(Beyond Pesticides, October 7, 2022) Pyrethroid insecticides are associated with the growing worldwide epidemic of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a condition that causes swelling of the liver and can eventually lead to cirrhosis, cancer, or liver failure. According to research published in Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, exposure to pyrethroids like bifenthrin can induce gut microbiota dysbiosis (an imbalance in microorganisms in the intestines). This dysbiosis results in abnormal lipid (fat) metabolism and subsequent accumulation of lipids in liver cells, contributing to NAFLD development. Gut microbiota plays a crucial role in lifelong digestion, immune and central nervous system regulation, as well as other bodily functions. Through the gut biome, pesticide exposure can enhance or exacerbate the adverse effects of additional environmental toxicants on the body. Since the gut microbiome shapes metabolism, it can mediate some toxic effects of environmental chemicals. However, with prolonged exposure to various environmental contaminants, critical chemical-induced changes may occur in the gut microbes, influencing adverse health outcomes. Considering NAFLD is becoming the most prevalent form of liver disease, impacting at least 25 percent of the globe, and a growing body of evidence demonstrates the significance gut microbiota play in overall health, safety analyses that currently do not consider the scientific findings disclosed in this research are viewed as dramatically insufficient.

To examine the impact pyrethroids have on NAFLD development, the researchers exposed adult African clawed frogs from Wisconsin, U.S., to environmentally relevant concentrations of the pyrethroid cis-bifenthrin. Following the American Society for Testing and Materials for human-animal testing guidelines, researchers analyzed the disruption of gut microbial communities in species after chemical exposure, noting the prevalence of specific microbial species. Evaluation of chemical processes involving metabolites (metabolomics) demonstrates bifenthrin exposure has an association with changes in intestinal metabolites involved in lipid absorption and microbial community. Exposure also altered the regulation of lipids in the liver and the accumulation of fat droplets in hepatocytes (liver cells). Specific changes in the metabolic byproduct of gut microbiota, deoxycholic acid, alter bile acid circulation, affecting fat metabolism in the liver and ultimately causing the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. 

The gut, also known as the “second brain,” shares similar structural and chemical parallels with the brain. Microbiota (i.e., groups of microorganisms, including bacteria, archaea, viruses, and fungi) in the gut play a crucial role in lifelong digestion, detoxification, immune and central nervous system regulation, and other bodily functions. Through the gut biome, pesticide exposure can enhance or exacerbate the adverse effects of additional environmental toxicants on the body. Since the gut microbiome shapes metabolism, it can mediate some toxic effects of environmental chemicals. However, prolonged exposure to various environmental contaminants induces a change in gut microbes, influencing adverse health outcomes. The impacts of pesticides on the human gut microbiome represent another pesticide assault on human health as the biome harbors between 10 and 100 trillion symbiotic microbes. The human gastrointestinal tract and its digestive processes (the “gut”) mediate the function of several systems. Dysfunction of the gut microbiome is associated with a host of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, some cancers, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, asthma, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as allergies, autism, depression, obesity, and other disorders or syndromes.

Although this study is one of the first to find a relationship between NAFLD development and pyrethroid-mediated gut dysbiosis, pyrethroids are not the only chemicals associated with NAFLD development. Obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and elevated liver enzyme resulting from endocrine disruption have an association with NAFLD, which can lead to liver cirrhosis. Many of these endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) include not only pyrethroids but organochlorines like chlordane, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and pesticides with antibiotic properties like glyphosate. For instance, researchers attribute endocrine-induced liver injury and liver cell death during childhood to the growing epidemic of pediatric NAFLD. Mixtures of various EDCs can induce synergism that may increase pesticide toxicity or result in changes to its characteristics, like the ability to permeate the body and ecosystem. Regarding glyphosate, past studies find links between chemical exposure and liver impacts. A 2015 study found that chronically exposing rats to ultra-low doses of glyphosate in drinking water results in tissue and organ damage, including changes to gene expression within the liver and kidneys. And a 2017 study, which also fed minuscule doses of glyphosate weed killer to rats, found an increased likelihood that exposed animals would develop NAFLD.

Exposure to pesticides can have a similar impact on soil microbiota as they do on gut microbes. Soil microbiota is essential for the functionality of the soil ecosystem. Toxic chemicals damage the soil microbiota by decreasing and altering microbial biomass and soil microbiome composition (diversity). Considering pesticides work similarly on microbial communities both inside (gut) and outside (soil) the body, their biological response to xenobiotics (foreign contaminants in the body or ecosystem) is worthy of further discussion. The study concludes, “Our results indicated the crucial role of gut microbiota in the host response to environmental toxicants. In particular, the interplay between gut microbes and xenobiotics may promote the unexpected development of toxicity, which is generally overlooked due to the lack of information on the direct-action sites of xenobiotic compounds in organisms. Collectively, our results highlight the potential implication of intestinal microbiota dysbiosis on pesticide exposure-induced chronic diseases related to liver metabolic syndrome, which unveils the unexpected ecological risks from the widely applied pesticides.”

Pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt metabolic function, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Health officials estimate about 100 million individuals in the U.S. have NAFLD, with NAFLD being the most common liver disease among children. Cases of NAFLD have doubled over the past 20 years. Therefore, it is essential to mitigate preventable exposure to disease-inducing pesticides. For more information about pesticides’ effects on human and animal health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, including pages on diabetes, immune system disorders (e.g., hepatitis [liver condition], endocrine disruption, and more.

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

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

Source: Environmental Science and Ecotechnology

(Beyond Pesticides, October 6, 2022) A new study finds alarmingly high levels of PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) “forever chemicals” in commonly used pesticides, calling into question assurances from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that contamination is limited to storage containers. For some pesticides, PFAS levels are nearly one billion times higher than the EPA’s recently updated Health Advisory for the PFAS chemical PFOS. “If the intent was to spread PFAS contamination across the globe there would be few more effective methods than lacing pesticides with PFAS,” said Kyla Bennett, PhD, of the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “These findings point to an appalling regulatory breakdown by EPA.”

A team of researchers based in Texas, including scientists from Texas Tech and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Cropping Systems Research Laboratory, participated in the study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters. Ten different formulated pesticide products were tested for 24 different PFAS substances. The pesticide products selected were determined based on unexpected PFAS contamination at USDA’s research facility. During the course of conducting a separate study on plant uptake of PFAS, detectable levels of PFAS were found in plants intended to be used as unexposed controls. Preliminary analysis determined that water, potting soil, and fertilizers on site did not contain PFAS, but soil, other research plants, and certain insecticides did.

Although the brand names of the pesticides tested were not provided, of the ten products, active ingredients of those found to contain PFAS include: abamectin, novaluron, mineral (petroleum) oil, imidacloprid, spiromesifen, and malathion. Those without PFAS detection include products with the active ingredients Beauveria bassiana, pyridalyl, spinosad, and spinetoram/sulfoxaflor.

The detection of any level of PFAS is cause for concern. The chemicals have been linked to cancer, liver damage, birth and developmental problems, reduced fertility, and asthma, among a range of other adverse health effects. As new drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show, PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential cause adverse health effects for public health.

The levels found in the tested insecticides are recorded to be as high as 19,200,000 parts per trillion in the spiromesifen product. The highest detection are found for the PFAS chemical PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), the same chemical used by the company 3M as part of its Stotchgard stain repellents. Reporting in the Intercept shows that the company suppressed information on the dangers of PFOS, resulting in widespread contamination and public health impacts to communities throughout the United States.

In addition to the disturbingly high levels of PFOS in the sprimesifen product, products containing two of the most widely used insecticides in the world also show high level detections. An imidacloprid (neonicotinoid) product was found to contain 13,300,000 ppt, while a malathion product contained 17,800,000 ppt.

While the study authors note that application levels are likely to be lower as the products tested were concentrates, levels found can still result in widespread contamination. As the study notes, “While the insecticides tested are commonly used on cotton, a non-consumptive agricultural product, PFAS are generally believed to not significantly degrade environmentally. Years of continuous use of PFAS and PFAS precursor-containing pesticides could lead to significant concentration of PFAS in the soil.”

In addition to remaining in the environment for the knowable future, a significant portion is likely to be taken up by crops grown where these insecticides were applied. According to researchers, “Future use of soils treated with PFAS contaminated pesticides for other crops or pesticide drift could lead to PFAS concentrations being found in crops used for human or animal consumption.” Researchers found that corn, beans, and peanuts grown on the USDA research site all contain PFOS at 3,230 ppt, 4,260 ppt, and 407 ppt, respectively.  

The products tested had all been in use for years, and may not represent current formulations, but it appears likely, if results are even somewhat similar for other pesticide products, that immense damage has already been done. These findings fly in the face of EPA’s recent determination that the primary source of PFAS pesticide contamination is coming from fluorinated HDPE (high density polyethylene) containers that store bulk pesticides. EPA’s testing measured PFAS at roughly 15 parts per billion, while the current detections are magnitudes higher.

At the same time as EPA released results on fluorinated containers, the agency announced it is eliminating a set of 12 inert ingredients that could be considered PFAS. While it is possible the formulations tested contained these inert ingredients, the data nonetheless point to a much wider problem.

“This research has alarming implications that demand immediate regulatory action: EPA must test all pesticides, and immediately ban the use of pesticides that contain PFAS,” said Dr. Bennett, arguing that EPA can no longer rely on voluntary manufacturer testing. “The level of absorption by plants suggests that a person could absorb a lifetime dose of PFAS from eating one salad made with produce treated with these pesticides.”

This news is yet another reason why local communities should not place their trust in EPA’s regulatory process to ensure safety for their residents and local environment. Join Beyond Pesticides in encouraging localities to move away from hazardous, contaminated pesticides and transition their public parks to organic land management practices. And for more background on the ongoing PFAS and pesticides saga, see Beyond Pesticides’ collection of PFAS articles.

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

Source: Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters, PEER press release

Image Source: Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters

(Beyond Pesticides, October 5, 2022) Exposure to widely used synthetic pyrethroids, present in many mosquito adulticides and household insecticides like RAID, is associated with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research. This is the latest pesticide-induced disease associated with this dangerous class of chemicals – a harm to individual Americans that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not considering when it registers pesticides. To remedy the major deficiencies in EPA’s reviews, and protect residents from chronic disease, more and more communities are transitioning to safer, organic pest management practices that do not require pyrethroids and other toxic synthetic pesticides.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease that causes systemic inflammation throughout the body, resulting in progressive damage to an individual’s joints. In the United States, roughly 1.3 million adults suffer from RA, accounting for nearly 1% of the adult population. Health care costs associated with the disease reach nearly $20 billion annually.

To better understand the etiology behind the disease, an international team of researchers from China, Illinois, and Missouri analyzed data from the 2007-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a long-running program that began in the early 1960s and has since become a continuous program focused on American health and nutrition measurements.

Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids was captured by analyzing levels of a metabolite called 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3-PBA), a breakdown chemical that most synthetic pyrethroids form as they degrade. In their analysis, researchers include 4,384 individuals, including 278 RA patients that have been diagnosed with the disease.

Results generally find that higher levels of 3-PBA are associated with RA. A crude model that does not account for many confounders finds that when compared to individuals in the lowest quartile of pyrethroid exposure, those with high 3-PBA levels are associated with a 50% increased chance of having RA. However, after controlling for sex, race/ethnicity, education, body mass index, family poverty income, level of education, marital status, smoking status, alcohol usage, physical activity, hypertension, and urinary creatinine, this association lowers to a still concerning 23%. One of the most significant associations between urinary metabolites and RA is for individuals aged 40 to 59, who have an 82% increased risk of developing the disease.

“Taken together, our study suggested that pyrethroid pesticide exposure was positively associated with RA,” the study reads. “In addition, higher levels of pyrethroid exposure were linearly associated with increased prevalence of RA in adults.”

Synthetic pyrethroids are one of the most frequently detected chemicals in Americans’ bodies. Prior NHANES data shows that 78% of adults and 79% of children have some level of 3-PBA in their urine. These chemicals have increasingly come to replace organophosphate insecticides in homes, for mosquito management, in food production, and in local parks and playing fields. Often billed as “safe as chrysanthemum flowers,” they are less acutely toxic than organophosphates, but it is increasingly evident that they pose insidious chronic risks to health that are no less concerning than the hazardous pesticides that came before them.

In addition to the association with RA, research published in 2020 finds that synthetic pyrethroid exposure is associated with higher risks of death from all causes, and particularly cardiovascular disease. Yet, perhaps most concerning are impacts to children’s health. Multiple studies have been published linking synthetic pyrethroids to developmental problems in children. Most recently, a study published in Neurotoxicology finds that even infants with low levels of synthetic pyrethroid exposure at 6-8 months of age experience an association with increased risk of language development delays at age two. Additionally, a 2019 Danish study found that higher concentrations of pyrethroid insecticides correspond to higher rates of ADHD in children. In addition to motor skills and learning development, young boys exposed to synthetic pyrethroids are more likely to experience early onset of puberty.

Much of this exposure can occur from eating a diet laden with these toxic pesticides. However, those that switch from a conventional to organic diet can significantly reduce the amount of pesticide in their body, as evidenced by drastic drops in urinary 3-PBA after going organic. In fact, children that eat organic are more likely to score higher on cognitive tests than those that consistently eat conventional, pesticide-contaminated food.

Yet for many low-income and Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) communities around the country, eating organic is not likely to limit all exposures. In public housing, synthetic pyrethroids are often used as bug sprays for common household pests that would not have been a problem if proper maintenance was kept up. Research finds that, after sprayed, synthetic pyrethroids can remain on surfaces for up to a year, representing a continuous source of re-exposure.

Synthetic pyrethroids are increasingly the first choice for mosquito management in many communities around the country. Just last week, New York City doused a number of neighborhoods throughout the city with the product Anvil 10+10, containing the synthetic pyrethroid sumithrin. Beyond Pesticides urged the NYC Department of Health to avoid the use of these adulticides. One reason noted in the letter is the risk to young children, pregnant mothers, and communities of color already exposed to disproportionate pesticide use. While a 2021 study found that disease carrying mosquitoes are found at higher rates in lower socioeconomic areas, a study published earlier this year found that children’s exposure to mosquito control operations was associated with significant increases in the risk of allergies and respiratory diseases. Put together, these data tell a story of low-income communities, and the children living there, being sprayed more often and placed at greater risk as a result of a lack of investment in maintenance and infrastructure that would prevent pest problems before they start.

While these risks are well-documented by independent scientific studies, a 2019 review of the available literature by EPA dismisses these concerns at the behest of an industry group dubbed the Pyrethroid Working Group. Rather than increased protections from synthetic pyrethroids, EPA in recent years has expanded their allowed uses, and the amounts applicators are allowed to apply, increasing exposure levels for everyday American and their children.

Communities aiming to address these environmental injustices are urged to consider a more holistic pest management approach – help residents find affordable organic food or grow their own, employ safer mosquito management, and take an organic pest management approach. For municipalities, schools, and homes, right now is the season to transition lawns and landscapes to organic. Take action today to urge your local leaders to bring these practices to your hometown.  

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

Source: Environmental Science and Pollution Research

(Beyond Pesticides, October 4, 2022) A study published in Environmental Pollution finds pyrethroid insecticides contribute to a secondary source of contamination in water resources. Various pyrethroids, including bifenthrin, are detectable in urban catch basins (storm drains) that collect runoff water before draining into the open environment. There is a lack of information regarding the pesticides’ presence in urban catch basins. However, pesticide contamination in water resources is historically commonplace and widespread throughout U.S. rivers and streams, with at least five different pesticides present in 90 percent of water samples. Moreover, thousands of tons of pesticides not only enter waterways (e.g., rivers, streams, lakes, oceans) around the U.S. through urban catch basins but agricultural and nonagricultural sources as well, contaminating essential drinking water sources, such as surface water and groundwater. Reports like these are essential for determining appropriate regulatory action to protect the human, animal, and environmental health from chemical toxicant contamination, especially if chemical contamination is highly detectable. The study notes, “The high detection frequency of bifenthrin and overall pyrethroid concentrations, especially for particle-bound residues, suggest that underground urban catch basins constitute an important secondary source for extended and widespread contamination of downstream surface waters by pesticides such as pyrethroids in urban regions.”

Many urban areas contain underground catch basins responsible for collecting runoff for drainage into waterways. However, pesticides contaminate runoff in these catch basins, implicating a secondary source of contamination in aquatic environments. Thus, the researchers gathered several water samples from urban underground catch basins throughout various U.S. California regions. The samples emphasize the occurrence and profile of pyrethroid insecticides during the spring, summer, and fall). Overall, the study finds that 98 percent of water samples contained detectable levels of pyrethroids. Of the individual pyrethroids, bifenthrin is the most detectable pyrethroid occurring in 97 percent of water samples, while the pyrethroid fenpropathrin is the non-detectable in samples. In addition to the highest detection frequency, bifenthrin also elicits severe toxicity to sensitive aquatic invertebrates in 89 percent of samples. However, during time frames when pesticide inputs decrease, all pyrethroid residues remain suspended in catch water basin soils, contributing to a secondary source of aquatic ecosystem contamination.

Synthetic pyrethroids are toxicologically similar derivatives of naturally occurring pyrethrins, which have dramatically shorter half-lives and extreme sensitivity to light, heat, and moisture. These insecticides can irritate the eyes, skin, and airways, causing high acute toxicity symptoms (e.g., asthma, incoordination, tremors, and convulsions) depending on the chemical formula. However, these chemicals also have links to chronic health problems from developmental and endocrine disruption adversely affecting reproduction and sexual development to immune system dysfunction and increased chances of cancers. Moreover, synthetic pyrethroids are extremely toxic to aquatic organisms, including crustaceans, fish, and macro/microorganisms responsible for ecosystem function and services. While synthetic pyrethroids pose significant dangers to the environment and human health, there is growing evidence that “inert” ingredients are causing just as much harm or more harm than the active ingredients in pesticide products. Toxic pesticide products can remain in the environment for months, years, and even decades. As the number of pesticides in waterways increases, it has detrimental impacts on aquatic ecosystem health, especially as some chemicals work synergistically (together) with others to increase the severity of the effect. In addition to adverse health effects on marine organisms, these chemicals harm terrestrial organisms relying on the surface or groundwater. Additionally, disease vector pests like ticks and mosquitos are developing resistance to chemical treatments, prompting the augmented use of chemical control methods, including the addition of toxic synergists like piperonyl butoxide (PBO), known to cause and exacerbate adverse health effects from exposure. 

The study highlights how pervasive pyrethroids are in waterways and how these chemicals contribute to secondary chemical pollution through sediments. Pyrethroids are hydrophobic (do not mix with water) and accumulate in soils/sediments in aquatic environments. Soils/sediments can have anaerobic conditions lacking oxygen and slowing the degradation rate of pyrethroids, prolonging their persistence in the ecosystem. Thus, high levels of pyrethroid contamination impair invertebrate communities within sediments. However, this study is not the first to highlight the pervasiveness of pesticide compounds in ecological resources. Previous reports demonstrate the pervasiveness of pesticides, including pyrethroids, in urban watersheds and other waterways and resources from agricultural, household, and community insecticide treatments and pet spray runoff. Moreover, the ubiquity and persistence of certain compounds make it difficult to limit the number of toxicants that enter waterways. Many of the most commonly used pesticides in the U.S. are detectable in both surface and groundwater, which serve as drinking water sources for half of the U.S. population, raising another issue of deficient waterway monitoring and regulations that allow pesticides to accumulate in waterways. 

The study concludes, “To improve understanding of pesticide behaviors in urban catch basins and USDSs [underground storm drains systems], further research should characterize runoff before and after it passes through a catch basin, the hydraulic retention of both water and solids in catch basins, and release of water and suspended solids from catch basins into the rest of the USDS. Efforts to design catch basins with reduced contaminant accumulation potential, and pest management practices to prevent the transport of pesticide residues from entering USDSs and catch basins, should be further explored.”

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for healthier and more environmentally friendly pest management practices to protect the environment and wildlife, particularly water resources. Therefore, toxic pesticides should be phased out and eliminated to protect the nation’s and world’s waterways and reduce the number of pesticides that make their way into your drinking water. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for regulations that consider potential synergistic and additive threats, to ecosystems and organisms, from admixtures of pesticides — whether in formulated products or “de facto” in the environment. However, advocating for local and state pesticide reform policies can protect you and your family from pesticide-contaminated water. Furthermore, organic/regenerative systems conserve water, nurture fertility, reduce surface runoff and erosion, reduce the need for nutrient input, and eliminate the toxic chemicals that threaten many aspects of human and ecosystem life, including water resources. For more information about pesticide contamination in water, see the Threatened Waters program page and Beyond Pesticides’ article Pesticides in My Drinking Water? Individual Precautionary Measures and Community Action. 

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, October 3, 2022) Fall is the best time to start transitioning lawns to organic. The key to a healthy lawn is healthy soil and good mowing, watering, and fertilizing practices. Healthy soil contains high organic content and is teeming with biological life. Healthy soil supports the development of healthy grass that is naturally resistant to weeds and pests. In a healthy, fertile and well-maintained lawn, diseases and pest problems are rare.

Lawns that are currently chemically-dependent may require more resources to restore the biological life. But in the long-term, an organic lawn uses fewer materials, such as water and fertilizers, and requires less labor for mowing and maintenance. More importantly, organic lawns will be safe for children, pets, and the local drinking water supply. Our treatment of lawns and landscapes is directly related to the health of our environment! Learn about the importance of maintaining a delicate balance from the Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet.

TAKE ACTION: In addition to priming your own lawns, and landscapes, tell your mayor or county executive to transition your public parks and lands to organic management practices! 

Get Started Now

Mow High Until the Season Ends – Bad mowing practices cause more problems than any other cultural practice. Mowing with a dull blade makes the turf susceptible to disease and mowing too close invites sunlight in for weeds to take hold.

Keep your blades sharp or ask your service provider to sharpen their blades frequently. For the last and first mowing, mow down to 2 inches to prevent fungal problems. For the rest of the year, keep it at 3-3.5 inches to shade out weeds and foster deep, drought-resistant roots.

Aerate – Compaction is an invitation for weeds. If a lawn is hard, compacted, and full of weeds or bare spots, aerate to help air, water, and fertilizer to enter. If you cannot stick a screwdriver easily into the soil, it is too compacted. Getting an aerator on the turf will be especially helpful. Once you have an established, healthy lawn, worms and birds pecking at your soil will aerate it for free!

Fertilize, but go easy! – Fertilizing in early fall ensures good growth and root development for your grass. Nitrogen, the most abundant nutrient in lawn fertilizers promotes color and growth. Adding too much nitrogen, or quick release synthetic fertilizers (which are not part of an organic program), will result in quicker growth and the need for more mowing. Too much nitrogen can also weaken the grass, alter the pH, and promote disease, insect, and thatch build-up. If applied too late, nutrients can leach directly into nearby surface waters. Be aware of local phosphorus or nitrogen loading concerns.

Grass clippings contain 58% of the nitrogen added from fertilizers, improve soil conditions, suppress disease, and reduce thatch and crabgrass. So, leave the clippings on the lawn. A mulching mower to leave the leaves on the lawn too – a great alternative to raking.

Compost is an ideal soil amendment, adding the much-needed organic content to the soil and suppressing many turf pathogens. In the fall and spring, preferably after aerating, spread ¼ inch layer of compost over your lawn. Compost tea and worm castings are also great additions. Learn more from Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, Compost is Key to Successful Plant Management.

Analyzing soil is highly recommended to determine specific soil needs. Contact the university extension service to find out how to take and send in a soil sample. In addition to nutrients and pH, ask for organic content analysis, and request organic care recommendations. Ideal pH should be between 6.5-7.0, and organic content should be 5% or higher. Soil test results will ensure that only the materials that are needed are applied. Read Maintaining a Delicate Balance: Eliminating phosphorus contamination with organic soil management for in-depth information on the problem of fertilizer contamination, and how to apply fertilizer properly.

Overseed With the Right Grass Seed – Once again, fall is the best time to seed a lawn. Grass varieties differ enormously in their resistance to certain pests, tolerance to climatic conditions, growth habit and appearance. Endophytic grass seed provides natural protection against some insects and fungal disease —major benefits for managing a lawn organically. The local nursery will know the best seed for the area. Check to see the weed content of the grass seed and that there are no pesticide coatings.

Develop Your Tolerance – Many plants that are considered weeds in a lawn have beneficial qualities. Learn to read your “weeds” for what they indicate about your soil conditions. Monocrops do not grow in nature and diversity is a good thing. See more information on our Least Toxic Control of Weeds factsheet.

For instance, clover (considered a typical weed) is found in soil with low nitrogen levels, compaction issues, and drought stress—conditions that can be alleviated with the above recommendations. However, clover is a beneficial plant that takes free nitrogen from the atmosphere and distributes it to the grass, which helps it grow. Clover roots are extensive and extremely drought resistant, providing significant resources to soil organisms, and staying green long after turf goes naturally dormant.

There is lots more at Lawns and Landscapes on the Beyond Pesticides’ website. For more information about becoming an advocate for organic parks, see Parks for a Sustainable Future and Tools for Change.

Send the municipal parks department links to our factsheets on Establishing New Lawns and Landscapes and Maintaining Sustainable Lawns and Landscapes. Or print them out and take them to the parks manager.

TAKE ACTION: In addition to priming your own lawns, and landscapes, tell your mayor or county executive to transition your public parks and lands to organic management practices! 

And send them the following letter:

Letter to Mayors:

I’m reminding you with this note that Fall is the time to transition our public parks and lands to organic management practices. The key to a healthy lawn is healthy soil and good mowing, watering, and fertilizing practices. Healthy soil contains high organic content and is teeming with biological life. It supports the development of healthy grass that is naturally resistant to weeds and pests. In a healthy, fertile, and well-maintained lawn, diseases and pest problems are rare.

In the long-term, an organic lawn uses fewer materials, such as water and fertilizers, and requires less labor for mowing and maintenance. More importantly, the lawn will be safe for children, pets, and our local drinking water supply.

These important steps in the Fall will give lawns a good start:

*Mow high until the season ends. Poor mowing practices cause more problems than any other cultural practice. Mow with sharp blades. For the last and first mowing, mow down to 2 inches to prevent fungal problems. For the rest of the year, keep it at 3-3.5 inches to shade out weeds and foster deep, drought-resistant roots.

*Aerate to prevent compaction, an invitation for weeds. Aeration helps air, water, and fertilizer to enter.

*Fertilize, but go easy! Fertilizing in early fall ensures good growth and root development for your grass. Nitrogen, the most abundant nutrient in lawn fertilizers promotes color and growth, but too much nitrogen or synthetic fertilizers will result in quicker growth and the need for more mowing. Too much nitrogen can also weaken the grass, alter the pH, and promote disease, insect, and thatch build-up. If applied too late, nutrients can leach directly into nearby surface waters. Be aware of local phosphorus or nitrogen loading concerns.

*Grass clippings contain 58% of the nitrogen added from fertilizers, improve soil conditions, suppress disease, and reduce thatch and crabgrass. So, leave the clippings on the lawn. A mulching mower can turn both clippings and leaves into valuable organic matter, while eliminating the need for raking.

Compost is an ideal soil amendment, adding the much-needed organic content to your soil and suppressing many turf pathogens. In the fall and spring, preferably after aerating, spread ¼ inch layer of compost over your lawn. Compost tea and worm castings are also great additions.

*Soil analysis to determine specific soil needs is highly recommended. The Extension Service has information about how to take and send in a soil sample. In addition to nutrients and pH, the analysis should include organic content organic care recommendations. Ideal pH should be between 6.5-7.0, and organic content should be 5% or higher.

*Overseed with the right grass seed. Fall is the best time for seeding a lawn. Grass varieties differ enormously in their resistance to certain pests, tolerance to climatic conditions, growth habit, and appearance. Endophytic grass seed provides protection against some insects and fungal diseases—major benefits for managing a lawn organically. Check to see the weed content of the grass seed and that there are no pesticide coatings.

*Develop weed tolerance. Many plants that are considered weeds in a lawn have beneficial qualities. For instance, clover, considered a typical weed, is found in soil with low nitrogen levels, compaction issues, and drought stress—conditions that can be alleviated with the above recommendations. However, clover also takes free nitrogen from the atmosphere and distributes it to the grass, which helps it grow. Clover roots are extensive and extremely drought resistant, providing significant resources to soil organisms, and staying green long after turf goes naturally dormant.

It is time to go organic for community health, sustainable biodiversity, and a livable climate.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 30, 2022) In late September, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the withdrawal of its Interim Decision on glyphosate, the active ingredient in multiple herbicides, most notably Monsanto’s (now Bayer’s) Roundup. The action follows a slew of developments related to the herbicide, including: the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer’s declaration of its carcinogenicity; legal judgments and massive rewards to victims who developed cancers after chronic exposures; advocate efforts to get EPA to recognize the dangers of, and curtail, its use; and pushback from industry — most of the latter two coming in the form of litigation. The withdrawal of that Interim Decision means, on the ground that this harmful compound can continue to be used until a next regulatory review decision by EPA. Beyond Pesticides has long been engaged in education on and advocacy against glyphosate use, and was a plaintiff in the 2020 lawsuit, with the Center for Food Safety (CFS), et al., against EPA for this 2020 Interim Decision (ID).

Under FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) each pesticide must be reviewed by EPA every 15 years “to ensure that existing pesticide products continue to perform their intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.” Glyphosate’s review was begun in 2009. Such reviews have multiple aspects, which is why EPA says, in its press release, that it “is announcing its withdrawal of all remaining portions of the interim registration review decision.”

Comprehensive coverage, by Beyond Pesticides, of the risks associated with the use of glyphosate (Roundup) herbicides can be found here, here, and here. EPA’s webpage on glyphosate offers multiple assertions and justifications for its ongoing allowance of use of glyphosate-based herbicides, as well as a history of EPA actions and regulations. Among its claims, based on “independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate” are these findings related to human health: (1) no risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate; (2) no indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate; and (3) no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.

EPA’s Interim Decision on glyphosate likewise asserted that “there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label. EPA also found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.” It did assert that there are “potential ecological risks to non-target organisms, primarily non-target plants through spray drift,” and pointed to anemic text changes as a fix — “interim risk mitigation measures in the form of label changes, including spray drift management language, herbicide resistance management language, a non-target organism advisory, and certain label consistency measures.” The ID came down, once again, on the side of industry and the status quo in concluding that “the benefits of glyphosate outweigh the potential ecological risks when glyphosate is used in accordance with labels.”

As Beyond Pesticides wrote at the time, “EPA reapproval of human carcinogens and chemicals contributing to the pollinator crisis is disappointing for health and environmental advocates, but not surprising to those watchdogging the agency. . . . ‘This is how a captured agency behaves,’ said Beyond Pesticides community resource and policy director Drew Toher. ‘When EPA’s decision making repeatedly reflects the exact wishes of the chemical industry, public trust erodes, and we must look to new policy mechanisms that support the protection of health and the environment.’”

The final Interim Decision was challenged in 2020 by the lawsuit brought by CFS, Beyond Pesticides, and several farmworker organizations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs argued that:
• EPA’s finding that “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” flies in the face of both IARC and independent scientific research, as well as the tens of thousands of lawsuits, some extremely successful, brought by glyphosate victims.

• The agency has failed to evaluate thoroughly the endocrine and hormone-disrupting impacts of exposures to glyphosate.
• EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to conduct effective assessment of the effects of the compound on threatened and endangered species and their habitats, as is required under FIFRA and ESA.
• EPA has not done adequate analysis of human health impacts, e.g., it has not gathered and evaluated data on the ingestion (via skin or inhalation) of glyphosate — the most common exposure vectors among farmworkers and others who work with or around the herbicide. (Beyond Pesticides noted the ubiquity of the compound’s presence in humans when it covered research showing that more than 80% of people in the U.S. above the age of six have detectable levels in their urine.)

In 2021, EPA sought, in response, the somewhat unusual “work-around” of a partial voluntary “remand without vacatur” — a judicial remedy that permits agency orders or rules to remain in effect after they are remanded by the reviewing court for further agency proceedings — for the ecological portion of the ID. In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit vacated the portion of the ID related to human health, finding that EPA’s cancer analysis was flawed.

The court commented, “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer.” Beyond Pesticides, in covering that development, wrote, “The court criticized EPA for its ‘disregard of tumor results’; its use of ‘bare assertions’ that ‘fail to account coherently for the evidence’; making conclusions that do not ‘withstand scrutiny under the agency’s own framework’; and ‘fail[ing] to abide by’ its cancer guidelines. In sum, the court noted EPA’s ‘inconsistent reasoning’ made its decision on cancer ‘arbitrary,’ and struck it down.”

The court also ruled that EPA’s Interim Decision triggered obligations under the ESA, and granted the request for remand without vacatur for the ecological portion, but gave EPA a deadline of October 1, 2022 for issuance of a new ecological section. In August, the court denied EPA’s “request for relief” from that deadline. The agency now maintains that it could not possibly meet the deadline, and thus, has withdrawn the Interim Decision.

EPA now says it plans to “revisit and better explain its evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate and to consider whether to do so for other aspects of its human health analysis. For the ecological portion, EPA intends to address the issues for which it sought remand, including: to consider whether additional or different risk mitigation may be necessary based on the outcome of ESA consultation for glyphosate, prepare an analysis of in-field effects of glyphosate on monarch butterfly habitat, consider whether there are other aspects of its analysis of ecological risks and costs to revisit, and consider what risk mitigation measures may be necessary to reduce potential risk following completion of analyses left outstanding in the ID. EPA also intends to complete ESA consultation with the Services [the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service], make a determination under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, and respond to an administrative petition regarding glyphosate before issuing a final registration review decision.”

The agency’s registration review of glyphosate began in 2009; in its memorandum on withdrawal of the ID, EPA wrote that it “anticipates issuing a final registration review decision for glyphosate in 2026.” That represents, potentially, a 17-year period in which use of a harmful herbicide would have continued to be allowed because of EPA’s relative intransigence. This begs the question: how many additional non-Hodgkin Lymphoma cases, or other harms might EPA’s inability and/or unwillingness to act timely and protectively have allowed? The appellate court’s rejection of the ID should have impelled EPA to cancel glyphosate’s registration. But there is currently no indication that EPA will respond protectively to the documented threats to human health, pollinators, wildlife, and ecosystems, and ultimately — years from now — take that action.

Beyond Pesticides believes that EPA should acknowledge the significant risks of glyphosate use, as shown repeatedly by science, affirmed in some respects by the courts, and recognized by juries who have penalized industry for harms to human health. A responsible way to do that would be to issue a final registration review decision canceling the use of this noxious compound — the sooner the better.

Beyond Pesticides wrote in June: “Evidence is mounting against glyphosate, with research showing disruption of bumblebee reproduction, negative impacts on the gut microbiome, increased greenhouse gas emissions, oxidative stress and DNA damage, body burdens, threats to endangered species, and more. If EPA is to convince citizens that it is worthy of the job entrusted to it and not captured by the pesticide industry — in particular, Bayer/Monsanto — it must do a thorough review of all the evidence that finds glyphosate to be carcinogenic. That evidence shows that glyphosate must be banned immediately.”

Source: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-withdraws-glyphosate-interim-decision

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 29, 2022) A study published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health finds an association between retinoblastoma risk and prenatal exposure to pesticides. Retinoblastoma is a rare eye cancer, with over 200,000 cases in the U.S., most of which are children under the age of five. Despite occurring among offspring, this cancer is often not hereditary. Instead, a mutation in the RB1 gene during early development in the womb destabilizes and augments cell growth.

Although the etiology or cause of childhood eye cancer involves the interaction of multiple components like lifestyle and genetics, emerging evidence indicates that environmental contaminants like pesticides (e.g., occupational exposures, air pollution, pesticides, solvents, diet, etc.) play a role in disease etiology. Pesticide contamination is widespread in all ecosystems, and chemical compounds can accumulate in human tissues resulting in chronic health effects. Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of pesticide exposure as their developing bodies cannot adequately combat exposure effects. Already, studies find low levels of pesticide exposure during pregnancy or childhood cause adverse health effects from metabolic disorders to mental and physical disabilities. While medical advancements in disease survival are more prominent nowadays, childhood cancer remains the leading cause of death from disease among children. Furthermore, childhood cancer survivors can suffer from chronic or long-term health complications that may be life-threatening. Therefore, it is essential to understand how pesticide accumulation and co-occurrence can increase the risk of latent diseases (e.g., cancers) among vulnerable populations, such as children/infants.

The study coauthor Julia Heck, associate research professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), notes, “Childhood cancer is one of the leading causes of death in children, but unlike adult cancers, there are not as many identified causes. Although retinoblastoma has high survival rates, children can suffer long-term effects from chemotherapy and radiation…, which is why it’s crucial to identify causes and prioritize prevention.”

The study evaluates the association between childhood eye cancer and exposure to pesticides during prenatal development via proximity to agrochemical pesticide applications. Researchers assess the risk for unilateral (one eye) and bilateral (both eyes) retinoblastoma among children aged five or younger using a population-based case-control study from the California Cancer Registry. Using addresses identified from the birth certificates of participants, the researchers applied Pesticide Use Reports and land use information in a geographic information system (GIS) to detect specific pesticides used within 4,000 meters of the residences. Prenatal exposure to acephate (an organophosphate insecticide) and bromacil (herbicide) has an association with increased unilateral retinoblastoma risk. However, in addition to acephate, pymetrozine (insecticide) and kresoxim-methyl (fungicide) have associations with both types of retinoblastomas.

There is a significant scientific connection between pesticides and cancer as several studies link pesticide use and residues to various cancers, from prevalent forms like breast cancer to rare forms like kidney cancer nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor). Sixty-six percent of all cancers have links to environmental factors, especially in occupations of high chemical use. In addition to the robust links between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses, over 65 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent of commonly used school pesticides have links to cancer. Although general pesticide exposure can increase susceptibility to cancer, prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants can increase cancer risk. 

Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases disease susceptibility. For decades, studies have long demonstrated that childhood and in-utero exposure to the U.S.-banned insecticide DDT increase the risk of developing breast cancer later in life. Moreover, a 2021 study finds previous maternal exposure to the chemical compound during pregnancy can increase the risk of breast cancer and cardiometabolic disorders (e.g., heart disease, obesity, diabetes) up to three successive generations. However, studies find numerous current-use pesticides and chemical contaminants play a role in similar disease outcomes, including mammary tumor formation. Even household cleaners, many of which are pesticides, can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children. Furthermore, long-term exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides increases adverse health and cancer risks, specifically among women. Since DDT and its metabolite DDE residues, current-use pesticides, and other chemical pollutants contaminate the environment, exposure to these chemical mixtures can synergize to increase toxicity and disease effects.

This study is one of the first to examine the risk for childhood retinoblastoma with ambient exposure to specific pesticides during pregnancy. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Therefore, pesticide exposure during pregnancy has implications for both mother and child’s health. Although there is a lack of understanding of childhood cancer risk from parental exposure to pesticides via residential areas adjacent to pesticide applications, the study demonstrates parents’ exposure to pesticides increases childhood cancer risk among offspring. Previous studies show women living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates that increase the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities. Considering current and past-use pesticides and chemical contaminants play a role in multiple disease outcomes and the rate of chronic diseases like cancer continues to increase in the U.S., and additional studies find these diseases to be pesticide-induced, advocates urge the public to increase pressure on regulators and lawmakers to enact meaningful measures that eliminate pesticide use and the hazards.

Although the study authors say, “Identifying specific pesticides correlated with cancer is the first step toward banning or replacing them with less harmful options,” Beyond Pesticides advocates that studies like this help to eliminate reliance on pesticides with the adoption of organic practices rather than shift to another pesticide,  creating a treadmill effect. Additionally, several pesticides can work together to increase the severity (synergize) of health complications associated with chemical exposure. Therefore, it is impractical to associate disease risks with the identification of a single chemical pesticide.

The study concludes, “Future studies are needed to also assess agriculturally common pesticide mixtures and mixture effects. The associations we observed between retinoblastoma and residential proximity to applications for specific pesticides have previously raised concern as to their carcinogenic potential contribution to the growing body of knowledge concerning prenatal pesticide exposure and rare childhood cancers of the nervous system. Strategies for reducing exposure in those living near agricultural fields should be considered as a protective health measure.”

Globally, cancer is one of the leading causes of death, with over eight million people succumbing to the disease every year. Notably, the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) predicts a 67.4 percent rise in new cancer cases by 2030. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmental pollution from pesticides—can drive cancer development to avoid exposure and lessen potential cancer risks. Moreover, pediatricians strongly agree that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical development periods. Advocates say this is good advice for the general population, since the effects of pesticide exposure span the entire population. 

Fortunately, buying, growing, and supporting organic land management can reduce 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. Moreover, there are widely available non-pesticidal alternative strategies that allow families and agricultural industry workers to apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage on the Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Studies concerning pesticides and cancer help government officials and the public understand the underlying mechanisms that cause the disease. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent reports on pesticides through the Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the adverse effects of pesticides on human health, see PIDD pages on cancer, including retinoblastoma, birth/fetal defects, and other diseases. Additionally, since pesticides can have multi-generation impacts on our health, you can learn more about the hazards posed to children’s health through Beyond Pesticide’s Pesticide and You Journal article, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.”

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

Source: UCLA, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

(Beyond Pesticides, September 28, 2022) ‘Weedy rice,’ a close relative of cultivated rice that invades rice fields and reduces yields, is rapidly developing herbicide resistance in critical rice growing areas throughout the United States. According to research published this month in Communications Biology, the widespread planting of herbicide-resistant rice, developed through traditional, transitional (non-genetically engineered) breeding techniques, is driving this concerning phenomenon. The findings highlight the risk to agricultural production that relies on crops developed to tolerate repeated applications of synthetic chemicals, regardless of their method of development.

Weedy rice is a form of rice that was “re-wilded,” or “de-domesticated” from cultivated rice, independently evolving multiple times throughout the world. It is highly adapted to grow in areas where cultivated rice is produced, and can result in significant yield loses, as well as a reduction in quality that reduces marketability.

In the early 2000s, the agrichemical industry believed they had found a solution to the weedy rice. Multinational chemical corporation BASF developed a line of rice cultivars, produced through traditional breeding, that conferred resistance to imidazolinone class herbicides. This includes chemicals like imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr, and imazamox, which poses cancer, reproductive, and neurotoxic risks to human health, and is toxic to bees and aquatic organisms. This line of rice, dubbed “Clearfield^TM rice,” now represents more than on third of all rice production in the U.S.

Farmers began noticing hybridization of weedy rice, and subsequent herbicide resistance soon after the herbicide resistant cultivars were introduced, and by 2010 one study found 80% of weedy rice to be resistant.  

With weedy rice causing an estimated $45 million annually in losses, scientists set out to better understand the current state of affairs. In 2018, weedy rice was sampled across five Arkansas rice fields, and its genome was sequenced. Researchers found that nearly all weedy rice is a crop-weed hybrid, yet its genomes shifted to become much more similar to its characteristically weedy forebears.

“The situation is somewhat analogous to human health and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. Widespread use of antibiotics ends up strongly selecting for the rapid evolution of the drug-resistant strains,” said senior study author Kenneth Olsen, PhD, of Washington University St Louis. “With weedy rice, herbicide-resistant weeds were being detected just a couple of years after herbicide-resistant rice was first commercialized.”

This cross-breeding can occur when herbicide sprays do not kill all the weedy rice plants, and they happen to flower concurrent to the cultivated, herbicide-resistant rice crop. “As a de-domesticated weedy relative, weedy rice has always been able to outcross with cultivated rice. Based on our results, this ability to interbreed is what led to most of the herbicide resistance that we see today,” study coauthor Marshall Wedger, PhD said.

Researchers note that the problem farmers are encountering is a result of an agricultural approach that relies on a single, streamlined method of weed control. “Just like in the case of antibiotic resistance, the rise of resistance to this particular herbicide will be met with a new technology that relies on a new herbicide,” Wedger said. “New herbicide-resistant cultivars are already in development, so I expect this process to repeat.”

While the scientific community studies this process, it is not enough for pesticide reform advocates to simply throw their hands in the air as the next version of this overly simplified agricultural practice is perpetuated. The story here is a perfect example of what many opponents of genetic engineering have espoused – although genetic engineering is a risky technology that should be highly regulated, it is the agronomic practices genetic changes propagate that are most concerning. In other words, it is not the fact that crop has been genetically engineered that is the primary issue, but the fact that its use supports a toxic system that increases reliance on highly hazardous pesticides as a regular course of crop production. Whether created from traditional or genetic engineering, such a system is inherently flawed and sisyphean, kicking the can of responsible management down the road for future farmers.

Yet as the chemical industry scrambles to create a new crop or chemical, traditional, effective management techniques are slowly lost. A recent study found that traditional, diversified rice production that integrated animals into the system was able to significantly outperform yields seen in the sort of monoculture rice fields that are reliant on toxic pesticides. And as new chemical solutions are developed with high cost to the environment and society, it becomes increasingly difficult for farmers to shift back to these traditional techniques. This is due to a range of factors, including not only lack of knowledge, but overhead investment in the chemical system and other economic factors, nearby cultivation of herbicide-resistant crops placing any non-resistant crops at risk from pesticide drift, and farmer culture and peer pressure, which in farming communities is often the primary method through which harmful agricultural practices are preserved.

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

Source: Washington University St Louis, Communications Biology,

(Beyond Pesticides, September 27, 2022) Exposure to widely used neonicotinoid insecticides harms amphibians at multiple life stages, adversely affecting their ability to survive in the wild, according to research published in the Journal of Zoology. As long-lived, systemic insecticides, neonicotinoids are consistently found in U.S. waterways,  often above federal safety limits, making these findings particularly dangerous for frogs and other amphibians throughout the country. As troubling data piles up on this class of dangerous insecticides, which are damaging pollinators, birds, deer, aquatic wildlife, and human health, it is left to the public to place pressure on federal regulators and members of Congress to act.

To understand the impact of neonicotinoids on amphibian life stages, researchers conducted a range of  experiments. These were designed to investigate how exposure to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid affected larval survival, sexual development, locomotor skills, and avoidance behavior of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

Larval survival was examined by exposing tadpoles to 10 parts per billion (ppb) of imidacloprid, a rate lower than the lethal concentration expected to kill half of other frogs species in acute toxicity tests. Four treatment protocols were established, adding the variable of natural pond drying to half of the tested frogs to see if there was interplay between chemical exposure and natural stressors in the environment. Of the four groups, two were exposed to imidacloprid, one in a non-drying tank and another in a slowly drying tank, while the other two acted as controls, including one non-drying and one drying tank. Researchers observed larval survival, size at metamorphosis, and sex ratio.

To see how pesticide exposure affected frogs at the terrestrial stage of their life, they were also subject to endurance trials, assessing their ability to jump on a circular track. Frogs exposed to imidacloprid as tadpoles were evaluated, and then exposed to imidacloprid again and tested to see how subsequent environmental exposures impacted overall fitness. Lastly, neonicotinoid exposed frogs were placed in a tank where half of it was sprayed with imidacloprid to see if the frogs attempted to avoid exposure to the chemical.

Moreover, results showed that frogs exposed to imidacloprid in drying ponds experienced the highest mortality rate. Chemical exposure also resulted in an altered sex ratio. Unexposed frogs had 10% more males survive metamorphosis. And over 15% of exposed frogs could not be sexed due to “unclear morphology of the reproductive organs,” while one exposed frog was “clearly hermaphroditic,” implicating imidacloprid as a likely endocrine disruptor.”

Yet interestingly, exposed frogs developed into larger and heavier frogs than those in the unexposed control. However, this story is quite complicated and ultimately does not indicate a benefit from this phenomenon, but instead a likely detriment.

Study coauthor Cassandra Thompson, PhD, explained the situation in an Ohio University release: “Unexpectedly, we found that frogs from Imidacloprid treated tanks were significantly larger than control frogs and prior to exposing them to pesticides in the terrestrial environment, they outperformed control frogs in endurance trials. They may be able to travel further distances and are overall better marathon runners! Unfortunately, they also seem to crash harder,” Dr. Thompson said. “We wanted to know what would happen to a frog if [it] travel[s] across and temporarily settle in areas that have been recently sprayed with Imidacloprid. After 12-hour exposure to imidacloprid, we found reduced endurance capabilities of frogs from all treatments. Additionally, pre-exposure to imidacloprid as a tadpole caused greater declines in locomotor capability when exposed to imidacloprid again as a recently metamorphosed frog. So if you were exposed as a tadpole and were exposed again in the terrestrial stage, you could have reduced endurance capabilities or how far you can move in the environment.””

In the study, researchers indicate that neonicotinoid exposed frogs may have grown larger for a number of reasons, including greater access to food, and/or lack of competition due to the higher mortality rate among exposed tadpoles in their experimental group.

Neither exposed nor unexposed tadpoles appear to recognize or attempt to avoid imidacloprid in the environment. “If these frogs come across one of these drenched soil sites, they not only won’t be able to behaviorally assess and avoid the pesticide, but also risk mortality if they settle there for a short period as their locomotor abilities will be hampered,” said Dr. Thompson.

Frogs and amphibians are not specifically tested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to the registration of a pesticide. At best, they are provided “aquatic life benchmarks” which are unenforceable, arguably arbitrary ranges that EPA indicates can be helpful “in identifying and prioritizing sites and pesticides that may require further investigation.”

While EPA effectively ignores the impacts of pesticides on sensitive amphibians with complex life cycles, independent science has shown a range of harm. Earlier research, published in 2017, found that imidacloprid-exposed wood frogs experience delayed metamorphosis, placing populations at risk of increased mortality. Frogs exposed to neonicotinoids have also been shown to display a weakened response to a predator attack. While unexposed frogs hopped away to avoid researchers mimicking a heron attack, those in contact with imidacloprid did effectively nothing to avoid becoming lunch.

Data indicating a disrupted endocrine system response with imidacloprid exposure is concerning in light of research on how other pesticides affect frog sexual reproduction. Renowned scientist Tyrone Hayes, PhD, of the University of California Berkeley, has published extensive research documenting a range of impacts to various amphibian species from exposure to the herbicide atrazine. Results have shown the ability for atrazine not only to skew sex ratios, but also cause hermaphroditism in male frogs, and in some cases make male frogs completely female with the ability to lay eggs.

Despite a range of concerning independent data on chronic effects that, while not outright killing an animal, increases its likelihood of death in the wild, EPA has done little to rein in the use of the insidious pesticides harming the health of both wildlife and humans. Skewed sex ratios in frogs, birth defects and increased mortality in fawns, immune system damage and lower nutritional value in shrimp and oysters, inability for songbirds to orient during migration, reduced fruit productivity resulting from disoriented and uncoordinated pollinators, and evidence of hormone-dependent breast cancer in humans are all findings in independent, peer-reviewed studies. Yet, EPA discounts or dismisses this data and relies on non-peer reviewed studies produced by the manufacturer of the pesticide in accordance with EPA protocol, but not subject to regular unannounced audits. 

If this information makes you queasy, take a breath, catch your breath, and then take action. Educate friends, family, neighbors, and your broader community about the dangers posed by neonicotinoids and other EPA registered pesticides. Protecting wildlife doesn’t mean reverting to a different pesticide or different way of applying a toxic pesticide, but by changing practices that embrace the pest management abilities of natural systems. Help move your community toward that approach by asking your local leaders to embrace organic land management, and push for changes at the top by urging your federally elected representatives to cosponsor the Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA). By eliminating neonicotinoids, SAPA would not only protect pollinators, but frogs and entire ecosystems currently contaminated with these long-lived insecticides.  

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

Source: Ohio University press release, Journal of Zoology

(Beyond Pesticides, September 23-26, 2022) Comments are due 11:59 pm EDT September 29.  The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through September. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on October 18 and 20 and deliberative hearing October 25-27—concerning how organic food is produced. Sign up to speak at the webinar by September 29. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov by 11:59 pm EDT September 29. Links to the virtual comment webinars and the public meeting will be posted on this webpage in early October.

For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Fall 2022 issues page. In the spirit of “continuous improvement,” we urge you to submit comments (please feel free to use our comments on the KOS page) that contribute to an increasingly improved organic production system. Here are some high priority issues for us:

> The NOSB must take a precautionary approach in view of the unknown. Peroxylactic acid (POLA) is petitioned as an antimicrobial agent to be used in processing meat. While a comprehensive review of the needs for sanitizers and disinfectants in organic processing may reveal a need for additional materials, the existing data concerning POLA is incomplete, depending mainly on patents rather than peer-reviewed research. The petition should not be allowed.

• In its examination of ion exchange, the NOSB has learned that its application results in chemical change. Therefore, organic foods, such as apple juice or sugar, that have been processed with ion exchange are synthetic. Such synthetic “foods” must only be allowed if the NOSB has reviewed them and placed them on the National List.

> Genetic engineering is considered an “excluded method” according to organic regulations. The NOSB should continue to catalog excluded methods, and their use should be excluded at all levels of production—from crop production through inputs in processing.

> Organic Agriculture is Climate-Smart Agriculture. The NOSB draft letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack is an excellent primer on how organic agriculture responds to the climate emergency. However, the letter needs to stress the need for USDA to promote conversion to organic farming. More important to addressing the climate crisis than the questions posed by NOP are questions concerning how USDA programs can assist organic producers and those seeking to convert to organic. The draft letter addresses these as well. It also points out the resiliency of organic agriculture: “Organic is the solution to mitigating climate change and responding to it.”In view of the climate benefits of organic and the incentives inherent in organic marketing, the real question is whether USDA will abandon its promotion of chemical-intensive agriculture supported by the biotech/chemical industry in favor of whole-hearted support for organic agriculture—because despite the astronomical growth in organic consumption in the U.S., conversion to organic agriculture lags behind demand. USDA could and should make adoption of organic/climate-smart practices a prerequisite for receiving the benefits of its programs.

> Biodegradable Biobased (Bioplastic) Mulch Film (BBMF) is under consideration for sunset this year. This is part of a larger issue of the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plastic—and the microplastic particles to which it degrades—on human health and the environment. BBMF should not be relisted. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic production and handling—including packaging.

> The NOSB should use the sunset process to eliminate non-organic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that are allowed to be used as ingredients as part of the 5% of organic processed foods that is not required to be organic. Materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and anything that can be grown can be grown organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” Two materials on §205.606 are up for sunset this year—pectin and casings. Both are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be sunsetted.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 23, 2022) According to a September 15 Environment California press release, California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) data confirm more bad news on neonicotinoid (neonic) contamination: nearly all urban waterways in three counties show the presence of the neonic imidacloprid at levels above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) chronic benchmark for harm to aquatic ecosystems; in five other counties, well over half showed its presence at similar levels. Neonic use is strongly correlated with die-offs and other harms to a variety of bees and pollinators, and to other beneficial organisms. These startling metrics will make the state’s efforts to protect such organisms even more challenging, according to Environment California (EC). See Beyond Pesticides’ Poisoned Waterways report for a deep dive on neonics and their impacts in U.S. rivers, lakes, and streams.

The data represent 405 surface water samples taken between 2000 and 2020; those from urban waterways in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties showed that nearly 92% are contaminated at EPA benchmark violative levels; in Alameda, Contra Costa, Placer, Sacramento, and Santa Clara counties, 58% of waterways showed such levels. Many of the counties with significant contamination are in the central coast and southern regions of the state. Some of this contamination no doubt comes from intensive agricultural use of imidacloprid, causing migration of the compound into waterways, but some may also be from non-agricultural uses — such as flea prevention for pets and building pest control products — common in developed urban areas. According to CDPR, there are 253 pesticide products containing imidacloprid registered for use in California.

Environment California’s webpage hosts an interactive map of sampling sites (across much of the state) that are represented in those imidacloprid metrics. The percentage of samples from each location that contained the compound range from 0 to 91.67. The EC page notes that “very few samples were tested for imidacloprid prior to 2010. . . . [and that] the percentage of samples that detect imidacloprid remains fairly constant over time.” Detailed results can be found in CDPR’s Surface Water Database.

The 2017 Beyond Pesticides report mentioned above cited similarly alarming results in other of the state’s waterways a decade ago: “A 2012 [CDPR] study using 2010 and 2011 surface water monitoring data from three agricultural regions in the state finds imidacloprid in 89% of the samples collected. . . . In the three agricultural regions studied, imidacloprid was detected in 85% of samples in Salinas, 93% in Imperial Valley, and 100% in Santa Maria Valley. These levels exceed currently established chronic aquatic benchmark concentrations.”

Neonicotinoids (such as imidacloprid, acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and dinotefuran) are a family of insecticides that harm the central nervous systems of insects and can paralyze or kill them, as well as have deleterious effects on baby bee brains. They are used as foliar sprays, plant root drenches, and granules to kill or render impotent a variety of pests — particularly sap-feeding insects, such as aphids, and root-feeding grubs. But a very significant vector for these compounds is through seed coatings, often for commodity crops (e.g., corn, soy, cotton). Ironically, years ago EPA released a report concluding that neonic seed coating provides little or no overall benefit in controlling insects or improving yield or quality in soybean production.

No matter how they are deployed, neonics are systemic pesticides, meaning that plants germinate from coated seeds and/or take up the applied compound through their roots, after which it permeates the entire plant. This makes the plant’s pollen, nectar, guttation droplets, and fruits toxic to creatures that feed on them. Non-target organisms, such as birds, bees, butterflies, and bats, are poisoned when they forage among such contaminated plants. In addition to insects’ exposures through foraging for food, it turns out that soil contaminated by neonics can also harm ground-nesting bees.

Neonics can persist over long periods of time in soils and are highly water soluble; thus, they can be transported via rain and/or irrigation systems into groundwater and waterways. They are detected regularly in sampling of the nation’s waterways at concentrations that exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms (as laid out in Beyond Pesticides “deep dive” report). Through a 2017 risk assessment, EPA found that “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.” Imidacloprid, one of the oldest neonics in commercial use, is especially persistent in aquatic environments and does not biodegrade easily; its half-life in water is generally longer than 30 days.

The neonic contamination of waterways — in California and across the nation — is very concerning because these compounds pose serious threats to keystone aquatic organisms, and can result in a complex, cascading impact on ecosystems. Aquatic insects and crustaceans are highly sensitive to neonicotinoids; the mayfly, a keystone species, has been identified as the most sensitive.

As Beyond Pesticides’ Poisoned Waterways report notes, “Impacts on aquatic invertebrates can have cascading effects on food webs and healthy ecosystem function. [Even] low-level, sublethal exposures can result in decreases in species abundance, altered predator-prey relationships, [and] reduced water filtration and nutrient cycling.” In addition, it points out that current federal aquatic life benchmarks for neonics may underestimate the risks: standard test organisms used by EPA to establish these benchmarks are, by orders of magnitude, more tolerant of neonicotinoid exposure than other vulnerable species.

Beyond impacts on aquatic life, terrestrial insects, pollinators, birds, and bats, neonics — touted by the agrochemical industry as safe for mammals — nevertheless are associated with a host of human health issues, including reproductive and endocrine system harms; possible renal, hepatic, developmental, and neurological damage; and possibly, indirect carcinogenic impacts related to the endocrine system.

In response to this new CDPR dataset, Environment America’s Conservation Program Director Steve Blackledge commented, “Every Californian knows the importance of having access to safe, clean water. Neonics like imidacloprid are causing harm not only to our pollinators and birds on land but also to our aquatic wildlife. Neonics are also being found in our bodies and despite being framed as ‘mammal-safe,’ recent research suggests that neonic exposures may increase the risk of developmental and neurological harms.”

EPA has been extremely negligent in taking protective action against the neonic family of insecticides. Indeed, in March 2022, Beyond Pesticides covered its draft decisions on the registration review of five neonics: imidacloprid, dinotefuran, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and acetamiprid. We wrote then, “Despite the agency’s own findings of evidence of serious threats to pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife, it issued interim decisions on these neonics . . . that disregard the science on the pesticides’ impacts. EPA appears to be prepared to finalize these registrations. . . . [T]his would, barring further action, extend the use of these harmful compounds for 15 years.” The schedule for the review processes for these compounds can be found here.

California legislators have passed a “Save the Bees Bill,” Assembly Bill 2146, which currently awaits the governor’s signature. The bill aims to end nonagricultural uses of neonics on lawns, golf courses, and home gardens, beginning in 2024. News outlet KSBW8 has opined that if signed, the enacted law “could significantly impact the Central Coast and its agriculture.” No doubt this would also be true for other regions, watersheds, and waterways in the state.

Environment California is encouraging Governor Gavin Newsom to sign the bill ASAP. Said the organization’s state director, Laura Deehan, “We want to make California the next state, and the largest, to take this important step. The bill already passed through the Legislature, so we’re now urging Gov. Newsom to sign the bill into law. We must prioritize the preservation of our pollinators over the short-term convenience of massive pesticide use.”

Beyond Pesticide agrees that Governor Newsom should sign this bill, which would enact some protections in the state against the ravages of neonic use. We encourage readers who live in California to contact the governor to advocate for his signature: 916.445.2841 or via the state website. Other states, localities, and entities have taken action to restrict uses of this class of pesticides, including Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Portland, Oregon, and Emory University. At the federal level it is imperative that EPA create much stronger regulation of neonics — a ban being the most protective of organisms, ecosystems, public health, and water resources.

Source: https://environmentamerica.org/california/media-center/pesticide-linked-to-bee-die-offs-found-in-californias-urban-waterways/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 22, 2022) A study published in the International Journal of English, Literature, and Social Science (IJELS) finds an association between pesticide exposure and anemia among female farmers in Indonesia. Anemia is an autoimmune blood disorder negatively affecting the number of red blood cells (RBCs) and subsequent oxygen distribution via available hemoglobin proteins in RBCs. Types of anemia include iron deficiency, pernicious (lack of vitamin B-12 absorption), aplastic (lack of RBC production), and hemolytic (RBC destruction). Although risk factors for anemia consist of age, genetics, lifestyle, and gender, environmental factors such as pesticide use and exposure contribute to disorder development. Pesticides can interfere with cells in the body, causing blood profile abnormalities that affect blood cell formation and immune system function.

Anemia disproportionately impacts women and children across the globe, prevalent in over half a billion women. The disorder was more prevalent among pregnant individuals because of blood loss and iron deficiency, causing adverse reproductive outcomes among children. These outcomes include preterm delivery, low birth weight, and decreased iron stores, impairing cognitive and motor development. Considering research already demonstrates many chemicals (e.g., pesticides, heavy metals) can enter the bloodstream through ingestion, absorption through the eyes and skin, or inhalation, studies like this highlight the importance of understanding how chemical accumulation in the body can impact long-term health and disease prognosis. The study notes, “The contribution of this study is to increase public understanding that exposure to contaminants in the environment, especially pesticides, can worsen health conditions including the incidence of anemia. So that the community can make efforts to prevent the incidence of anemia, especially related to exposure to pesticides.”

While many studies demonstrate pesticide use and exposure negatively affect farmworkers’ and children’s health, few examine the correlation between pesticide exposure and blood disorder incidents among women farmers. Using a cross-sectional design, a type of observational analysis, researchers measured the exposure and health outcomes of 50 women farmers in Bandungan Sub-District, Semarang District, Indonesia. The results demonstrate an association between the length of pesticide spraying, the number of pesticides, and the type of pesticides with anemia in women farmer participants.

Toxic compounds can transfer from the blood to other organs and vice versa. Over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts, including pesticides, are chemicals commonly present in human blood and urine samples and can increase adverse health risks when crossing the brain barrier. Several studies find pesticide compounds in a mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Furthermore, a 2021 study finds that pregnant women already have over 100 detectable chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned persistent organic pollutants (POPs). However, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are from unidentified sources, lack adequate information, or were not previously detectable in humans. Blood diseases and disorders can also represent precursors for other severe chronic diseases like cancer. For instance, women with chronic anemia are at greater risk for certain cancers and other serious illnesses. Moreover, persistent symptoms from anemia can increase the risk for fatigue, heart palpitations, headaches, mood changes, infertility, poor circulation, and heart failure in severe cases.

This study is one of the few to identify an association between pesticides and anemia development. Blood tests analyzed the effects pesticide use over three days has on health indicators. Pesticide exposure significantly affected the percentage of monocytes and red blood cells, hemoglobin, average blood cell volume, the average concentration of red blood cell hemoglobin, red blood cell distribution, platelet count, and width of platelet distribution. Although the study shows that effects on health indicators decreased after three days, this may not be the case for farmworkers consistently exposed to pesticides outside of their occupation.

In this study, after exposure to various organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, and lindane) and organophosphate pesticides, individuals report greater incidents of aplastic anemia. However, studies find long-term exposure to permethrin and legacy organochlorine pesticides increase the risk of developing monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), a blood disease that likely precedes multiple myeloma (MM)—a type of blood cancer. Therefore, the co-occurring risk of blood diseases can result in more severe health consequences and even death. 

It is vital to understand how exposure to environmental pollutants like pesticides can increase chronic disease risk, especially if these diseases can progress to more severe health consequences. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information, see PIDD pages on body burdens, immune system disorders, sexual and reproductive dysfunction, and cancer, among others.

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is by buying, growing, and supporting organic. Numerous studies find that pesticide metabolite levels in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, and farmers can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. Furthermore, learn more about farmworker protection by visiting Beyond Pesticide’s Agricultural Justice page.

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

Source: International Journal of English, Literature and Social Science (IJELS)

(Beyond Pesticides, September 21, 2022) Strawberry plants pollinated by wild bees exposed to neonicotinoid insecticides produce smaller berries than those pollinated by unexposed bees, finds research published in the journal PLOS One. The findings are yet another piece of evidence pointing to the need for major reforms in the way pesticides are evaluated and pollinators are protected in the United States. As decades of evidence have piled up on the dangers posed by long-lived, systemic, neonicotinoid insecticides, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done little to address the damage to pollinator populations, while needed legislation, the Saving America’s Pollinators Act, has languished in Congress without a hearing or a vote, despite having over 75 cosponsors.

This new study describes a novel consideration for how neonicotinoids may harm pollinators and impact the food supply. “Previous studies have shown that clothianidin affects wild bees negatively in terms of foraging speed, development and reproduction. Our results indicate that it can also impair the bees’ ability to pollinate strawberry flowers,” says study coauthor Lina Herbertsson, PhD.

Scientists established 12 outdoor cages each with 10 strawberry plants and 11 canola plants. For half of the cages, the canola plants were grown with seeds coated in the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the synthetic pyrethroid cyfluthrin. A small population (5 male, 4 female) of the generalist foraging mason bee Osmia bicornis was permitted to forage within each cage. While cyfluthrin poses a range of risks to pollinators and may run off into water supplies, it is not systemic. As a result, despite its presence as a seed coating, it does not make its way into the pollen and nectar that bees forage, and researchers evaluated the bees under the expectation they would only be exposed to clothianidin.

Observations began by following a female bee from nest to forage and back, but this became too time consuming. As a result, the approach was shifted to observations on the time it took the first female pollinator out of the nest to visit 10 different flowers. Researchers also specifically observed strawberry plant visitation over the course of two minute intervals, which included 34 different sessions over the course of 5 days. At the end of the experiment, strawberries were harvested when completely red and weighed. Canola plants were removed and tested to confirm the presence of clothianidin.

Data analysis shows no significant difference in foraging during the first stage of the experiment, but this changed when observations focused on time to forage 10 flowers. Bees feeding on canola that had been seed-treated with neonicotinoids foraged 10% slower than those in the unexposed canola cages. There were also outliers where exposed bees took nearly triple the average time to visit 10 flowers.

In addition to slowing the bees rate of forage, strawberry harvests were recorded to be between 8 and 13% lower in cages were bees foraged on neonicotinoid exposed canola. “We studied bees that ingested clothianidin, a pesticide that was previously used in rapeseed to control flea beetles. Our study indicates that the substance made the bees slower and impaired their ability to pollinate the strawberry flowers,” said Dr. Herbertsson.

Scientists also found that as females constructed nests, more than one third of those in exposed cages did not seal their nest hole with mud, a common practice for the species. All but one nest in the control cages performed this action.

Impaired pollination associated with neonicotinoid exposure has been recorded in past research, adding weight to the study results. A 2015 paper in Nature found that bumblebees exposed to thiamethoxam visited apples less often and collected less pollen when they did. Critically, this resulted in apples with fewer seeds. Likewise, research published in 2016 in the journal Functional Ecology found that neonicotinoid exposure altered bumblebee foraging behavior of wild plants, affecting their ability to learn how to extract nectar and pollen, and causing them to take longer to do so.  

While decreases in foraging efficiency may not seem significant at first glace, extrapolating these data alongside real-world observations brings the problem into sharp contrast. In 2020, a study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B found that wild pollinator declines in the U.S. are already limiting crop production. This problem is quantifiable – with researchers finding the value of wild pollination services at $1.5 billion annually, with all pollinator-dependent crops totaling $50 billion each year. At the global scale, production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion. Even these numbers mask the true extent of how precarious a world with fewer, and less efficient pollinators would be. According to research published in PLOS One in 2015, such a world would be subject to rampant malnutrition. As lack of pollination reduces crop yields, access healthy crops like strawberries, apples, and others is likely to become accessible only to the wealthiest individuals in a given region.

We can avoid these worst case scenarios by making sure our leaders take this research seriously, and act upon these real and present risks. It is unacceptable for the U.S. to be a straggler on this issue, failing to meaningfully restrict neonicotinoids while the European Union eliminated them in 2018. As U.S. regulators and politicians fret over short-term impacts to farmers from the loss of a chemical tool, we are piece by piece losing our long-term ability to produce healthy, nutritious food. The Saving America’s Pollinators Act would address the pollinator crisis by eliminating neonicotinoids and establishing a board of experts without chemical industry influence to review pesticides for their impacts to pollinator health or habitat. Despite being introduced each year now for roughly a decade, and consistently attracting dozens of co-sponsors, members of the House Agriculture committee have still not even given the legislation a proper hearing. Help build momentum for this bill in Congress by urging your Representative to take action before it is too late.

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

Source: Lund University press release, PLOS One

(Beyond Pesticides, September 20, 2022) A federal court this month declared that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) acted unlawfully in allowing food retailers to label genetically engineered (GE, or GMO) foods with only a “QR” code. The decision, made by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, comes as a result of a lawsuit against USDA by a coalition of nonprofits led by Center for Food Safety, along with organic retailers Natural Grocers and Puget Consumers Co-op. “This is a win for the American family. They can now make fully informed shopping decisions instead of being forced to use detective work to understand what food labels are hiding,” said Alan Lewis, Vice President for Advocacy and Governmental Affairs at Natural Grocers. “The public’s rejection of hidden GMOs has been weighed by the Court to be greater than the agrochemical industry’s desire to hide GMOs behind incomprehensible bureaucratic rules.”

In 2016, Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standards Act, which established federal standards around labeling GE foods. That bill, dubbed by GE transparency advocates as the DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act, was the result of a deal between U.S. Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MO) and Pat Roberts (R-KS), and widely seen as an effort to block a strong GE labeling law passed by the state of Vermont as part of a wave of grassroots advocacy around the issue. Under the new law, all state-level GE labeling efforts became preempted (prohibited) by federal law, a weak definition of “biotechnology” provided several loopholes, and food retailers were to be given a choice of labeling options to be determined by USDA.

Congress mandated that USDA study the challenges associated with using electronic or digital “QR” code links. Based on the study, the USDA Secretary was to determine whether consumers would have sufficient access to information about the presence of GE materials in one’s food. If not, the Secretary was required to consult with retailers and provide additional disclosure options.

USDA refused to release the results of this study when it was completed. It took a 2017 lawsuit from Center for Food Safety to force the department’s hand, resulting in a public release less than two weeks after the legal challenge was launched. The study found that low-income, rural, and elderly Americans were most likely to encounter technological challenges in receiving information from a QR code. Reasons include lack of equipment like a smartphone, unreliable internet connections, and difficulty using QR technology. In general, it found Americans of all ages and backgrounds to be unfamiliar with QR codes.

The USDA study did find that over half of U.S. adults care and want to know whether their food is genetically engineered, a figure that cut across region, age, gender, and income. Yet USDA’s takeaway was not to embrace transparency, but instead the discriminatory approach of QR codes that keeps low-income, rural, and elderly Americans in the dark. Further, instead of utilizing the term genetically engineered or genetically modified organisms, names most Americans are familiar with, the department opted to have these products labeled as “bioengineered.” In its original proposal, USDA went as far as to suggest the use of a happy, smiling sun that would read either “bioengineered” or “may be bioengineered food.”

USDA significantly curtailed foods subject to the disclosure requirement, allowing a range of loopholes for manufacturers to avoid labeling foods that may in fact contain GE ingredients. For instance, foods that list either meat, poultry, eggs, broth, stock or water as the first ingredient are not required to be labeled, even if other ingredients in the product are GE. Even more egregiously, food products containing “refined” GE ingredients (such as oil from GE soybeans, or candy bars with high fructose corn syrup from GE corn) do not require disclosure as long as the refining process is “validated” by USDA.

CFS’s lawsuit challenged USDA on all of these aspects. “Americans deserve nothing less than clear on-package labeling, the way food has always been labeled,” said CFS legal director George Kimbrell. “Allowing companies to hide genetically engineered ingredients behind a website or QR code is discriminatory and unworkable.”

The court victory requires USDA to revise portions of its rules implementing GE disclosure, removing the option to use QR codes on the package, and adding an additional disclosure option that is accessible to all Americans. However, the court is continuing to permit USDA to use the unfamiliar term “bioengineered.” It also took no action on USDA’s loopholes for “highly refined” products. CFS indicates it is not ruling out an appeal on those unaddressed issues.

“We are very gratified that the District Court has acknowledged the flawed nature of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard and has removed at least one of the very egregious aspects of it from the labeling standard,” said Mark Squire, co-owner and manager of Good Earth Natural Foods. “We will continue to fight for complete honesty and transparency in food labeling.”

Lax regulations are permitting more and more GE foods in the aisles of American supermarkets. Just recently, USDA approved a GE purple tomato, an unnecessary invention that adds pigments widely found in other fruits and vegetables. Yet most concerning among GE crops are those developed to withstand repeated spraying with highly hazardous pesticides. Not only are these crops likely to contain higher levels of toxic chemicals that threaten public health, but they also result in indirect damage to wildlife, water quality, and the wider environment.

Beyond Pesticides has long maintained that consumers should be able to discern whether the products they purchase are putting themselves or the local community where the crops were grown at risk. For more information on GE agriculture and the decades long fight for GE labeling transparency, see Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering program page.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety press release

(Beyond Pesticides, September 19, 2022) Schools have been deeply concerned about providing safety from COVID-19, but often overlook that the toxic pesticides to which students, teachers, and other staff may be exposed in going back to school threaten their health, both short- and long-term. Beyond Pesticides identifies the health hazards that pesticides pose to the nervous, immune, and respiratory systems, as well as brain function, and their association with cancer and other chronic effects. At the same time, practical, and cost-effective pest management practices are available that do not utilize toxic pesticides (including disinfectants).

Tell your Governor to ensure that children, teachers, and staff in all schools throughout your state are protected from toxic chemicals.

Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure. In the food they eat and the air they breathe, children take in greater amounts of pesticides (relative to their body weight) than adults, and their developing organ systems are typically more sensitive to toxic exposures. Children also come into closer contact with chemicals than adults, as a result of crawling behavior and hand to mouth contact.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a landmark report on children and pesticide use, wrote, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity. Acute poisoning risks are clear, and understanding of chronic health implications from both acute and chronic exposure is emerging. Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems.” Infants and toddlers in childcare are at risk of developmental delays.

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. See the scientific references on why Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.

As the science on the dangers that pesticides pose to public health continue to mount, school administrators, staff, and parents are working to change practices for the better. More and more school buildings and grounds are employing ecological pest management principles that focus on prevention, rather than the regular use of toxic pesticides.

Custodial staff and pest managers can ManageSafe by following simple steps. These include properly identifying pests, setting action or damage thresholds, monitoring and recordkeeping, and the use of structural, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls before using even least-toxic pesticides or organic compatible products. These principles can be applied to both indoor and outdoor environments, with ecological and organic methods.

In the indoor environment, an ecological pest management approach focuses on fostering a culture of pest prevention among both students and staff. It’s nothing special – just emphasize building good habits, such as cleaning up after eating, storing food in sealed containers, not leaving food or water out, and other methods that eliminate a pest’s access to food, water, or shelter.

In the outdoor environment, the organic principles apply with a focus is fostering healthy soils. School groundskeepers and landscapers play a pivotal role in this process. Rather than reaching for a chemical when a weed appears, the organic approach cultivates healthy soil biology through practices that work with, rather than against nature. We can help improve turfgrass resilience to pest and weed intrusions by caring for building the soil biological life and organic matter. Combine the use of natural soil supplements with cultural practices like mowing high, aeration, and overseeding. All of this leads to long-term cost savings from eliminating pesticides and fertilizers that are replaced by natural cycling of nutrients, and reduced watering because of increased soil tilth and water retention. In sum, these practices will save schools money and prevent children’s exposure to toxic pesticides while they focus on learning.

Tell your Governor to ensure that children, teachers, and staff in all schools throughout your state are protected from toxic chemicals.

Letter to Governor:

I am writing to ask you to ensure that our children are safe from toxic pesticides as they go back to school. Our schools have been deeply concerned about providing safety from COVID-19. Let’s not forget the toxic pesticides to which students, teachers, and other staff may be exposed. Please ask the Superintendent of Schools and your Commissioner of Education to eliminate pesticides from our schools.

Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure. In the food they eat and the air they breathe, children take in greater amounts of pesticides (relative to their body weight) than adults, and their developing organ systems are typically more sensitive to toxic exposures. Children also come into closer contact with chemicals than adults, as a result of crawling behavior and hand to mouth contact.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a landmark report on children and pesticide use, wrote, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity. Acute poisoning risks are clear, and understanding of chronic health implications from both acute and chronic exposure is emerging. Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems.”  

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.

As the science on the dangers that pesticides pose to public health continue to mount, school administrators, staff, and parents are working to change practices for the better. More and more school buildings and grounds are employing ecological pest management principles that focus on prevention, rather than the regular use of toxic pesticides.

Custodial staff and pest managers can ManageSafe by following simple steps. These include properly identifying pests, setting action or damage thresholds, monitoring and recordkeeping, and the use of structural, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls before using even least-toxic pesticides or organic compatible products. These principles can be applied to both indoor and outdoor environments, with ecological and organic methods.

In the indoor environment, an ecological pest management approach focuses on fostering a culture of pest prevention among both students and staff. It’s nothing special – just emphasize building good habits, such as cleaning up after eating, storing food in sealed containers, not leaving food or water out, and other methods that eliminate a pest’s access to food, water, or shelter.

In the outdoor environment, the organic principles apply with a focus is fostering healthy soils. School groundskeepers and landscapers play a pivotal role in this process. Rather than reaching for a chemical when a weed appears, the organic approach cultivates healthy soil biology through practices that work with, rather than against nature. We can help improve turfgrass resilience to pest and weed intrusions by caring for building the soil biological life and organic matter. Combine the use of natural soil supplements with cultural practices like mowing high, aeration, and overseeding. All of this leads to long-term cost savings from eliminating pesticides and fertilizers that are replaced by natural cycling of nutrients, and reduced watering because of increased soil tilth and water retention. In sum, these practices will save schools money and prevent children’s exposure to toxic pesticides while they focus on learning.

Please tell the state school superintendent to eliminate pesticides. Further information is available at: https://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/children-and-schools/hazards-of-pesticides.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 16, 2022) A report issued on September 7 analyzes the U.S. regulatory structure that is supposed to protect agricultural workers from the harms of pesticide use. Its conclusion? The current, “complex system of enforcement . . . lacks the capacity to effectively protect farmworkers. . . . [and] the cooperative agreement[s] between federal and state agencies makes it nearly impossible to ensure implementation of the federal Worker Protection Standard.” The report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, was developed by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice. Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of farmworker exposure to pesticides and resultant harms began in the late 1970s; it continues today, most recently with attention to incidence of kidney damage, systemic racism in the farmworker policies of EPA (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), and extra risks endured by farmworkers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Exposed and At Risk is issued as part of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems (CAFS) Food System Workers Law and Policy Project. Previously, CAFS issued a report in conjunction with the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, titled, Essentially Unprotected: A Focus on Farmworker Health Laws and Policies Addressing Pesticide Exposure and Heat-Related Illness. The report authors, in addition to executing extensive other research, conducted interviews and gathered “stories from the fields” in Washington, Illinois, Florida, and California.

Pesticide risks to agricultural workers (and pesticide applicators) are significant. The farming sector uses roughly 90% of the one billion pounds of various pesticides deployed annually in the U.S. (across all sectors). Thus, agricultural workers are regularly exposed, at atypically high rates, to chemicals that can pose considerable safety and health risks to humans (in addition to their impacts on the environment, non-human organisms, and ecosystems broadly). These risks to farmworkers and pesticide applicators are made worse, according to the report, by inadequate training in handling pesticides, and subsequent improper handling and application “in the farm field” or on other kinds of sites, as well as by bureaucratic, regulatory, and policy issues, as detailed below.

The federal Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) is the premier regulation, authorized under a provision of FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), for protection of farmworkers and pesticide handlers from “pesticide poisonings and injuries.” Although the WPS is a federal regulation, it is largely administered by states through “cooperative agreements” — negotiated with states by EPA’s 10 regional offices — that allow states to enact enforce federal pesticide protections (e.g., via WPS and FIFRA). Farmworkers are uniquely not generally covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The chief goal of these cooperative agreements is to enforce federal law and tailor the enforcement to regional/state needs. Typically, a state will task a lead agency, such as a department of agriculture, with primary enforcement responsibility (more on this below). These state systems (of enforcement) vary widely, exacerbating the risks to agricultural workers, causing disproportionate risks from one state to the next, and in some cases, reflecting what the report calls, “the persistent realities of systemic racism and the routine dehumanization of noncitizen workers.” For more about pesticides and structural racism, read Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 reporting, Disproportionate Pesticide Harm Is Racial Injustice / Documenting Victimization: Structural Racism.

The CAFS report outlines the parameters of how this all works: “As with many environmental laws in the United States, the federal government sets broad national standards and works cooperatively with states to enforce them. In addition, states may enact laws regarding the use of pesticides, with the caveat that FIFRA expressly preempts states from creating supplemental or different labeling requirements. However, FIFRA provides only the floor of protection for the issues states are not preempted from regulating. This means, for example, that states can prohibit use of a pesticide that EPA would otherwise allow, but it cannot allow use of a pesticide that is prohibited by EPA.”

Beyond Pesticides has written that the original, 1974 WPS “offered virtually no occupational safety standards for workers being exposed to highly toxic pesticides.” Indeed, in 1983, EPA finally and “officially” found it inadequate to offer adequate protections, but it was not until 1992 that the agency updated the regulation. (Read about the role Beyond Pesticides played in the 1983 assessment here.) We wrote: “Those 1992 updates to the WPS were intended to eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides, mitigate exposures that occur, and inform employees about the hazards of pesticides. Despite these intentions, the updated WPS still did not adequately protect farmworkers.”

In 2015, the Obama EPA again updated the WPS, this time strengthening the regulation via, for example, more training for handlers, and a minimum age at which children would be allowed to work around pesticides. Then, the Trump administration weakened the standard, including reducing protections via Application Exclusion Zones (AEZs, or buffer zones), which were to have gone into effect in late 2020. In early 2021, the federal GAO (Government Accountability Office) issued a report asserting that EPA was failing to administer the 2015 changes to WPS effectively.

In early 2021, Beyond Pesticides noted that the protection of farmworkers from the threats of pesticide exposures had been the subject of multiple recent developments and actions, including a finalized rollback of aspects of EPA’s pesticide Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) rules; a temporary stay on implementation of those rule changes by SDNY; the recommendations from GAO mentioned above; and advocacy by Beyond Pesticides and others, including Farmworker Justice and Earthjustice. Beyond Pesticides has called attention to the inadequate state of farmworker protections from pesticides, and advocated for robust regulation to ensure the health of these essential workers, including extra protections during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Another of those developments was 2020’s litigation against EPA, by a five-state coalition led by New York’s Attorney General Letitia James, for the agency’s retrograde October 2020 rule on AEZs. The suit argued that “EPA violated federal law when it adopted a regulation that allows pesticide spraying to continue even if farmworkers or other persons are within the area immediately surrounding the spraying equipment, if that area is outside the farm’s boundaries.” Plaintiffs added that the AEZ regulation “puts many more people at significant risk of dangerous exposures to pesticides,” and that EPA was “ignoring its obligation to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse effects of this policy change on minority and low-income populations.”

Ms. James commented, at the time of the announcement, that pesticides are “extremely dangerous to the health of farming communities. . . . Trump’s EPA knowingly increased the risk that farmworkers, their families, and others will be exposed to these dangerous chemicals. Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, farming communities have been our front-line workers, underpinning our economy and ensuring we have enough food on our tables. To further endanger their health and safety is as unconscionable as it is illegal.”

An important aspect of the CAFS report’s findings is that, even with regulations and laws for farmworker protection in place — such as the federal WPS — enforcement of these is weak. In a fairly clear “fox and henhouse” example, the report notes that, often, the very state agencies (such as agriculture departments) that are charged with enforcement of federal and state pesticide laws are also the entities whose tasks include promotion of the state’s agriculture sector and its economic interests. Thus, the report opines that “the agencies charged with pesticide regulation at the state and federal level may not be the best suited for this [enforcement] role. Further, because the current enforcement system lacks capacity to inspect all farms, the likelihood of catching violators is low, resulting in frequent violations by growers.”

The report names multiple problems the research has unearthed in its section titled, “Effect of our Current Structure of Pesticide Regulation Enforcement” (p. 22):

• inappropriate agencies take the lead on pesticide regulation enforcement at the federal and state levels
• different agencies sharing some degree of regulatory jurisdiction can create confusion
• substantial discrepancies between data reported by EPA and the states make it difficult to understand the performance of pesticide regulation enforcement programs
• EPA rarely exercises its authority to conduct inspections
• EPA has failed to issue standard expectations for state enforcement programs
• EPA lacks meaningful recourse to discipline states for poor enforcement
• states lack sufficient mandatory reporting requirements
• the rate of state inspections is low and many inspections are substandard
• nationally, the rate of violations resulting from inspections is high while the rate of enforcement actions taken in response to violations is low
• penalties for violations are disproportionately low
• farmworker victims of WPS violations have limited individual recourse for enforcement and no opportunities to receive support under FIFRA

Exposed and At Risk notes that, not only is there often inadequate state agency response to reported worker protection violations, but also, that farmworkers themselves are frequently reluctant to report violations of such regulations because of poor access to resources and/or fear of retaliation or even deportation. According to a press release from Vermont Law and Graduate School, the report “identifies gaps in pesticide safety enforcement and proposes a set of policy recommendations that were formulated with the lived experience of farmworkers in mind,” and focuses on recommendations to address structural flaws in the enforcement system.

The reports introduces its recommendations with this: “To ensure that [farmworkers] receive sufficient health and safety protection, significant social, cultural, and political conditions must be addressed. At a minimum, the regulatory system that has the potential to protect them should not be working against them. To start, law and policymakers must address the structural flaws in pesticide law enforcement. The following recommendations reflect steps that can be taken to further this objective.” The report goes on to make recommendations to Congress, to EPA, and to states:

1. Congress should:

• restore partial jurisdiction over the regulation of pesticide-related occupational hazards to OSHA (the federal Occupational, Safety and Health Administration) to ensure better coordination between OSHA and EPA
• consider amending FIFRA to model other environmental statutes administered by EPA
• grant EPA greater authority to respond to states failing to meet enforcement goals, including the authority to impose sanctions related to the agriculture industry
• appropriate more funds to NIOSH’s SENSOR program to support states in consistently reporting data on acute pesticide-related illness and to expand the number of states in the program

2. EPA should:

• incorporate more “pick-list” program areas (see p. 13 of the report) into its required program area list, especially those areas that affect human health and safety, such as spray drift and emerging public health pesticide issues
• through its rulemaking process, engage stakeholders in order to understand what factors are most important in assessing compliance with WPS (e.g., number of exposures, quality of response to exposures, etc.), and establish clear metrics through which it can measure that compliance
• issue mandatory and universal standards for inspections and responses to violations, at least for federally funded enforcement activities
• mandate “whole of program” annual reporting as a condition of receiving federal grants
• require that state lead agencies for pesticide regulation enforcement be departments of labor, departments dedicated to pesticide regulation, or another department whose main priority is human health and safety
• Also, regional EPA offices should conduct more inspections as part of their routine oversight duties; EPA should consider a public-private partnership to fulfill this obligation.

3. States should:

• streamline their administration of pesticide regulations
• commit to reducing the influence of industry over pesticide regulation
• implement a neighbor notification system to reduce the incidence of exposure caused by pesticide drift, and receive federal assistance to do so
• implement mandatory reporting requirements, both for pesticide use and for incidents of pesticide exposure
• conduct more routine inspections without providing advance notice to growers

Additional recommendations are (1) state legislatures should grant state departments of health more authority to conduct inspections and investigations of suspected pesticide exposure incidents, independent of the state’s designated lead agency; and (2) penalties for violations of the WPS (or state-equivalent regulations) should be increased to reflect the grave harm caused to human health and safety.

This report responds to the somewhat chaotic state of enforcement of pesticide regulations across the country. Its recommendations would likely be helpful in addressing the risks experienced by farmworkers and others vocationally exposed to pesticides. (See Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Agricultural Justice.)

That said, Beyond Pesticides maintains that a far better use of the energy, time, and expense that goes into evaluating and regulating pesticides, and enforcing rules about them, would be to undertake the broad and necessary transition away from toxic synthetic pesticide use and to employment of organic regenerative agricultural systems. Organic practices avoid industrial agriculture’s reliance on these chemical pesticide inputs (and on harmful synthetic fertilizers). They have been proven to be successful, cost-effective, and beneficial for soil health, the environment, the food supply, public health, biodiversity, climate, and natural resources.

The removal of toxic pesticides from agriculture through adoption of these practices would also be a huge boon for farmworkers, on whose work we all depend for sustenance, and who deserve a work environment free of pesticide risks and harms. To these ends, please join Beyond Pesticides, participate for the balance of our 2022 National Forum Series on Health, Biodiversity, and Climate, and/or reach out to us about pesticide concerns for your own community.

Sources: https://www.vermontlaw.edu/news-and-events/newsroom/press-release/new-report-exposes-significant-gaps-in-pesticide-safety and https://www.vermontlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2022-09/Exposed-and-At-Risk.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 15, 2022) A review published in Scientific African finds pesticide exposure contributes to the increase in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Tanzania, reflecting implications for global health. There are four main NCDs, including cardiovascular diseases, cancers, respiratory diseases, and endocrine-disrupting diseases like diabetes. These diseases have no bacterial, viral, or fungal causes, but are chronic diseases with risk factors like genetics, tobacco/alcohol use, physical activity, and diet, thus lacking transmission between people. However, research is now investigating the role environmental factors play in NCD risks, such as outdoor and indoor air pollution, exposure to chemicals, radiation, and occupation. Regardless of whether working together or separately, these risk factors contribute to NCDs and subsequent health conditions. Non-communicable diseases are on the rise, and the World Health Organization (WHO) classifies non-communicable diseases as the number one cause of death globally, affecting 41 million individuals. Moreover, WHO estimates NCD death rates to increase by 17 percent in the next decade, significantly surpassing deaths from communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional diseases combined. Therefore, the report notes, “This review is informative to the policy, practices, and intervention towards the existing situation of pesticides in Tanzania. In addition, it calls for further investigation of the absence of data on pesticide exposure and NCDs.”

The review highlights existing information on pesticide exposure, health effects, and handling/management for current pesticide regulations in Tanzania. From 2017 to 2018, the authors observed an increase in pesticide imports, up to 4.5 million liters, and the registration of 1,114 pesticides. Ecological evaluations demonstrate the pervasiveness of pesticide residues in food, water, and soil resources, identifying intolerable contamination levels. Moreover, residents of Tanzania lack proper awareness of the harms of pesticide exposure among the population. Regardless of existing pesticide regulations in Tanzania, mismanagement of pesticides has led to higher exposure. The report also identifies occupational threats to public health as many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) greatly depend on agriculture and take insufficient precautions during pesticide preparation and application to fields. Thus, the report finds an association between pesticide NCDs in Tanzania. 

There are a wide range of diseases and ecological effects linked to pesticides. Of the 40 most commonly used lawn and landscape pesticides in the U.S., 26 are possible or known carcinogens, 24 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system, 29 have links to reproductive and sexual dysfunction, 21 have associations with birth abnormalities, 24 are neurotoxic, 32 can cause kidney or liver damage, and 33 are sensitizers or irritants. Regarding adverse environmental effects, 21 are detectable in groundwater, 24 can leach into drinking water sources, 39 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 33 are toxic to bees, 18 are toxic to mammals, and 28 are toxic to birds. Thus, pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, remaining in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. However, the widespread and direct exposure from applications or indirect exposure from residues poses a threat to human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. A mother’s exposure to environmental toxicants while pregnant may increase the likelihood of developing brain abnormalities as most developmental disabilities begin before birth. Moreover, individuals living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates that increase the risk of birth defects, neurological disorders, respiratory diseases, and cancers. 

These results are significant, not only as a reflection of chemical exposure effects throughout developing/LMICs, but in small regions within developed countries. Pesticide uses (from farming, occupation, pollution) in many low-middle income regions are much higher than wealthier regions. With elevated exposure in low- and middle-income communities, there is a disproportionate risk to occupational workers and individuals in these communities. The report concludes, “The findings from this review identify a need to investigate the contribution of pesticide exposure to the increased rates of NCDs and other related co-morbidities in Tanzania. Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture, through TPRI in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and research institutions, should conduct an epidemiological study to investigate the extent of pesticide effects on human health in the country.”

Numerous studies indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water, and researchers caution that humans are likely to encounter hundreds to thousands of these chemicals. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse effects on human health (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.) and wildlife and biodiversity. Therefore, understanding the risk that pesticide exposure plays in disease development is essential to consider since these chemicals can cause disproportionate health effects on individuals, especially in LMICs. With numerous global diseases associated with pesticide exposure, including NCDs, eliminating toxic pesticide use is crucial for safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities. In response to current findings, policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations that phase out hazardous chemical use. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. Learn more about how pesticides can adversely affect human and environmental health by reading Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article, “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is by buying, growing, and supporting organic. Numerous studies find that pesticide metabolite levels in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and agro-industry workers can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Scientific African

(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2022) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is confirming that PFAS (per and polyfluorinated alykyl substances) forever chemicals leach into pesticides from their storage containers, and is taking steps to remove 12 “inert” PFAS ingredients that are currently allowed to be added to pesticide products. The agency’s move is a step toward some measure of health protections from chemicals that may have been widely sprayed throughout many American communities, and have been linked to cancer, liver damage, birth and developmental problems, reduced fertility, and asthma. However, many advocates indicate EPA’s actions on PFAS inerts do not go far enough, and the agency’s findings regarding leaching storage containers are accompanied by no meaningful restrictions on their use.

Following reports and preliminary testing conducted in 2020 showing that PFAS chemicals are present in a widely used mosquito adulticide, EPA began investigating the source of this contamination. Testing on the product Anvil 10+10, produced by the company Clarke, resulted in detection of nine different PFAS chemicals. Early indications indicate that the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers used to store pesticides contained PFAS substances on their walls, and that those chemicals are leaching into the liquid pesticides stored in contaminated barrels.

These results led EPA to conduct more comprehensive testing, considering the length of time a pesticide product is stored, and whether the type of liquid stored in the barrel made a difference. At the time, Kyla Bennet, PhD, Policy Director at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, whose testing of the insecticide first raised the alarms, noted that, “EPA’s discovery has opened a Pandora’s Box of health risks.” The findings on HDPE containers have broad implications, as these barrels are often used to store food products. The chilling initial findings that widely used food storage containers may be leaching forever chemicals into America’s food supply forced EPA’s hand, leading the agency to issue a warning to manufacturers, processors, distributors, users, and those that dispose of fluorinated HDPE containers that they may be in violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

As part of EPA’s more comprehensive testing, the agency purchased barrels of fluorinated and non-fluorinated containers from three different manufacturers. For each of the brands, the agency filled one container with water, and anther with methanol (methanol was used to mimic a pesticide). Sampling was conducted at one day, one week, four weeks, 10 weeks and 20 weeks. While the agency tested for 31 different PFAS compounds, many are concerned that this range is insufficient, as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates there are over 9,000 different synthetic chemicals that could fall under the term PFAS.

The agency found that leaching occurs with both water and methanol stored in the containers, though methanol generally results in higher levels of PFAS. Levels increase over the course of time, though some brands leach at a random rate, increasing and decreasing over the course of the study. The highest detection is seen at week ten in a fluorinated container labeled ‘Brand A’ by the agency, which recorded 14.72 parts per billion PFAS. EPA indicates that this could be a result of different manufacturers’ production processes, information the agency indicates it did not seek out before testing for each brand. Although the agency indicates that the detection is likely a result of background levels and lab equipment, even non-fluorinated containers measured some level of PFAS leaching  (0.045 ppb) over the course of the 20 week study.

Given that EPA itself has set health advisory levels for certain PFAS in the parts per quadrillion, these results raise significant public health concerns for all Americans. Yet, after this extensive study, the agency announced no substantive measures to rein in their use.

“Unfortunately, EPA’s pace of action on this issue is more glacial than galloping,” said Dr. Bennet of PEER. “Without the threat of a regulatory cudgel, private companies have no incentive – if not a distinct disincentive – to test. EPA should require testing and immediately ban the use of fluorinated containers, especially for food products and pesticides sprayed on food.”

Where the agency did take action surrounded a route of pesticide contaimaition that the agency had already precluded – inerts. Inert ingredients in pesticides are materials intentionally included in a pesticide by the manufacturer, including surfactants, aerosols, propellants, fragrances, dyes, or emulsifiers. Despite the innocuous sounding name ‘inerts,’ these chemicals are often anything but. They could be truly inert, such as cocoa powder or canola oil, or as toxic as formaldehyde or hydrochloric acid. As EPA now admits, the inert ingredient on a pesticide label could have been a PFAS chemical. Despite these potential health risks, the agency does not require manufacturers disclose the full formulation of pesticides sold to consumers.  

According to the agency, the twelve PFAS chemicals removed from EPA’s list of allowed inerts “are no longer used in any registered pesticide product…” Yet, EPA provided no indication of where they may have been used in the past, meaning that many individuals throughout the country may have an old bottle of pesticide containing PFAS. In regards to the chemicals not removed, the Massachusetts Sierra Club notes in a tweet that, “there are at least 13 other remaining fluorinated chemicals such as Teflon that can still be used as ‘inert’ pesticide ingredients, including on food crops.” The group notes examples like chlorofluoromethane, which is not generally considered PFAS but is a closely related fluorinated chemical. Further, there are a range of fluorinated active pesticide ingredients, like broflanilide, pyrifluquinazon, noviflumuron, which meet EPA’s PFAS definition, and fluorinated synthetic pyrethroid bifenthrin, discussed at length in a recent Scientific American article.

While EPA has not been completely silent on the issue, its actions have not yet matched the danger posed by the continued spread of these chemicals. Already, research shows that these chemicals are ubiquitous in rainwater, making it unfit for consumption anywhere around the world and surpassing the earth’s planetary boundary for safety. To date, only the state of Maine has taken meaningful action to ban pesticides containing PFAS chemicals. It is critical for the future of public health and the safety of the food we eat that EPA take more substantive actions on the intersection between PFAS and pesticides. Join Beyond Pesticides or sign up for our alerts today in order to stay up to date on the latest information in this ongoing story.

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

Source: EPA press release (PFAS inerts), EPA press release (PFAS HDPE container study), PEER press release

(Beyond Pesticides, September 13, 2022) Every store-bought milkweed sample tested in a recent study contains multiple toxic pesticides, placing monarchs reliant on these plants in harm’s way at a time the species can ill afford any further loss to its population. Pollinator declines have influenced many residents throughout the U.S. to take action into their own hands and transform their home yards or businesses into an oasis for bees, birds, and butterflies. Yet the recent study published in Biological Conservation finds that many retailers are dousing their ‘wildlife-friendly’ plants with pesticides that put this vulnerable species in further danger.

“That was the most shocking part,” said lead author Christopher Halsch, a doctoral study at University of Nevada, Reno. “The fact that plants labeled as potentially beneficial or at least friendly to wildlife are not better and in some cases might be worse than other plants available for purchase. This research sheds light on how pesticides may impact western monarchs, but many other butterflies are facing even steeper population declines, and pesticides are likely one driver.”

Testing was conducted by purchasing milkweed plants at 33 different stores spanning 15 different states. A sample of each plant was cut after purchase, and then sent to the lab for chemical analysis. Screening was conducted for 92 different pesticides, including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and the synergist piperonyl butoxide.

Out of the 92 pesticides tested, 61 compounds were discovered in milkweed samples. Every sample contains at least two pesticides, though certain plants contain over 25 different chemicals. Despite the importance of this iconic species, data on harmful effects of most pesticides on monarchs is sparse or lacking. Only 9 of the 61 compounds detected have been tested for their impact on monarch health. Yet for the data that is available, researchers find that 89 samples exceed levels associated with sublethal effects in monarchs — exposures that may not outright kill a monarch, but may increase the likelihood of death in the wild. These sublethal effects were seen in 17 of 25 locations, driven primarily by the elevated presence of the fungicides azoxystrobin and trifloxystrobin. Milkweed sold from larger retailers generally contain more pesticide than those sold at smaller stores, but the effect was not statistically strong.

“In a previous study in California that primarily looked at milkweed in agriculture and urban interfaces, we had looked at a small number of plants from retail nurseries, and found that they contained pesticides,” study coauthor Matt Forister, PhD, said. “So we were prepared for this much larger sample of nursery plants to again uncover contamination, but it was surprising to see the great diversity of pesticides found in these plants. In many ways, they are as contaminated or even worse than plants growing on the edges of agricultural fields. That was a surprise, at least to me.”

Prior investigations from the same research team did find wild milkweed growing in a range of habitats to be ubiquitously contaminated with pesticides. Published in 2020, their study found 262 different pesticides from over 200 milkweed samples collected from around 20 sites within California’s Central Valley. “From roadsides, from yards, from wildlife refuges, even from plants bought at stores—doesn’t matter from where—it’s all loaded with chemicals” Dr. Forister said of the previous study.

Monarchs on both sides of North America are fairing extremely poorly in the face of multiple interacting stressors, including climate change, habitat destruction, and pesticide exposure. Eastern populations have declined by 80% since 2005, and western monarchs have shrunk an astounding 99.9% from their population of over 10 million in the 1980s. These numbers pose a significant risk of migratory collapse, and with it, potential extinction.

Despite this dismal state of affairs, Aimee Code, study coauthor and pesticide program director at the national nonprofit Xerces Society, notes that, “Everyone can take steps to address the risks we uncovered.” In the context of this study, it’s important get active in your purchases and the milkweed plants being sold in your community.  “Consumers can let their nurseries know they want plants that are free from harmful pesticides. Nursery outlets can talk with their suppliers and encourage safer practices, and government agencies can improve oversight,” she said.

Instead of immediately ripping out your milkweed, Ms. Code indicates there are steps that can be taken to protect butterflies from the likely contamination. “And it’s important to keep gardening for pollinators for the long term, just take steps to reduce pesticide exposure: cover new plants the first year, water heavily, discard the soil before planting, as it may be contaminated, and avoid pesticide use.” 

It is critical that every possible step is taken to protect these iconic pollinators before it is too late. While the international conservation group, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), is listing the monarch as endangered, the U.S. government has not taken similar action. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined in 2020 that monarchs were eligible for protection under the endangered species, act but their listing was “precluded by higher priority actions..” Is the ubiquitous threat of pesticides throughout the monarch habitat the reason USFWS is dragging its feet? In another recent listing, concerning the officially endangered Rusty-Patched bumblebee, USFWS declined to declare the species’ critical habitat, precluding rules that could place restrictions that protect the species from toxic pesticide exposure. Some conservationists speculate that the federal government is failing to take action on pollinators as a result of the significant implications of listing would cause to the pesticide industry.

Meaningful action at the federal level will take immense pressure from local residents and communities. Join Beyond Pesticides in telling U.S. Fish and Wildlife to officially list monarch butterflies as endangered species, so that they have access to additional protections needed to recover the population.

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

Source: University of Reno press release, Biological Conservation

(Beyond Pesticides, September 12, 2022) Comments are due by 11:59 pm EDT September 29. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through September. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on October 18 and 20 and deliberative hearing October 25-27—concerning how organic food is produced. Sign up to speak at the webinar by September 29. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov. by 11:59 pm EDT September 29. Links to the virtual comment webinars and the public meeting will be posted on this webpage in early October.

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

The NOSB plays an important role in bringing the views of organic producers and consumers to bear on USDA, which is not always in sync with organic principles. There are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Fall 2022 issues page. Here are some high priority issues for us:

Organic Agriculture is Climate-Smart Agriculture. The NOSB draft letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack is an excellent primer on how organic agriculture responds to the climate emergency. However, the letter needs to stress the need for USDA to promote conversion to organic farming. More important to addressing the climate crisis than the questions posed by NOP are questions concerning how USDA programs can assist organic producers and those seeking to convert to organic. The draft letter addresses these as well. It also points out the resiliency of organic agriculture: “Organic is the solution to mitigating climate change and responding to it.”In view of the climate benefits of organic and the incentives inherent in organic marketing, the real question is whether USDA will abandon its promotion of chemical-intensive agriculture supported by the biotech/chemical industry in favor of whole-hearted support for organic agriculture—because despite the astronomical growth in organic consumption in the U.S., conversion to organic agriculture lags behind demand. USDA could and should make adoption of organic/climate-smart practices a prerequisite for receiving the benefits of its programs.

Biodegradable Biobased (Bioplastic) Mulch Film (BBMF) is under consideration for sunset this year. This is part of a larger issue of the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plastic—and the microplastic particles to which it degrades—on human health and the environment. BBMF should not be relisted. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic production and handling—including packaging.

The NOSB should use the sunset process to eliminate non-organic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that are allowed to be used as ingredients as part of the 5% of organic processed foods that is not required to be organic. Materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and anything that can be grown can be grown organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” Two materials on §205.606 are up for sunset this year—pectin and casings. Both are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be sunsetted.

>>Submit Comments Now.

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

Thank you for keeping organic strong!

(Beyond Pesticides, September 9, 2022) One kind of solution to the biodiversity crisis that is likely not on most folk’s bingo cards comes from a Nevada cattle rancher, who has shifted his relationship with . . . wait for it . . . beavers. As climate change impacts ramp up their toll in the U.S. via intensified droughts, floods, and wildfires, solutions are widely and eagerly sought, if deployed at insufficient pace. In this Nevada case, Agee Smith — unlike his rancher father, who reportedly “waged war against the animals, frequently with dynamite” — welcomes beavers and their industry on his ranch land. Doing so has yielded multiple benefits for his operation, the environment, and biodiversity. As reported by The New York Times, “Mr. Smith has become one of a growing number of ranchers, scientists and other “beaver believers” who see the creatures not only as helpers, but as furry weapons of climate resilience.”

Many landowners, of all stripes, consider beavers to be destructive “nuisance” animals that wantonly fell trees, and in so doing sometimes flood farm fields, back yards, roads, forests, or grazing acreage. Public complaints about such behaviors resulted in the federal government’s killing of more than 25,000 beavers in 2021. Such “reduction” is conducted by the Wildlife Services division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); the program targets some invasive species that threaten ecosystems (e.g., feral hogs or the giant nutria, a swamp rodent). It also kills huge numbers of native species, such as beavers, coyotes, Canada geese, red-winged blackbirds, wolves, black bears, bobcats, foxes, deer, prairie dogs, and others.

In 2021, more than 400,000 native animals were decimated. The Guardian reports that in 2021, 1.75 million total animals were killed — an astonishing metric but lower than in some years; in 2010 the figure was roughly 5 million; in 2018, the number was northward of 2.5 million. Among the techniques employed is use of noxious M-44 cyanide “bombs,” which have resulted in the death of a child, the blinding of another, and deaths of non-target species, such as dogs, opossums, raccoons, a wolf, ravens, and skunks.

According to The NYT, experts say that when human–beaver conflict does arise, as it will inevitably sometimes, there are non-lethal solutions. For example, fencing and paint can protect specific trees from powerful beaver incisors. There are also devices that stealthily undo the creatures’ handiwork via pipes that drain water from beaver settlements — even while the animals keep building. Wildlife advocates say that such tactics are actually highly effective, compared to killing the animals, because new beavers are likely to move into existing and desirable beaver habitat that has been vacated. When peaceful coexistence just does not work out, advocates encourage relocation of the animals, rather than their destruction.

Mr. Smith and some other landowners are seeing real benefits of their welcoming beavers on their land — many related to greater resilience to climate change impacts. The NYT reports on Mr. Smith’s experience: “When Nevada suffered one of the worst droughts on record, beaver pools kept his cattle with enough water. When rains came strangely hard and fast, the vast network of dams slowed a torrent of water raging down the mountain, protecting his hay crop. And with the beavers’ help, creeks have widened into wetlands that run through the sagebrush desert, cleaning water, birthing new meadows and creating a buffer against wildfires.”

Beaver dams — constructed to create safe impoundment areas for their lodges — help store water (a real livestock and wildlife “lifesaver” during now-frequent droughts in the West), slow down its flow during heavy rains or rapid snowmelt, reduce erosion from torrential downpours, and help recharge groundwater. The persistent wetlands beavers sometimes create also store carbon, thus, keeping it out of the atmosphere. In addition, beaver activity keeps the surrounding landscape damper, reducing the risk of wildfire. And the cherry on the whipped cream on the sundae is that the beavers’ work helps create new or restored habitat for myriad species, including fish, mammals, waterfowl, birds, amphibians, and insects. Plusses for the climate? Check. For biodiversity? Check. For Mr. Smith’s hay and cattle? Check. We believe this is called a “win-win-win.”

Not for nothing are these creatures considered by some to be consummate ecosystem/environmental engineers. Chris Jordan of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, and Emily Fairfax of California State University Channel Islands wrote in early 2022: “It may seem trite to say that beavers are a key part of a national climate action plan, but the reality is that they are a force of 15–40 million highly skilled environmental engineers. . . . We cannot afford to work against them any longer. We need to work with them.” California’s Secretary of Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot sums up the sentiment: “We need to get beavers back to work. Full employment for beavers!” Beaver believer Agee Smith notes that welcoming beavers to work on his land has been one of his best decisions, adding, “They’re very controversial still. But it’s getting better. People are starting to wake up.”

The Orianne Society, which advocates for the conservation of reptiles and amphibians and their ecosystems, describes “ecosystem engineers” well: “Ecosystem engineers are species that modify their environment in a significant manner, creating new habitats or modifying existing ones to suit their needs. Through their activities ecosystem engineers significantly affect other species by providing and maintaining microhabitats that would not otherwise exist. In fact, ecosystem engineers can often (but not always) be defined as keystone species, meaning that they play a critical role in their environments and affect many other species in the ecosystem. Ecosystem function and biodiversity would be significantly reduced without the presence of a keystone species. . . . The beaver is probably the most well-known example of a typical ecosystem engineer that also acts as a keystone species. Beavers cut down trees and build dams in small waterways, backing up water and creating beaver ponds. Beavers manipulate waterways for their own benefit, but these manipulations also provide habitat for many other species. Beaver dams and ponds also play important roles in many abiotic ecosystem processes (e.g., nutrient cycling and siltation). Without beavers to modify existing environments, these important wetlands would not exist and many species would be negatively affected.”

However, river scientist Caroline Nash, who has done research on beaver-related restoration, emphasizes that human cooperation with the engineering activities of beavers should be deployed after case-by-case evaluation, asserting, “It’s all about identifying those locations where beavers’ survival interests align with humans’ survival interests, and they’re not always aligned. . . . [S]o suggesting that they’re always going to be aligned is creating a recipe, I think, for broken hopes and expectations and a loss of trust.”

The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sees merit in the efforts to “employ” beavers to benefit the creatures themselves, as well as ecosystems and human interests. It is working with partners in Oregon, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, and Colorado to “seed” beaver-like dams that, it is hoped, beavers will inhabit and expand. California’s state budget has earmarked roughly $1.5 million annually for restoration of beavers — for their roles in advancing climate resiliency and biodiversity.

As such efforts reference, the biodiversity crisis travels hand in hand with the climate crisis; the causes and solutions are necessarily interactive. And as noted in an article in the European Commission magazine, Horizon, “Climate change and biodiversity loss should be tackled together”: “In a two-way process, climate change is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss, but destruction of ecosystems undermines nature’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protect against extreme weather, thus accelerating climate change and increasing vulnerability to it. This explains why the two crises must be tackled together with holistic policies that address both issues simultaneously and not in silos.”

The chief causes of the significant global loss of biodiverse organisms are generally acknowledged to be changes in land use (largely for large-scale food production, such as the clearing of Amazonian rainforest land for cattle grazing); overexploitation of organisms for food, wood, and medicines (via hunting, fishing, and harvesting beyond sustainable boundaries); climate change; and chemical overuse (in nearly every sector of human activity, and pointedly, in agriculture) that harms organisms and their ecosystems.

[A brief sidebar on cattle: environment and food system advocates, including the World Wildlife Fund, have pointed repeatedly to the devastation caused by cattle ranching in the Amazon region, where 80% of the deforestation of the “lungs of the world” is caused by the beef cattle sector. Though this is by far the most dramatic example of the unsustainability of this livestock practice, the huge land area and water resources devoted to raising beef cattle in the U.S. — never mind the problematic waste and methane production associated with the CAFOS (concentrated animal feeding operations) on which most domestic livestock is raised — warrant a serious reconsideration of the role of this industry’s commodity in the American diet.]

By their very nature, pesticides are designed to reduce biodiversity — to suppress any population seen as a threat to economic enterprise, human health, and/or human convenience. Beyond Pesticides laid out the case, a few years ago, for how pesticide use is ravaging, especially, insects (including many critical pollinators) and soil micro-organisms, and their ecosystems and food sources, and how organic agriculture supports biodiversity.

Indeed, the 2019 United Nation’s (UN’s) Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report said that the species extinction rate is accelerating and that Nature, broadly, is declining at a rate “unprecedented in human history.” The subheads of the comprehensive report are telling: “Current global response insufficient; ‘Transformative changes’ needed to restore and protect nature; Opposition from vested interests can be overcome for public good; [and] 1,000,000 species threatened with extinction.”

IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson, commented at the report’s release: “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide. . . . The Report also tells us that it is not too late to make a difference, but only if we start now at every level from local to global.” 

There are efforts — in addition to rancher peacemaking with beavers — to restore diverse populations and habitats. In 2021, U.S. House Representatives Joe Neguse, Alan Lowenthal, and Jared Huffman reintroduced a resolution calling for a national biodiversity strategy. Rep. Lowenthal commented, “It is imperative that we work to correct this immediately — not only to protect the world’s disappearing biodiversity but because the impacts to our environment and climate also impact our economies, human health, and our ability to live on this planet.”

In June 2022, the U.S. House passed the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA), which would invest $1.397 billion per year in state, local and tribal efforts to help wildlife at risk. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) endorses this legislation, which is now in the hands of the Senate, saying that RAWA would “invest in time-tested, locally driven strategies to restore species and the ecosystems that sustain them.” In addition, there is, according to TNC, much discussion of pairing this bill with one that would end the abuse of conservation easements for tax shelter purposes [— a favorite ploy of very wealthy landowners, including large corporations]. The bipartisan Charitable Conservation Easement Program Integrity Act would put a stop to these fraudulent actions and, in doing so, cover most of the cost of RAWA.”

Early in President Biden’s term, the administration announced a U.S. Interior Department initiative, 30 by 30, that joins the U.S. with 50 other countries in aiming to conserve 30% of each nation’s land and water by 2030. A laudable goal, but the announcement of 30 by 30 underscores an inexplicable fact: the U.S. is the only United Nations (UN) member that has not ratified what is arguably the most important international treaty on biodiversity — the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. (See a list of signatories, as well as of those countries that have ratified the treaty, here.)

As reported by Vox, the U.S. helped craft the treaty, and signed on to it in 1993, but for nearly three decades, “Republican lawmakers have blocked ratification, which requires a two-thirds Senate majority. They’ve argued that CBD would infringe on American sovereignty, put commercial interests at risk, and impose a financial burden, claims that environmental experts say have no support.” Environmental advocates assert that the U.S. refusal to ratify the treaty causes real harm to biodiversity efforts when, never more than now, the crisis makes them imperative.

The need for action on protecting Nature’s creatures and habitats could not be more urgent. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) quotes UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s pithy assessment: “Making peace with nature is the defining task of the 21st century, it must be the top, top priority for everyone, everywhere.”

Beyond Pesticides continues to do its part in bringing this issue forward, including through the second, October 12, session of its (rapidly) upcoming 2022 National Forum Series: Meeting the Health, Biodiversity, and Climate Crises with a Path for a Livable Future. The plenary sessions for that day will focus on various topics on the biodiversity crisis and solutions. We call attention particularly to the presentation of Dr. Lucas Garibaldi, who is a member of IPBES and contributed to its most recent report. He is also co-chair the Transformative Change Assessment for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); the group is tasked with identifying options for achieving the CBD 2050 vision for biodiversity.

Please join us for this important series on addressing the related and growing biodiversity, climate, and health crises. Register here. We look forward to your participation.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/climate/climate-change-beavers.html

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2022) A study published in Environmental Pollution finds parental exposure to real-world, sublethal concentrations of pesticide residues on grains is a major contributor to unfavorable offspring development among foraging birds. Parents’ ingestion of grains with conventional pesticide residues, whether from contaminated or pesticide-treated seeds, results in chronic exposure that adversely affects offspring health, even at low doses.

The adverse effects pesticides and other environmental pollutants have on birds are amply documented and researched. Although many studies evaluate acute or chronic health implications associated with pesticide exposure in a single generation, there is a lack of information on multi-generational impacts that can provide vital information on the fundamental survivability or fitness of bird species. Considering this study emphasizes parental exposure to environmental pollutants can have adverse consequences for future generations, it is necessary that future risk assessments for birds address these implications when implementing agricultural pesticide policies. The study notes, “[S]ublethal effects of such compounds [pesticides] on non-target species should be included in the regulation. Moreover, as agroecosystem pollution is not resulting only from pesticides, there is an urgent need to analyze cocktail effects, not only between molecules of pesticides but also between pesticides and other pollutants such as heavy metals.”

The study considers the impact that mixtures of different pesticide residues at environmentally relevant levels have on foraging birds, specifically the grey partridge. Researchers fed 24 breeding pairs of birds grain from conventional agriculture containing pesticide residues and organic grains without pesticide residues as a control. The diet of grains mimics that of food availability encountered by wild birds in the environment. The researchers assess how the consumption of grain with pesticide residue impacts offspring growth and health through parental effects upon reproduction. The results demonstrate that grains with pesticide residues in this study do not affect the parental birds’ condition (body mass index, red blood cell count, energy conversion) or egg-laying abilities. However, researchers find that ingestion of low pesticide residues in grain has consequences on reproduction and offspring quality without altering mortality. Chicks whose parents consume grains with pesticide residues are more petite in size, lack proper skeletal growth, and have lower red blood cell counts with increasing body mass index as a trade-off.

Inheritance of genetic dysfunction relating to hereditary influence on gene expression is a familiar phenomenon. Various studies note that adverse genomic alterations can phase down to future generations. As far back as 15 years ago, a Washington State University study linked pesticide exposure to multi-generational impacts on male fertility in rodents. More recently, researchers found that glyphosate (patented as an antibiotic) has adverse multi-generational effects, causing negligible observable impacts on pregnant rodents, but severe effects on the two subsequent generations, including reproductive (prostate and ovarian) and kidney diseases, obesity, and birth anomalies. New findings suggest exposure to the pesticide atrazine causes multi-generation resistance to the chemical in wasps by altering gut bacteria composition. Even banned pesticides like DDT still impact current and future generations, as the chemical (and subsequent metabolites) can cause multi-generational cancer, multi-generational obesity, and generational reproductive abnormalities via endocrine disruption. Moreover, chemical byproducts made during the pesticide manufacturing process, such as dioxin, have multi-generational consequences on reproductive health.

This study is one of the few to evaluate current levels of multiple pesticide residues in the ecosystem and their potential impact on birds in the wild. However, plenty of research demonstrates the toxicity pesticides pose to bird populations. As far back as 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a report finding that just a single kernel of neonicotinoid (neonic)-coated corn is toxic enough to kill a songbird, highlighting the acute toxicity of pesticides on bird declines. A 2017 study found that neonicotinoids can disrupt songbird migration, making it more likely that a bird will die during its perilous migration route. As confirmed by a 2019 study, pesticides like neonics usually are not killing migratory birds outright. Instead, exposure to these pesticides precipitates a cascade of sublethal impacts that reduces songbird fitness in the wild, making them more likely to die or be killed. Thus, this study reflects similar consequences among many foraging bird species, cautioning, “The consequences of parental exposure on chicks might partly explain the decline in wild Grey partridge populations, which raises questions for avian conservation and demography if current ARGOSystems approaches are continued.”

Beyond Pesticides believes that we must eliminate pesticide use to mitigate the multi-generational impacts these chemicals pose on human and animal health. Identifying pesticide residues on grain as a source of pesticide exposure is relevant when assessing the future risks pesticides expound unto bird species. In addition to toxicity exposure, improper control regulations, poor manufacturing, and high application variability make pesticide residues problematic. The data from this study has implications for many bird species exposed to toxic chemicals at environmentally relevant levels. Therefore, future policy decisions on related pesticides should advocate for formidable safeguards on the agrochemical industry that ensure the ecosystem is safe from chemical hazards. In doing so, we can shift away from unnecessary reliance on pesticide. Adopting regenerative-organic practices and using least-toxic pest control can reduce harmful exposure to pesticides. Switch to organic to reduce wild birds’ exposure to toxic pesticide residues and replace pesticide-treated seeds with organic seeds from Beyond Pesticides’ organic seed directory. Learn more about pesticide-treated seeds and their harm by viewing Seeds that Poison. To see how you can protect your local bird population, learn more about pesticides’ impact on birds and how an organic diet can help eliminate pesticide exposure.

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, September 7, 2022) Neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides are causing widespread contamination within deer populations in Minnesota, with recent data showing significant increases over sampling that took place just two years earlier. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) began sampling the spleens of deer in the state after research conducted in South Dakota found widespread contamination, but also links to harmful effects as a result of the exposure. The latest findings will result in further testing, yet the sum of research on the dangers of neonicotinoids – not only to deer, but pollinators, birds, aquatic wildlife, and even human health – demands, according to advocates, a precautionary approach and meaningful restrictions on these potent systemic pesticides.

Officials at MDNR have no explanation for the increase in contamination over the last sample period. “We’re not exactly sure why we saw that increase,” said Department of Natural Resources Ungulate Research Scientist Eric Michel, PhD, to mprnews.org. “But regardless, the two years of data are showing us that neonics are being detected pretty much across the state. When we look for them we find them in deer spleens. So that’s kind of the big takeaway from what we’re seeing right now.”

Results of the 2019 sampling showed ubiquitous contamination of deer spleens throughout the state. Of 799 deer spleens analyzed that year, 61% of them contained neonics. The 2021 results focus in on the southwest area of the state, where there is more farming and forestland. Of the 496 samples tested in that area, 94% of samples analyzed find neonics.

Not only did prevalence of the chemicals increase, so did concentration. The research conducted on neonics and deer in South Dakota determined that a body burden of neonics over .33 parts per billion represents a risk threshold for adverse effects. At this level, exposed fawns in laboratory experiments died. The South Dakota study found 77.5% of 367 spleen samples in wild deer were above this threshold. The 2019 results in Minnesota saw only 29% of samples exceeding this risk threshold. But the latest findings show 64% of neonic detections above this level.

“So we had quite a big increase,” said Dr. Michel to mprnews.org. “We went from about a third of the samples to two-thirds of the samples.”

MDNR is receiving its spleen samples from hunters in the region. Despite the contamination, the state is not currently warning hunters not to eat venison. While the results show cause for concern for deer in agricultural regions, officials note that the contamination is everywhere. “We’re finding neonics statewide, this isn’t just in our agricultural regions. This isn’t just an agricultural issue, if anything, our data showing that,” said Dr. Michel to mprnews.org. “So I think it’s just really important to remember that this is something we’re finding across the state. And we’re just trying to better understand it.”

Plans are underway to conduct more intensive sampling where deer hunting is permitted in the state, but specific locations have not yet been determined. There are also efforts in the legislature to fund a fawn mortality study to better understand impacts on the ground. However, advocates underscore that these efforts do not represent a precautionary approach. With strong evidence of widespread contamination at concerning levels, and data showing harmful effects at these low concentrations, advocates say it is incumbent upon lawmakers to take action, not merely continue to observe an ongoing catastrophe.

Several states have already taken measures to address the widespread contamination that has resulted from the use of neonicotinoids. Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island have taken measures to address neonicotinoid contamination. California is set to join this group through the recent passage of legislation. Yet even these state level measures are not enough. Most state bills passed to date generally restrict consumer uses of pesticides, at best restricting all outdoor nonagricultural uses. The gold standard for restrictions on these harmful insecticides remains the European Union, which eliminated all outdoor uses (including agriculture) of the major neonicotinoid insecticides in 2018.

Minnesota, for its part, passed legislation in 2014, giving consumers more information about whether their garden had been sprayed with neonicotinoids. But the following year, after a change in political power at the state house, this protective language was repealed.

Neonicotinoid contamination is a cross-cutting issue that raises concerns for a range of groups – from hunters to farmers, environmentalists, public health advocates, and conservationists. Yet these chemicals are still permitted in some of our most pristine environments, where wildlife are highly likely to be exposed at concerning levels. Join Beyond Pesticides in urging U.S. Fish and Wildlife to protect the nation’s wildlife refuges from contamination from neonics and other hazardous pesticides. See actions from Pollinator Week 2022 for more about steps you can take to safeguard the natural world from these dangerous chemicals.

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

Source: MPRnews.org, Field and Stream