk assessments. EPA holds that only Tier 2, and not Tier 1 testing, can ‘provide definitive proof of a substance’s ability to interact adversely with these hormone systems in the intact organism.’ Therefore, Tier 2 testing is the only stage that can influence regulatory decision making.”

Progressive Farmer notes that the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found, in both 2011 and 2021, that the agency had failed to make any progress on implementing an endocrine disruptor screen program (the EDSP). That OIG report asserted, “As of early 2021, the OCSPP has not issued any List 1–Tier 2 test orders for wildlife studies and has only issued test orders for two pesticides for human health studies. Likewise, although the EPA developed and published List 2 with 109 chemicals, the EPA did not issue any List 2–Tier 1 test orders. As a result, the EPA has not made meaningful progress in meeting its statutory obligation to test all pesticide chemicals for endocrine-disruption activity.”

As Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2019, EPA’s “Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) began, then virtually stopped, its review and regulation of endocrine disrupting pesticides, despite a mandate in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) to develop a screening program within two years and then begin regulating.” (See p. 13 for a detailed chronicle of EPA’s EDSP failures.) A CFS news release provides this additional outrage: “The 2021 [OIG] report included the shocking revelation that some EPA staff were instructed to function as if the screening program had been eliminated from EPA’s budget, despite a $7.5 million allocation that same year — raising the prospect of EPA’s intentional violation of its statutory duty.”

Beyond Pesticides has weighed in on EPA’s lack of action on endocrine-disrupting (ED) pesticides many times, often in letters or testimony about the agency’s failures in the face of scientific evidence of their harms. In 2019, Beyond Pesticides wrote comprehensively about ED pesticides, and EPA’s shortcomings in evaluating and regulating them, in the journal, Pesticides and You (p. 9). Beyond Pesticides recently wrote to EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) about the inadequacy of the agency’s review, and draft assessment, of the ED pesticide inpyrfluxam, particularly as it relates to the mandates of the Endangered Species Act. In 2022, the organization commented on EPA’s failures to meet its statutory responsibility to protect people and wildlife from the dire consequences of exposure to ED chemicals, including the agency’s interim decision on atrazine. In 2021, Beyond Pesticides wrote to OPP about pentachlorophenol; in 2022, EPA finally, after years of outcry, cancelled the registration of the toxic and endocrine-disrupting wood preservative.

The introduction to the plaintiff’s brief, after chronicling EPA’s failures in regard to ED evaluation and regulation, includes this pointed comment: “All these failings are indications of EPA’s lack of commitment to implement the EDSP and to achieve its congressional purpose of safeguarding public health, in violation of Congress’s commands.” Plaintiffs in the California case cite multiple requests in their complaint, chief among which is “ordering EPA to complete all actions required under the FQPA at issue in this case as soon as reasonably practicable, according to a Court-ordered timeline.” They also request that the court:

• declare that EPA has violated the FQPA and the APA by failing to implement the EDSP by August 3, 1999
• declare that EPA continues to be in violation of the FQPA and the APA by failing to implement the EDSP
• declare that EPA has violated the FQPA and the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] by failing to timely complete the testing of all pesticide chemicals for possible endocrine effects
• declare that EPA continues to be in violation of the FQPA and the APA by failing to complete the testing of all pesticide chemicals for possible endocrine effects
• retain jurisdiction of this action to ensure compliance with its decree

The California litigation is more evidence that health, farmworker, food system, and environmental advocates are frustrated with EPA’s functional ignoring of its mandates. In addition, there is the issue of just what impact an OIG report has “on the ground.” Beyond Pesticides points out that, when an OIG report identifies a problem, such as an issue of noncompliance (as this litigation maintains), the agency would theoretically correct the noncompliance problem. Had that been the case, EPA would have taken action on the 2011, never mind the 2021, findings.

The Inspectors General that are assigned to 74 federal agencies exist to prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, misconduct, and mismanagement in the government, and to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in operations and programs. Though they are located within federal agencies, OIGs are designed to conduct their audits, investigations, evaluations, and special reviews independently from those agencies, resulting in relatively objective evaluations. That said, although OIG reports often make recommendations, Inspectors General have no authority to enforce changes in the agencies they oversee. And therein lies the “crapshoot” nature of outcomes from such reports — sometimes agencies will adopt recommendations or redress issues of noncompliance, but they may well not, as evidenced by EPA behavior on ED chemicals. (Learn more about OIGs here; see reports here.)

Beyond Pesticides Executive Director notes that such OIG reports do, however, provide substantive, if unfortunate, bases for lawsuits such as the CFS, et al. action in California. He goes on to lay out the landscape of EPA’s regulatory behavior and what is needed: “The problem with many of the laws is that they give agencies a tremendous amount of discretionary authority to meet a statutory goal or requirement. The thing with FQPA was just that: EPA under FIFRA did not use its statutory authority to protect children, and evaluate aggregate risk and common mechanisms of toxicity, endocrine disruptors, etc., so Congress indicated that EPA must act in these areas with a level of specificity that should not need to be required of a science-based agency. But because of corporate capture, this EPA has politicized science, so the specific requirements in the statute have been corrupted. OIG should help correct that, but it has not in too many cases. This demonstrates that relying on an agency to establish acceptable levels of harm from ED chemicals has not had acceptable public health and environmental protection outcomes. This unfortunate reality calls for a reorientation in law toward precautionary approaches that embrace alternative analyses that identify real solutions, such as nontoxic/organic approaches to food production, and land and building management.”

CFS attorney and counsel for the plaintiffs Peggy Mosavi has commented, “EPA’s failure to follow its duties to protect the public from the harmful endocrine effects of pesticides is as deplorable as it is unlawful. It’s been a quarter century since Congress recognized the risks of pesticides acting as endocrine disruptors to human and environmental health and directed EPA to test all pesticides for endocrine effects and take protective steps. Yet EPA has made only nominal progress toward that goal.”

The complaint document includes this: “There is little doubt that EPA’s failure to complete screening of all pesticide chemicals for possible endocrine effects has caused damage to Plaintiffs’ members health. A wealth of scientific studies conclude that many chemicals in use today are endocrine disruptors capable of devasting adverse health impacts. Plaintiffs’ members are routinely exposed to a myriad of pesticides, including the five EPA has flagged as possible endocrine disruptors, via their livelihoods and food consumption. EPA’s continued failure to implement the EDSP and complete testing of all pesticides for possible endocrine effects compounds Plaintiffs’ members’ exposure. Plaintiffs’ members are deeply concerned that EPA’s failure to complete testing for all pesticides, but particularly those EPA has already acknowledged as being possible endocrine disruptors, will result in their continued exposure to chemicals at levels that are causing harm to their health and that of their children and future children.”

The broad impacts of endocrine disruption, particularly on human health, comprise ample reason for EPA to meet its statutory responsibility to protect people and wildlife from the dire consequences of exposure to ED chemicals. Please consider reaching out to EPA and to your federal Senator and Representative to demand action on these toxic contaminants, as Beyond Pesticides recommended in 2021.

Source: https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2022/12/21/lawsuit-epa-fails-test-pesticides

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 5, 2022) The use of insecticidal bed nets (IBNs) to prevent mosquito bites in malaria-endemic communities can result in resistance developing in secondary pests like bed bugs, according to research published in Parasites and Vectors. Decreased efficacy against bed bugs and other non-mosquito pests may result in misuse of both mosquito adulticides and bed nets, hampering efforts to stop the spread of malaria and other insect-borne disease. With resistance following a predicable pattern in both disease-transmitting and secondary pests, there is a critical need to embrace safer, nonchemical solutions, including both ecological and structural approaches to pest management.

Researchers investigated the efficacy of untreated bed nets along with those treated with the commonly used synthetic pyrethroids deltamethrin and permethrin against both a population of insecticide-susceptible and pyrethroid resistant bed bugs. Insecticidal netting was secured between two glass jars in both an aggregation and blood meal experiment. For the aggregation experiment, fully fed bed bugs were set up to cross through the bed net to reach a darker resting location. With the blood meal experiment, unfed bed bugs were set up to cross the netting to receive a blood meal.

Both experiments show the bed nets carrying little deterrent power to either insecticide-susceptible or pyrethroid-resistant bed bugs. In the aggregation experiment, insecticide-susceptible bed bugs in fact fared slightly better than resistant strains with 100% of them being collected in the aggregation jar at the end of the experiment. They were able to successfully pass through both untreated and permethrin-treated nets, while roughly 80% of susceptible bed bugs were able to pass through deltamethrin-treated nets. Researchers indicate that many resistant bugs failed to cross the bed nets, resulting in less than perfect aggregation numbers at the end of the experiment. Roughly 30% of resistant bed bugs did not make it through the untreated net, while over 90% were able to pass through deltamethrin and permethrin.

For the blood meal experiment, bed bugs were able to pass through the untreated nets with the permethrin treatment marking similar results, and deltamethrin only slightly decreasing the number of successful blood meals. Researchers indicate that maneuverability likely changes based on whether the bed bug has successfully fed, and that the size of the holes in the mosquito nets tested also likely played an important role in efficacy.

After passing through the insecticide-treated netting, only susceptible bed bug strains showed any mortality, with roughly 2% killed from permethrin and an average of 64% from deltamethrin. No bed bugs from the resistant population were killed.

The researchers argue that bed net pyrethroid exposure likely exacerbates resistance in bed bugs more than target mosquitoes. This is indicated because all life stages of bed bug are exposed, while with mosquitoes, only the adults come into contact with bed nets. Mosquitoes may also be repelled before actually settling on a bed net, while bed bugs may have prolonged contact by walking over the netting in search of an opening. Researchers also argue that while mosquitoes are short-lived and can fly away, bed bugs remain in the home and live much longer lives comparably. Lastly, researchers note that the bed bug’s biology and ecology inherently leads to a faster resistance. While bed bugs are highly inbred, leading to rapid exchange of resistance genes, mosquitoes have broad genetic pools in outdoor populations that in comparison slows the development of resistance.  

Roughly a decade ago, similar research not only found evidence that insecticidal nets are fueling bed bug resistance, but that this resistance was making its way to other parts of the world. While bed bugs prefer to stay where they are, human commerce is not nearly as static. “If bed-bugs emerged from local refugia, such as poultry farms, you would expect the bed-bugs to be genetically very similar to each other,” explained entomologist Coby Schal, PhD from North Carolina State University. “This isn’t what we found.”

“The obvious answer is the tropics, where they have used treated bed nets [and] high levels of insecticides on clothing and bedding to protect the military,” said Warren Booth, PhD, also from North Caroline State University.

As Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly reported, the best solution to eliminating pesticide resistance is to stop using the chemical in the first place. With bed bugs and mosquito management, pest infestations and disease spread are often only one symptom resulting from a broad range of economic inequalities, and it is lack of good public sanitation and infrastructure that provides disease-carrying insects footholds for community infection. A 2021 study backs this up, showing the prevalence of disease carrying mosquitoes to be much higher in urban areas of lower socio-economic conditions.

Safer, ecologically based approaches to mosquito and bed bug management are needed to successfully prevent disease in the long term, as short-term chemical fixes continue to show their lack of staying power. See Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases.

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

Source: Parasites and Vectors

(Beyond Pesticides, January 4, 2022) A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds neonicotinoids (neonics) and their breakdown products (metabolites), like other chemical pesticide compounds, can readily transfer from mother to fetus. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) finds U.S. pregnant women experience frequent exposure to environmental pollutants that pose serious health risks to both mother and newborn. Many known pollutants (i.e., heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyl, and pesticides) are chemicals that can move from the mother to the developing fetus at higher exposure rates. Hence, prenatal exposure to these chemicals may increase the prevalence of birth-related health consequences like natal abnormalities and learning/developmental disabilities. Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of pesticide exposure as their developing bodies cannot adequately combat exposure effects. Moreover, a mother’s pesticide exposure can have a stronger association with health disorders than childhood exposure, and a newborn can still encounter pesticides. Therefore, it is essential to understand how pesticides impact the health and well-being of individuals during critical developmental periods.

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

The study evaluated the transplacental transfer rates (TTR) of neonics from mother to fetus via prenatal exposure. Researchers collected 95 paired samples from mothers’ serum (MS) and accompanying (umbilical) cord serum (CS) to measure the levels of five neonics (acetamiprid, imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam) and two metabolites of acetamiprid and imidacloprid. After calculating the transplacental transfer efficiencies (TTEs) of each neonics and metabolite, researchers focus on three chemical mechanisms: passive diffusion, active transport, and pinocytosis. Lastly, a multilinear regression analysis explores the association between blood biomarkers for neonics in mothers and related birth outcomes among fetuses.

The most abundant neonic in MS and CS samples is imidacloprid, whereas acetamiprid’s metabolite is the most abundant in CS and MS. Both parent and metabolite neonics have a high TTE, with imidacloprid having the highest transfer rate (1.61). Even the neonic with the lowest TTE of 0.81, thiamethoxam, is within the high TTE range, indicating proficient placental transfer of these chemicals from mother to fetus. Researchers identify that transplacental transfer of these chemicals mainly occurs through passive mechanisms depending on chemical structure. Therefore, neonics like acetamiprid and thiacloprid (known as cyanoamidines) have higher TTE values than neonics like clothianidin and thiamethoxam (known as nitroguanidines). Lastly, the multilinear regression demonstrates that most neonics in MS samples have associations with blood biomarkers related to hepatotoxicity (liver toxicity) and renal (kidney) toxicity.

Studies find pesticide compounds in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. A 2021 study finds pregnant women already have over 100 chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned POPs. However, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are from unidentified sources, lack adequate information, or were not previously detectable in humans. Considering the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods of fetal development, exposure to toxicants can have much more severe implications. A 2020 study finds prenatal pesticide exposure can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates increasing the risk of neonatal abnormalities like acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Over the past 20 years, neonicotinoids have replaced four major chemical classes of insecticides in the global market (organophosphates, carbamates, phenyl-pyrazoles, and pyrethroids). These systemic agricultural pesticides are highly toxic, resembling nicotine, and affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death, even at low doses. Like other pesticides, neonics readily contaminate water and food resources as traditional wastewater treatments typically fail to remove the chemical from tap water, and the systemic nature of neonics allows the chemical to accumulate within treated plants. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly half the U.S. population encounters at least one type of neonic daily, with children ages three to five having the highest exposure risk. Health impacts of exposure to neonics include neurotoxicity, reproductive disorders, liver/kidney damage, and an increase in gene expression and enzyme production linked to hormone-dependent breast cancer.

Although previous studies demonstrate pesticide classes like pyrethroids, organophosphate, carbamates, and organochlorines readily transfer from mother to fetus, this study is one of the first to document and identify the occurrence and distribution specific to neonics in MS and CS. This conclusion supports long-known concepts regarding the hazards of pesticides for children’s health. Early life exposures during “critical windows of vulnerability” can predict the likelihood or otherwise increase the chances of an individual encountering a range of pernicious diseases. In addition to findings on learning and development, early life exposures have links to increased risks of cancer, asthma, birth disorders, among others. Thus, a parent’s exposure to pesticides during these critical periods indicates an increased risk in childhood disease. 

Pesticide exposure not only poses a risk to mothers and their subsequent offspring but also to future generations. Current-use pesticides and metabolites (or breakdown products) of many long-banned pesticides still impart adverse effects on human health. These negative effects can continue into childhood and adulthood and may have multigenerational consequences. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disabilities. Although the United States bans many organochlorine compounds, the ongoing poisoning and contamination underscore how pervasive and persistent these chemicals are and their continued adverse impact on human health. Moreover, these exposures have real, tangible effects on society. Environmental disease in children costs an estimated $76.8 billion annually. Exposure that harms learning and development also impact future economic growth in the form of lost brain power, racking up a debt to society in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The study concludes, “This is the first study to associate maternal hematological parameters with p-NEOs [parent neonics] or their metabolites in MS, and further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm our findings. […]A recent study reported that urinary IMI  [imidacloprid] and ACE [acetamiprid] concentrations in pregnant women (n = 296) were significantly negatively associated with neonatal HC. This finding implied the influence of NEOs on cognitive and neurologic development in neonates.”

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. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on learning/developmental disorders, Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Body Burdens, and other diseases. 

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.

Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate toxic pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace and consumers to support regenerative, organic practices. A compliment to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do. Additionally, 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: Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2023) The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced new rules that remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than state toxicologists in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) say is safe and highlighting the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the state of California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices. While the state of California describes its action as increasing protection, advocates point to continued use, unacceptable harm, and the availability of alternative organic agricultural production methods that eliminate the use of 1,3-D. Since over a third of the country’s vegetables and three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California, most people who buy their food in a grocery store have a stake in how food is grown in the state and the impact that it has on those who live and work there.

Tell the state of California, U.S. EPA, an the U.S. Congress to cancel the registration of all toxic soil fumigants and encourage organic alternatives.  

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death.

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment and should be banned.

Consider the effects that food grown in chemical-intensive agriculture have on workers, communities, and the environment by checking out Eating with a Conscience.

Tell the state of California, U.S. EPA, and the U.S. Congress to cancel the registration of all toxic soil fumigants and encourage organic alternatives.  

Letter to State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation

Please stop tinkering with a toxic pesticide that should be banned for use. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than other state toxicologists say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the state would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death.

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment. Their registrations should be cancelled.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

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

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than other state toxicologists say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the Environmental Protection Agency would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death.

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment. Their registrations should be cancelled.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposal to remove existing limits on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), allowing Californians to breathe much more 1,3-D than other state toxicologists say is safe, highlights the dangers to which farmworkers are routinely exposed. It is outrageous that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would allow farmworkers—whose labor was judged “essential” during the pandemic—to be routinely exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which could be replaced by organic practices.

1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant registered for use on soils to control nematodes. It is allowed on all crops and is often used with chloropicrin, another highly toxic fumigant, to increase its herbicidal and fungicidal properties. 1,3-D causes cancer. In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem states, “Occupational exposure is likely to be through inhalation and via the skin. Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory mucosa appears promptly after exposure. Dermal exposure caused severe skin irritations. Inhalation may result in serious signs and symptoms of poisoning with lower exposures resulting in depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the respiratory system. Some poisoning incidents have occurred in which persons were hospitalized with signs and symptoms of irritation of the mucous membrane, chest discomfort, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and, occasionally, loss of consciousness and decreased libido.” Chloropicrin is extremely irritating to lungs, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may lead to pulmonary edema, possibly resulting in death.

These and other soil fumigants not only pose severe health threats to farmworkers and bystanders, but also threaten soil and water ecosystems. In contrast, organic production seeks to build healthy soils that resist plant pathogens, making fumigation unnecessary. Thus, these fumigants pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment.

Please tell EPA that their registrations should be cancelled.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 23, 2022—January 3, 2023) To all those who read Beyond Pesticides Daily News or take action with us through our Action of the Week, a healthy and happy holiday season and new year. The Beyond Pesticides staff will be taking a weeklong break to gather with family and friends and renew our spirits as we plan to elevate our voice for change in the new year. As a reader of these pages, you know that Beyond Pesticides puts major effort into tracking the science on pesticides—their health and environmental effects—as well as alternatives to chemical-intensive management with our heavy emphasis on the organic alternative.  

Our dedication to making science accessible to laypeople stems from our belief and experience that we are all effective advocates with our families, friends, school districts, parks departments, and the business community reliant on pesticides when we have access to the information necessary to make informed decisions. With this information, we are unrestrained to challenge decisions that are harmful to our families and communities, including our environment, and capable of advancing solutions that support a future that sustains life. And when it comes to alternatives, we are heavily invested in the organic alternative and continuous improvement of standards for organic land management. We helped to develop organic standards three decades ago and now work to ensure organic integrity that is central to organic food certification at the same time as we incorporate these rigorous soil-based standards in our Parks for a Sustainable Future program. We advance a transformation in our culture, policy, and practices that embraces the critical value of living in sync with nature. Our experience with the organic alternative teaches us that it works, both effectively and economically.  

As we move into 2023, we are super encouraged to take our institutional knowledge and experience and work with communities across the country to adopt organic management of all their public lands—as they teach residents about value of organic in mitigating the current day existential crises related to health, biodiversity, and climate. 

Our annual report for 2021-22, Collaborating with Communities: To meet the challenge for urgent change (posted on our website), offers our perspective in more detail. 

Beyond Pesticides’ program offers a bright spot amidst urgent challenges that threaten the health of people and ecosystems in the U.S. and worldwide. While the scientific literature defines existential threats to public health, biodiversity, and climate associated with petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, Beyond Pesticides charts a protective path forward. We are successfully partnering with communities nationwide and around the globe to urgently effect a shift to organic practices that eliminate the use of toxic pesticides. As we work to adopt community-based models for transitioning to organic systems, we move local, state, and national debate from individual bad actor chemicals to a holistic and transformational strategy that, through policy and practice, manages land and buildings without toxic chemicals.  

In our strategic work—whether with professionals or laypeople, local elected officials or concerned advocates—we play a critical role in enhancing public understanding of the science and the practical hands-on expertise to inform the urgent steps that must be taken. In this context, our strategies are informed by a recognition that with the escalating grave threats there is disproportionate risk to people of color communities and those with health vulnerabilities. At the same time, the chemical industry, and chemical-intensive agriculture and landscape sector, are fiercely fighting to retain the status quo and protect their vested economic interests. 

To achieve the changes necessary for a livable future, we maintain a rigorous program at the intersection of science and advocacy. Our tracking of the scientific literature provides the factual basis for action—made accessible to nonscientists, including government officials, through our Daily News and numerous, continually updated databases on pesticide hazards and alternatives.  

We are expanding our reach, as more people and communities utilize our content-rich website, contact us for information and strategic advice, and engage with our organic transition work. Our expanded Parks for a Sustainable Future program eliminates toxic inputs by evaluating existing community land management practices, providing a soil and landscape management plan, and training land managers. At the same time, we continue to coordinate, through our Keeping Organic Strong program, a national effort to ensure the integrity of certified organic food production standards, which establish the keystone list of organic compatible materials in land management practices that are in sync with nature. 

Through our Action of Week, thousands of people take part in timely, strategic action on key issues. We planned our three-part virtual National Forum Series, Health, Biodiversity, and Climate: A Path for a Livable Future, to bring together national and international leaders as we define the seriousness of the existential threats and the viability of organic solutions.  

With these programs, we are growing an informed and influential network for timely and meaningful change. Thank you for making a difference with your support of Beyond Pesticides! Healthy and Happy New Year!  

For even more details on our work in 2022, see A Year in Review for 2022. 

(Beyond Pesticides, December 22, 2022) International health and environmental groups submitted an urgent letter to  the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) late last month demanding “greater transparency and accountability” through termination of the agency’s two-year-old partnership with CropLife International (CLI), a global trade association representing the world’s biggest pesticide manufacturers. Addressed to FAO Deputy Director Beth Bechdol ahead of FAO Council 171 session in Rome and COP15, the letter outlines a unique opportunity for the organization to lead the phaseout of fossil-fuel based food systems and use of agrochemicals while upholding the agency’s responsibility to act in response to conflicts of interest and human rights violations.  

The original Letter of Intent (LOI), signed between CLI President and CEO Guilia Di Tommaso and FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu in October 2020, framed the partnership as a means to ensure humanity’s freedom from hunger while advancing Sustainable Development Goals. However, according to PAN Europe Policy Officer Manon Rouby, “While the private sector has been working with FAO for years, this official agreement with CropLife directly threatens FAO’s work on supporting farmers in the transition towards agroecology, while reducing the harms of synthetic pesticides worldwide. With CropLife members being the largest agrichemical companies in the world, this association is unacceptable and a direct threat to human rights. We once again urge the FAO to rescind this agreement.” 

According to the  original letter’s co-authors,  200,000 individuals from over 107 countries, over 430 civil society and Indigenous Peoples organizations, nearly 300 academics and scientists, and nearly 50 philanthropic groups, as well as the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, raised concerns in a report addressed in 49th session of the UN Human Rights Council. While the backlash prevented the LOI from moving forward into a more formal Memorandum of Understanding earlier this year, as of today’s publication, the agreement remains in place without a set expiration date, fundamentally undermining the agency’s support for alternatives to generate ecologically-based agrifood systems without toxic pesticides. 

With 11 subsidiary national associations and six member companies (BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC, Sumitomo Chemical, and Syngenta), CLI has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. While claiming to champion the role of agricultural innovation in crop protection to advance sustainable agriculture, instead, the pesticide industry is leveraging “agricultural innovation and digital technology” to expand market opportunities and increase profits in the Global South. Private sector investments are actively being facilitated through the FAO’s Hand-In-Hand Initiative; for example, in October 2020, the Director General actively appealed to CropLife for investments in low and middle-income countries in his speech to the CLI Board of Directors.  

While CLI has not made any direct financial contributions to FAO since 2011, member companies outsized political and economic influence on pesticide-related policies, alongside global export and distribution, is bearing fruit in lucrative markets like Nigeria. Between 2015 and 2019, the country’s National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) registered approximately 822 pesticides, of which 63% are classified as highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) with glyphosate holding the highest share of imports (67.4 and 53.4 percent in kilograms and liters respectively). Across all 46 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, FAO estimates that the use of pesticides increased by 150% between 2006 and 2019, attaining over 100,000 tons per year. In addition to highly hazardous pesticide (HHP) sales being higher in the region, exponential impacts on health and environment reveal a vulnerability exploited by the partnership in the Global South. According to a survey by the Small-Scale Women Farmers Organization of Nigeria and Alliance for Action on Pesticides (AAPN) in Nigeria, 80 percent of pesticides used by women in four Northern Central states (Nasarawa, Benue, Plateau, and Abuja) are highly toxic to humans and require additional regulation. 

While the increased level of use has resulted in negative health, environmental and economic consequences in-country and around the world, FAO continues to expand private partnerships in hosting regional workshops this year on the “proper management of pesticides” in the Middle East and North Africa region, with over a dozen countries participating in Jordan despite obstacles to implementation such as insufficient staffing, lack of an adequate registration system, limited expertise, lack of risk assessment measures, and limited access to information.  

Considering these negative impacts surrounding CSI’s expanding sphere of influence, the group’s urgent letter strongly urges FAO to prevent CLI and its member companies from attaining permanent observer status, as such a move would “further the conflict of interest that exists between CLI and FAO, grant even greater privileges to the pesticide industry, and blur the areas of collaboration that already lack transparency.” Following the precedent pioneered by UN Women, which ends its Memorandum of Understanding with investment firm BlackRock after receiving feedback from civil society, FAO has reached a turning point.  

As an original signatory to the PAN UK June 9th letter, Beyond Pesticides echoes PAN UK in that it is imperative to “prioritize people-led agroecology as an innovative climate resilience solution and ensure that climate and science strategies do not give precedence to pesticide and fertilizer products, nor private sector entities affiliated with human rights violations or environmental destruction.” CSI’s fundamental objective is the maximizing of toxic pesticide sales and runs counter to reducing reliance. As Beyond Pesticides has constantly reiterated that “sustainable” pesticide use or incremental reductions will not prevent a variety of downstream impacts and existential crises. 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. 

As FAO aims to “achieve food security for all and make sure that people have regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active, healthy lives”, truly sustainable, organic production with a focus on regenerative practices must lead the way. It is only through agricultural and other land management practices that eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, and organic production, on a global scale from the United Nations to local communities in the Global South at home, that we stand a chance of making sustainable change in the long run for ourselves, our children, and the world at large.  

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.

Signatories of the late November letter included: Keith Tyrell, Chair, Pesticide Action Network International; Million Belay, Coordinator, Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA); David Azoulay, Environmental Health Program Director, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL); Sofía Monsalve, Secretary General, FIAN International; Kirtana Chandrasekaran and Martín Drago, Food Sovereignty Program Coordinators, Friends of the Earth International; Sophia Murphy, Executive Director, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP); Andrea Carmen, Executive Director, International Indian Treaty Council (IITC); Pam Miller and Tadesse Amera, Co-Chairs, International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN); Sue Longley, General Secretary, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF); Laurent Gaberell and Carla Hoinkes, Agriculture and Food Experts, Public Eye; and Chee Yoke Ling, Executive Director, Third World Network. 

Source: Letter to UN FAO Deputy Director 

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2022) Imagine plucking a flower and being able to find out every insect that recently visited that plant. Utilizing cutting-edge metabarcoding techniques, a team of Danish researchers has made that possibility a reality. By evaluating the environmental DNA (eDNA) left behind by insect pollinators alongside visual assessment surveys, a new study is providing an innovative way for farmers to improve pollination and protect on-farm biodiversity. Ultimately, study author Lene Sigsgaard, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen believes that, “With more knowledge of the pollinators in apples and other crops, we can begin to provide tailor-made flower mixes for individual crops, and improve our knowledge on the value of the surrounding landscape for wild pollinators.”

Scientists focused on four different apple orchards throughout Denmark, three of which utilize pesticides (though only one sprayed during the study period), and another following organic practices. For each orchard, five apple flowers were collected from four separate rows. These flowers were then brought to the laboratory from DNA extraction. Scientists also conducted visual monitoring, whereby an observer stood between two orchard rows and recorded all flower visitors within roughly eight feet of themselves.

The two methods of observation provide somewhat differing, yet complimentary results. Certain insects, such as hoverflies and hymenoptera (bees, wasps, ants), are not detected through eDNA, but are identified visually. Conversely, blattodea (cockroaches, termites) insects are not identified visually but found to be present through eDNA barcoding. eDNA is able to trace certain insect pests, and other flower visitors more active at night that visual monitoring would likely miss. However, timing of eDNA flower collection appears to impact the eDNA traces left behind, as certain pollinator species like bees and wasps are missed because flowers were collected in early morning prior to insect pollination. While eDNA shows value as a supplemental monitoring tool, visual monitoring provides more information on abundance.

“A high level of insect biodiversity protects an environment against certain threats, therefore monitoring these levels is necessary to see if and when intervention is needed,” says Nerea Gamonal, first author from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. “Our study showed that eDNA adds a lot of value when compared against visual collecting techniques. This isn’t to say that visual census is unnecessary, in fact having an understanding of the insects in an area from observational techniques can provide prior knowledge of the specific community being assessed, making it a valuable complementary tool.”

Although not specifically investigated in this study, combined survey results also find that the organic apple orchard contains the highest richness of insect species. “The exciting thing about this study is that it can have an immediate, real-world impact on agricultural systems. The results and techniques in our study can be used to inform management practices such as the type of pest control used, the orchard design, and what additional floral resources surround the crops,” said Dr. Sugsgaard.

Real-time sampling eDNA sampling can provide a snapshot of insect visitation and help identify ecological alterations to address problematic pests, for instance, as opposed to approaches that rely on synthetic inputs like hazardous pesticides to correct natural imbalances. “Understanding how we can work with the environment, such as improving the surrounding landscape to attract beneficial insects, can help cross-pollination and lead to crops becoming more resilient against climate change. We hope this research can help our society become as environmentally friendly as possible, protecting our biodiversity, food sources and livelihoods,” says Physilia Chua, PhD, study co-author.

Knowledge of insect and pollinator visitation will be an increasingly important aspect of crop production in a progressively more precarious world. Earlier this year, research showed that for certain crops like watermelons, insect pollination, not pest pressure, is the most critical determining factor for yields. By delving into the details and rejecting a simplified, one-size-fits-all approach to agricultural production, farming can become a critical part of restoring, or in the least maintaining, natural balance and biodiversity.

Regenerative, organic farming practices have shown time and time again to be the best method of protecting biodiversity, ensuring on-farm sustainability, and meeting the challenges of a changing climate. For more information on the benefits of this approach, watch the recent talk from Rodale Institute’s Chief Operations Officer Andrew Smith on Organic Agriculture for Climate Mitigation.

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

Source: Environmental DNA, PhysOrg (Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute press release)

(Beyond Pesticide, December 20, 2022) A meta-analysis published in Chemosphere finds prenatal pesticide exposure, or pesticide exposure during pregnancy has a positive association with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit/hyperactive disorder (ADHD). Particularly, exposure to chemical classes organophosphate (OP) and pyrethroid (PYR) insecticides, in addition to the mother’s age during pregnancy (≥30 years old), increased the risk factor of ASD. ADHD risk increases among offspring whose mothers encounter organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) during gestation. The etiology or cause of ASD and ADHD 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, solvents, dietary residues, 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. 

ADHD is estimated to affect 8-12% of school-age children worldwide. While it is a complex disease, and genetics may play a role, no specific genes have been identified, and there is increasing evidence that environmental factors like pesticide exposure facilitate the development of the condition. Additionally, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1 in 54 children have been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Rates of autism have skyrocketed over the last several decades. While some of the rise is due to the increase in testing, and an expansion of the diagnostic criteria for the disorder, it is unable to entirely account for the increase in ASD cases. In 1997, 0.1% of children had autism, while in 2010, that number rose to 1%. Considering several studies associate early-life exposure to toxic chemicals with adverse birth/health effects, additional exposure through maternal contamination poses an even greater risk to children’s health. The report notes, “The findings indicate that maternal pesticide exposure should be avoided, especially for older pregnant women in agricultural areas, to protect early brain development in offspring.”

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

The analysis reviews documents from five databases (i.e., PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Medline, PsycINFO) related to pesticide exposure during pregnancy and ASD and ADHD in children. Factors considered for ASD and ADHD risk include pesticide type, window of exposure, and mother’s age. The review identifies 949 studies but opted to use the 19 studies with more robust information. There were 11 studies on ASD, seven studies on ADHD, and one study on both disorders. The analysis confirms that a mother’s exposure to pesticides increases offspring’s risk of ASD and ADHD.

Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Therefore, pesticide exposure during pregnancy has implications for both the mother and child’s health. Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases susceptibility to disease. A 2020 study finds the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which prenatal exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates that increase the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities, including cancers like acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

This determination, and the present study’s findings, are supported by previous scientific literature. Similar to this study, a range of research demonstrates that pregnant mothers’ exposure to specific pesticides has links to autism, evidenced by laboratory and epidemiological research. Scientific studies have consistently found elevated rates of ASD in areas of high pesticide use. A 2014 study from the University of California, Davis, found that pregnant women living near crops sprayed with organophosphates, like insecticide chlorpyrifos, increased the chance of their child being diagnosed with ASD by 60%. For women in their second trimester, chlorpyrifos increased ASD odds by 3.3x. Synthetic pyrethroids increased autism risk by 87 percent. Like the aforementioned insecticides, fungicides also have links to autism disorders. A separate study from California researchers connected autism to the herbicide glyphosate, the banned insecticide diazinon, the fumigant methyl bromide, and fungicide myclobutanil. Moreover, studies find that higher rates of ADHD have associations with direct exposure in children and pyrethroid metabolites found in children’s urine. The Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center found a strong association between urinary pyrethroid concentrations and ADHD, primarily in boys. Any concentrations found above the level of detection corresponded to a three-fold increase in the chance of developing ADHD when compared to boys without detectable levels. Another study from Rutgers University found that, of over 2,000 children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis, children with higher urinary pyrethroid metabolite levels were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD.

While some well-meaning health advocates focus on controversial studies relating vaccines to ASD and ADHD, the connection to pesticide exposure has much research and is likely a contributing factor to the rise of the disorder over the last several decades. Although more research is needed to further define the connection, there is enough evidence to warrant a precautionary approach and restrictions on hazardous ASD and ADHD-linked pesticides. The study concludes, “Our findings contribute to our understanding of health risks related to maternal pesticide exposure and indicate that the in-utero developmental period is a vulnerable window-of-susceptibility for ASD and ADHD risk in offspring. These findings should guide policies that limit maternal exposure to pesticides, especially for pregnant women living in agricultural areas.”

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 and nontoxic 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 studies on pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on learning/developmental disorders, Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Body Burdens, and other diseases. Additionally, learn more about the hazards 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: Chemosphere

(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2022) As the new 118^th Congress convenes on January 3, 2023, one of the key issues on the agenda led by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives is preemption of local authority to restrict pesticide use—undercutting the local democratic process to protect public health and safety. In the 117^th Congress, H.R. 7266 was introduced to prohibit local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are more protective than federal and state rules. If H.R. 7266 were to pass or be incorporated into the 2023 Farm Bill, as the pesticide industry and proponents of the legislation plan to do, this bill would overturn decades of precedent as well as prevent local governments from protecting their residents from hazardous chemicals in their environment.  

This is a direct assault on nearly 200 communities across the country that have passed their own policies to restrict the use of toxic pesticides. Communities must maintain the right to restrict pesticides linked to cancer, water-contamination, and the decline of pollinators to protect their resident’s health and unique local ecosystems. 

 Take action today and tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing H.R. 7266 (and successor legislation in the new Congress) and the inclusion of this anti-democratic language in the 2023 Farm Bill. 

The bill hinges on the concept of preemption: a legal theory that allows one jurisdiction to limit the authority of a jurisdiction within it to regulate a specific issue. In 1991, the Supreme Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier. The Court ruled that federal pesticide law does not prohibit or preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government throughout their jurisdiction. According to Mortier, however, states may retain authority to take away local control.  
 
In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking, and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording. Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to prohibit localities from developing policies reflecting the unique needs and values of the people living there.  

If the pesticide industry is successful, the impacts for public health and ecological stability would be devastating. Only states and the federal government would be able to regulate pesticide use. With most state agencies allowing all uses on labels approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), local jurisdictions would be forced to follow the rulemaking of an agency that has been documented to be captured by industry interests. 

Preemption would quash a growing national grassroots movement encouraging alternatives to toxic pesticides where people live, work, and play. Federal preemption would prevent local governments from instituting pesticide regulations that are stricter than federal regulations, taking away communities’ basic right to secure their own safety and interrupting a burgeoning movement of local pesticide restrictions. H.R. 7266 and its successor legislation in the new Congress would also prevent states from giving localities the right to regulate pesticides. 

Many pesticides targeted by local city residents, including neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and atrazine, have been banned or restricted in other countries due to health or environmental concerns. However, in the U.S. the Environmental Protection Agency has not taken similar action on these pesticides. Given federal inaction and the previous administration’s failure to follow sound science, it is imperative that local governments retain the ability to tailor laws so localities can respond to federal actions that permit the use of toxic chemicals that residents do not want in their community.  

Having failed to curtail prohibitions against local restrictions into the 2018 Farm Bill after massive pushback from health advocates, local officials, and Congressional allies, the chemical industry is renewing its attack. The industry continues to flex its muscle in Congress through attempts to add preemption language in the 2023 Farm Bill as a growing number of communities are deciding to act.  

Take action today and tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support communities by opposing H.R. 7266 (and successor legislation in the new Congress) and the inclusion of this anti-democratic language in the 2023 Farm Bill. 

Your support is needed to defend local governments’ rights to pass regulations that protect their communities against toxic pesticides. If you are interested in taking action this January by contacting your local officials and encouraging them to send a letter to the new Congress opposing preemption, please check the box under “Additional Information” on the Action form and we will reach out to you with more information at the beginning of 2023. 

(Beyond Pesticides, December 16, 2022) A report released last week — Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide — exposes not only Bayer/Monsanto malfeasance in its “promotion” of its glyphosate-based herbicide products, including the notorious Roundup®, but also, the broader landscape of corporate efforts to white- or green-wash products that companies know are harmful to people and the environment. The report was issued by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK, a nonprofit investigative research group focused on promoting transparency for public health), Friends of the Earth (FOE), and Real Food Media. It carries the pithy subtitle, “A case study in disinformation, corrupted science, and manufactured doubt about glyphosate,” a description cited by the Friends of the Earth press release as “at the core of the pesticide industry’s public relations playbook.” Beyond Pesticides welcomes this report, which comports with much of our previous coverage of the pesticide industry’s egregious misbehavior, and of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide.

FOE calls the report the “first comprehensive review” of the Bayer/Monsanto “defense strategy” employed in attempts to deny science, manufacture doubt, and discredit critics who have researched, reported on, and/or advocated against the company’s flagship glyphosate products because of the harms they cause. Merchants of Poison focuses on the swirl of bad actors and activity around glyphosate, including disinformation strategies used to manipulate the science of glyphosate, and disparage journalists and scientists who dared to publicize concerns about the compound’s damage. According to FOE, it also “reveals the astroturf operations, as well as front groups, professors, journalists, and others that [Bayer/]Monsanto relied on to protect its profits from glyphosate despite decades of science linking the toxic chemical to cancer, reproductive impacts, and other serious health concerns.” (See this recent Beyond Pesticides summary of the health risks of pesticide exposures, and a deeper dive on glyphosate’s and pesticides’ broad environmental harms, pp. 9 and 17, respectively.)

The report, produced by lead author, journalist, and founder of USRTK Stacy Malkan, and co-authors Anna Lappé and Kendra Klein, PhD also places those activities in the historical context of the campaigns of Big Tobacco and Big Oil. Indeed, the tactics used by those industries show up at nearly every turn in the corporate pro-pesticide campaigns, which have even involved some of the same people and groups as the earlier efforts. Public “spin” operations by pesticide companies were especially robust after the 2015 release, by the United Nations International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), of findings concluding that there was “sufficient evidence of [glyphosate’s] carcinogenicity.”

As the report pointedly says, “Big Tobacco’s spin tactics arguably cost millions of lives as regulations emerged long after it was evident that cigarettes cause cancer — and continue to cost lives. (The WHO estimates 8 million people die annually from tobacco use). The fossil fuel sector’s spin pushed science denialism and political inaction that has led to a warming world and is associated with millions of deaths per year, with few clear pathways to averting catastrophic climate change.”

Ms. Malkan commented, “The pesticide industry is not just following in the footsteps of Big Tobacco and Big Oil, they co-wrote the playbook — from their attacks on Silent Spring author Rachel Carson 60 years ago to the recent Monsanto-led assault on the cancer researchers of the World Health Organization.” The pesticide industry similarly indulges in deceptive and unethical public relations strategies in order to keep its so-called “freedom to operate” — essentially, with few or no restrictions — even while its products have dangerous consequences for public health and the environment.

The industry has, for decades, engaged in knowingly deceptive and aggressive tactics to (1) persuade the public that pesticides are not only “safe,” but also, somehow “critical” to producing enough food for the world’s population. Both claims are demonstrably false. Beyond Pesticides has frequently written about the impressive capacity of organic, regenerative, agroecological agriculture to produce high-quality and sufficient food supplies and improve the lot of producers — as well as being key to turning around the public health, biodiversity, and climate crises. Merchants of Poison asserts: “In recent years, groundbreaking global studies have shown the grave threat agricultural chemicals pose to biodiversity and public health and how they fail to deliver on their promises for greater agricultural productivity, leading to crop loss and weed and pest resistance. Yet despite the mounting evidence, the pesticide industry has doubled down on deceptive messaging.”

Merchants of Poison is the result of a years-long USRTK investigation, starting in 2015, which analyzed documents from all levels of government, universities, and industry, as well as from the work of investigative journalists, such as Cary Gillam, author of the groundbreaking Monsanto Papers. The tens of thousands of pages of documents reviewed were secured through a combination of publicly available information, FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and state-level public records requests, and proceedings from litigation — sometimes obtained as a result of judicial enforcement of public records laws — brought by groundskeepers, farmers, and just plain gardeners who (often successfully) sued Monsanto over claims that exposure to its glyphosate herbicide, Roundup®, caused their subsequent cancers, often non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Many of those documents can be accessed here.

The report sets out several key points:

• “Monsanto employees ghostwrote scientific papers on the safety of glyphosate and strategized how to discredit journalists raising concerns about the pesticide.
• Major universities, including UC Davis and University of Florida, played a significant role in legitimizing and amplifying pesticide industry product-defense efforts. 
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cornell University, and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations, also provided essential aid and cover for pesticide industry propaganda.
• Key Monsanto-connected front groups that led attacks on scientists and journalists (Genetic Literacy Project and American Council on Science and Health) frequently push industry messaging to the top of the Google News search. 
• Pesticide industry propaganda is a huge business: 
  • Seven of the front groups named in Monsanto’s documents spent $76 million over a five-year period to push corporate disinformation, including attacks on scientists.
  • Six industry trade groups named in Monsanto’s PR documents spent more than $1.3 billion over the same five year period, including for PR and lobbying to influence regulation over glyphosate.”

The unsavory, unethical, and sometimes corrupt activity has also extended, as Beyond Pesticides has covered, to federal agency staff, including managers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which oversees pesticide registration and regulation. Indeed, unholy “alliances” between industry lobbyists and EPA staff exacerbate the toxic pesticide problem, as we have reported here and here.

Dr. Klein has commented, “Pesticide companies fight tooth and nail to keep their toxic products on the market, and the public pays for their deceit with our health and our lives. . . . Meanwhile, the rampant use of toxic pesticides is unraveling the web of life as bees, birds, and other critical biodiversity face increasing threats of extinction. The ‘silent spring’ that Rachel Carson warned of six decades ago is here.”

David Michaels, PhD, epidemiologist and long-time head of OSHA (the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration), wrote in 2020 a trenchant summary in the Boston Review of the denial, obfuscation, and outright unethical behavior that seems to characterize some corners of the scientific, corporate, academic, and even governmental, worlds: “Science is supposed to be constant, apolitical, and above the fray. This commonsense view misses the rise of science-for-sale specialists over the last several decades and a ‘product defense industry’ that sustains them — a cabal of apparent experts, PR flaks, and political lobbyists who use bad science to produce whatever results their sponsors want.”

The U.S. needs to get off the toxic pesticide treadmill in agriculture and land management, and adopt organic regenerative approaches that obviate the use of these compounds. What we wrote in 2018 still holds: “Beyond Pesticides has strategically sought to transform our country’s approach to pest management, both agricultural and residential/structural, by eliminating a reliance on pesticides and advancing organic management practices that do not rely on toxic inputs. In this context, pesticides like glyphosate become an example of chemical industry influence resulting in inadequate underlying law and regulations. . . . [W]e must teach that these chemicals are not only dangerous to environmental health, but are unnecessary to prevent pests and achieve pest management goals.”

Among Beyond Pesticides’ hopes is that exposure of these behaviors — as Merchants of Poison has so comprehensively done — by industry, as well as by some in government, academia, and media across the “pesticide landscape,” will inform and encourage the public to learn more, speak up in opposition, and support science. Please do so via the Daily News Blog and Take Action features on the website homepage, and by joining Beyond Pesticides and/or donating to support our campaign to end the use of toxic pesticides, such as glyphosate, in the next decade.

Sources: https://foe.org/news/merchants-of-poison/ and https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Merchants_of_Poison_Report_final_113022.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2022) Industrial agriculture has both created and amplified the spread of the now highly problematic waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) plant, according to research published this month in the journal Science. Over the last 80 years, the push to increase monoculture plantings, expand cropland, and utilize chemical fertilizers and pesticides has changed waterhemp from a tame riparian wild plant into an aggressive, weedy intruder able to compete with row crops like corn and soybean. “The genetic variants that help the plant do well in modern agricultural settings have risen to high frequencies remarkably quickly since agricultural intensification in the 1960s,” said study author Julia Kreiner, PhD with the University of British Columbia’s Department of Botany. “The types of changes we’re imposing in agricultural environments are so strong that they have consequences in neighbouring habitats that we’d usually think were natural.”

To better understand how this plant went from a waterside obscurity to North America’s most notorious “weed,” researchers tracked the shifts occurring within the plants genome. Using data from herbarium samples first collected in 1828 until 2011, scientists sought out alleles (genetic mutations) that corresponded with agricultural intensification and analyzed the frequency of their occurrence over the nearly two centuries of records.

Mutations favored by intensive farming practices were identified by determining genes that were overrepresented in plants found at agricultural sites, compared to its natural riparian habitat. The 154 agriculturally associated alleles corresponded for reproduction, growth and development, plant metabolism, and responses to stimuli, including chemical stimuli such as herbicides. Scientists found chemical adaptation to be the most significant driver of genetic shifts. Many of the changes found are analogous to the sort of selection that plant breeders seek –including faster development and adaptation to high-stress, high disturbance environments.

“While waterhemp typically grows near lakes and streams, the genetic shifts that we’re seeing allow the plant to survive on drier land and to grow quickly to outcompete crops,” said coauthor Sarah Otto, PhD. “Waterhemp has basically evolved to become more of a weed given how strongly it’s been selected to thrive alongside human agricultural activities.”

Directly alongside rapid changes in land use and the rise of industrial agriculture came a significant increase in the frequency of mutations associated with intensive farming practices. While waterhemp in natural environments saw the frequency of these mutations increase by 6% since the 1870s, waterhemp in agricultural environments had these mutations increase by 22%. This is well above natural genetic shifts that models predict would occur without the pressure of intensive agricultural practices on the plant.

Scientists determined that although significant changes had occurred since the 1870s, mutations in both agricultural and natural habitats were negligible until the 1960s. The authors note that, “Change subsequent to 1960 nearly completely accounts for the observed rise in frequency of modern agricultural alleles.” Only the advent of widespread herbicide use explains this shift.

“Modern farms impose a strong filter determining which plant species and mutations can persist through time,” said Dr. Kreiner. “Sequencing the plant’s genes, herbicides stood out as one of the strongest agricultural filter determining which plants survive and which die.”

Each year since 1960, waterhemp plants carrying mutations ascribed to herbicide resistance reproduced 1.2x more than plants without those mutations.

Waterhemp’s ability to withstand herbicides is only increasing. A study published in 2018 found that waterhemp on Missouri croplands were resistant to six different herbicides of different classes. In fact, a 2021 study found that waterhemp displayed herbicide resistance stronger than commercial crops, and was even found to have resistance to herbicides it had never encountered before.

The findings are somewhat similar to what is currently occurring with “weedy rice,” a form of rice that was “re-wilded,” or “de-domesticated” from cultivated rice. In the early 2000s, multinational chemical corporation BASF developed a line of rice cultivars, produced through traditional breeding, that conferred resistance to imidazolinone class herbicides. Now, that line of rice is interbreeding with rewilded weedy rice, resulting in hybrid weedy rice that is placing significant economic costs on farmers throughout the United States.

The solution to this crisis is simple; we must stop the rampant use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and move toward safer solutions. By deindustrializing agricultural production, removing unnecessary synthetic inputs in favor of natural products supported by practices that work with, rather than against existing ecological processes we can forge a sustainable path for the future. Organic production is already showing these benefits and a proof of concept, as the 40 year Rodale Organic Systems Trial finds organic production to be more profitable with competitive yields that do better in drought periods, benefit the climate, and do not result in runoff of toxic pesticides to nearby natural lands.

For more information on the benefits of organic production, see Beyond Pesticides page “Why Organic?”

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

Source: University of British Columbia press release, Science

(Beyond Pesticides, December 14, 2022) Ultraviolet (UV-C) light has the potential to successfully manage mite (Tetranychus urticae) populations without reducing yields or resorting to toxic pesticides, according to research published by scientists at University of Florida. “Since very few miticides (sprays) are currently effective in suppressing twospotted spider mites in strawberries, the use of UV light provides an effective physical control method that can be used in fields and in high-tunnel strawberry production systems,” says study author Sriyanka Lahiri, PhD. The findings provide an encouraging technique for farmers, but further investigation is needed to observe the success of this approach in other cropping systems.  

Researchers compared the efficacy of four treatment approaches, including use of the insecticide spinetoram, a low powered application of UV-C light twice a week, a high-powered application of UV-C light twice a week, and an untreated control. Researchers also looked closely at mite egg hatchability by rearing eggs in the laboratory and then transferring them out to the field for treatment with UV-C light.

Results were not consistent across the two-year trial as researchers indicate that in most of the field trials, no effect was seen due to low levels of natural infestation. However, during the second year’s field trial, it was found that high-powered applications of UV-C light were effective at suppressing mite populations without negatively impacting yield. Researchers determined that spinetoram also adequately suppressed the pests, but it should be noted that the field trial did not follow organic practices and included a broader chemical approach that separately employed chemical weed suppression, fungicide use, and soil fumigation. The authors further note that T. urticae mites have a propensity to develop resistance to insecticidal sprays, noting data on their ability to withstand active ingredients like abamectin, bifenazat, bifenthrin, fenpyroximate, and spirodiclofen.

“An added advantage is that UV light does not leave any residue behind and can be applied using automated robotic units already in production by commercial sources,” Dr. Lahiri says.

The results of the study line up with prior research conducted by the same University of Florida team regarding the use of UV-C radiation for powdery mildew control on strawberry plants. “UV treatments applied once or twice weekly were as effective as the best available fungicides applied on similar schedules for control of strawberry powdery mildew,” study author Natalia Peres, PhD said at the time. “It’s not a one-time fluke.”

While the results are promising for both pest and fungal problems, any level of human intervention can carry both risk and rewards. A study published in 2012 found that reducing, rather than increasing and treating with UV light, was effective at suppressing aphid infestations. Using netting that filtered UV radiation, researchers were able to reduce aphid populations compared to those consistently exposed to UV light.

Any level of disturbance to a natural system will result changes to that system that are difficult to account for. And there are emerging studies on pest management that call into question a range of accepted knowledge. Research published last month came to the conclusion that putting up with moderate levels of pests, in this case scale insects on landscaped trees, actually had the effect of promoting the numbers of beneficial pest predators, while not causing significant damage to trees. As study coauthor Caleb Wilson, PhD, noted 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.”

In a similarly surprising study published last month, it was determined that managing cucumber beetles on watermelon crops had no significant impact on the ultimate yields farmers enjoyed; it was the number of visits by wild pollinators that had the greatest influence.

In this context, it is unsurprising that organic systems, which require an approach that focuses on maintaining or improving soil, and limits even natural pesticide use in favor of ecological approaches, represents the most profitable approach for farmers. For more information on the importance of transitioning to organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic program page.

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

Source: UF/IAS press release, Pest Management Science

(Beyond Pesticides, December 13, 2022) Pesticides have a long history associated with hormone (endocrine)-disrupting properties that induce various molecular changes, prompting disease development. Adding to the science, a review published in Environmental Exposure, Biomonitoring and Exposure Assessment highlights how specific estrogen-mimicking pesticides increase the risk of disease, particularly hormone-related cancers among women (i.e., breast, ovarian, endometrial cancer) and men (i.e., testicular, prostate cancer). Like pesticides, endocrine disruptors are xenobiotic (i.e., chemical substances foreign to an organism or ecosystem). Many reports demonstrate that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely affect human, animal—and thus environmental—health by altering the natural bodily hormones responsible for conventional reproductive, physical, and mental development. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (i.e., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause cancer, among other health issues.

Pesticides are one of the most potent xeno-estrogenic compounds, as estrogenic strength and environmental half-life exceed those of other xeno-estrogenic compounds. Focusing on organochlorine pesticides (OCs), the study evaluates the chemical effects on the physiological (anatomic) system to increase cancer risk. Using human studies, researchers assessed how estrogen-medicated cancer develops in women and men. Various OCs, including aldrin, dieldrin, endosulfan, HCH, DDT, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, phenoxy acid herbicides, and methoxychlor, have associations with hormone-related cancers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies many of these chemicals as potent carcinogens in animal studies. Cancer development also depends on genetic susceptibility, as impaired genes responsible for xenobiotic detoxification (elimination) increase disease risk sensitivity.

It is evident that OCs’ hormone-like activity disrupts natural estrogen function, which is concerning since these chemicals stay in the environment for extended periods (from years to decades). Despite the ban on many OCs across the globe, these chemicals remain in the environment. Many OCs can exist in the body for at least three to six years, in soil for decades, and in water for at least a century. Moreover, consumption of food and water resources contaminated with OCs can cause these chemicals to bioaccumulate in the body, resulting in the biomagnification of OCs.

The mechanisms involved in the endocrine-disrupting potential of OCs include four different actions:

1. “Mimicking the effect of endogenous steroidal hormones (androgens and estrogens).
2. Antagonizing steroidal hormones.
3. Altering the synthesis and metabolism of endogenous steroidal hormones.
4. Modifying hormone receptor expression in different tissues.”

The review notes the association between hormone-related cancers and OCs. Studies document excess estrogen can promote breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers among women and elevate testicular and prostate cancer among men. In women, numerous studies link exposure to OC contaminants (e.g., DDT and its metabolites [DDE and DDD], heptachlor, dieldrin, and hexacyclohexane) as the prime cause of higher breast cancer risk, since these chemicals stimulate estrogenic activity. Nearly 40 percent of breast cancer incidents have direct links to environmental factors (e.g., chemical exposure) in women over 30. Although the review notes the mechanisms involved in increasing breast cancer risk are unclear, studies suggest OCs downregulate the expression of estrogen receptors (ER, a common event in many breasts cancer cases) through disruption of essential pathways. In men, although estrogen’s role in male cancer risk is much less understood, gestational and neonatal exposure to estrogen-related compounds significantly contribute to testicular cancer risk in men. Regarding OCs, studies find both work-related and non-worker-related exposure increase testicular dysfunction risk 1.29-fold, promoting testicular cancer. Furthermore, the review assessed the potential relationship of xeno-estrogenic pesticides with prostate cancer risk. Although direct connections between xeno-estrogenic pesticides and prostate cancer are lacking in establishment, animal studies suggest endocrine-disrupting chemicals can alter prostate stem cells, elevating prostate cancer risk. Additionally, maternal exposure to low doses of xeno-estrogens during gestation increases the weight of the prostate in male offspring. Increased prostate weight is a characteristic of a prostate disorder that can lead to prostate cancer. In particular, higher levels of OCs influence prostate weight, which is consistent in patients with more aggressive forms of prostate cancer.

The connection between pesticides and associated cancer risks is not a new finding. Many pesticides are “known or probable” carcinogens (cancer-causing agents), and widespread uses only amplify chemical hazards, adversely affecting human health. Several studies link pesticide use and residue to various cancers, from the more prevalent breast cancer to the rare kidney cancer, nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor). Sixty-six percent of all cancers have links to environmental factors, especially in occupations of high chemical use. At least 45 different cancers have associations with work-related chemical exposure. 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. U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute also finds many cancer-causing substances are endocrine disruptors. The entire endocrine system directly affects traditional endocrine glands and their hormones and receptors (i.e., estrogens, anti-androgens, thyroid hormones), greatly influencing 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 hormone-related cancer risk. There are grave concerns over exposure to endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals and pollutants that produce adverse health effects. Considering not only OCs, 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. 

This review is one of the first to consider all-gender estrogen-mediated cancer risk modification by xeno-estrogenic OCs. However, OCs are not the only chemical associated with endocrine-disrupting mechanisms. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert Theo Colborn, Ph.D. (deceased), classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds as endocrine disruptors, including various household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Unlike many OCs, these chemicals are still in use across most parts of the world.

Previous studies demonstrate the sex-specific effect of endocrine-disrupting pesticide exposure. In 2017, scientists presented a study at the 99th meeting of the Endocrine Society, demonstrating instances of early onset puberty in boys after exposure to common pyrethroid insecticide, which exhibits endocrine-disrupting properties that interfere with the proper regulation of the human body’s hormonal system. Furthermore, a 2021 study demonstrates that exposure to current-use pesticides, like organophosphates, poses a greater health risk to women.

The review concludes, “These chemicals [xeno-estrogenic pesticides] must be completely phased out and replaced with less toxic and affordable alternatives that have negligible adverse health effects on mammalian systems.…[B]reast cancer in females and prostate cancer in males have become the top causes of morbidity and mortality, and both are estrogen-mediated cancers. More studies are needed to find out how much this increased incidence can be attributed to such harmful environmental factors.”

There is a lack of understanding of the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developing chronic illnesses that may be rare and disproportionately impact various populations. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with over eight million people succumbing to the disease every year. Notably,  IARC predicts an increase in new cancer cases from 19.3 million to 30.2 million per year by 2040. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and cancer will aid in understanding the underlying mechanisms that cause the disease.

It is essential to understand the health implications of pesticide use and exposure for humans, particularly when pesticides increase chronic disease risk. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent news and studies on pesticides and related topics through the Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). For more information on the adverse effects of pesticides on human health, see PIDD pages on cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases.

Moreover, proper prevention practices, like buying, growing, and supporting organics, can eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, given that it curtails 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 why 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: Environmental Exposure, Biomonitoring, and Exposure Assessment

(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