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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity press release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to EPA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Chemosphere 

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

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

It starts with us!

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

For Our Health

To Protect Ecosystem and Biodiversity

To Protect Climate

In Solidarity with Farmworkers

For Organic Benefits

For Our Health

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

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

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

To Protect the Ecosystem and Biodiversity

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

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

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

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

To Protect Climate

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

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

In Solidarity with Farmworkers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And don’t stop there!

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

Best wishes for a Healthy and Happy Thanksgiving!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Agri-view, APS Publications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to EPA Administrator:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

Suggested language for a comment at Regulations.gov:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Environmental Entomology, Entomology Today

Image Source: Joe Boggs, OSU Extension

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:  PNAS Nexus, University of Bristol press release

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Letter to EPA Administrator and OPP:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention to this serious problem.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention to this serious problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Trends in Ecology & Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Human & Experimental Toxicology

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2022) A team of Dutch researchers has developed an artificial predator dubbed the RobotFalcon that can quickly and successfully scare bird flocks away from fields, providing a new practical, ethical tool to deter bird strikes near airports. Although it sounds like a conspiracy theory, in the skies above Workum, The Netherlands, for a period of time, some of the birds were not real. Current data indicate there are over 17,000 wildlife strikes to aircraft each year in the U.S., costing an estimated $500 million in economic losses, yet these problems are ongoing despite the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program killing hundreds of thousands of birds in and around airports each year through a range of lethal means, including the use of guns and pesticides. As a result, new management approaches that focus on effective, nonlethal alternatives to the use of toxic chemicals are urgently needed.

Scientists began their research with the understanding that most bird deterrent methods “suffer from some degree of habituation: after repeated exposure, birds respond less.”  While habitation can be reduced through natural threats, the authors note that approaches like falconry are lethal and can be prohibitively expensive and difficult to maintain. The RobotFalcon, attempts to solve this limitation. A fiberglass drone built to resemble the shape of a peregrine falcon, the RobobotFalcon can be steered to focus on a particular flock of birds in attempts to drive them away from a given area.

Efficacy tests were conducted in Workum, NL, in an agricultural area, and focused on deterring species of corvids, gulls, and starlings – birds that are frequently involved in aircraft strikes. The deterrence capacity of the RobotFalcon was compared to a regular drone and the tactics used at a nearby airbase, which included pyrotechnics (fireworks) and distress calls. Trials began once target birds landed in the field and were measured primarily based on how quickly, and how long the approach cleared birds out of the field area.

In a direct comparison between the RobotFalcon and the drone, the RobotFalcon cleared more flocks quicker, and was more effective at keeping flocks of fleeing birds airborne, rather than occasionally landing as was seen with the drone. Efficacy in this matter increased further when the RobotFalcon fly at a higher altitude.

The RobotFalcon kept flocks of starlings out of the area for a median time of four hours, compared to distress calls and fireworks, which were effective for 1.83 and 1.1 hours respectively. Gulls were deterred for three hours by the RobotFalcon, but only half that time when researchers used distress calls. However, all approaches kept corvids away for roughly one hour.

Critically, birds did not get used to the RobotFalcon flying in the skies. “In our three months of fieldwork, there was no evidence of habituation of birds to the RobotFalcon,” the study’s authors wrote. “We speculate that the RobotFalcon continued to be effective because of its resemblance in behavior and appearance to a real falcon.”

The device has some drawbacks however, requiring training and good weather conditions, and can currently only fly for approximately 15 minutes at a time.

The results of the study find RobotFalcon as a viable alternative to the use of toxic pesticides to haze, deter, or kill bird flocks near airports. One frequently used pesticide is the product Avitrol, containing the chemical 4-Aminopyridine. The product is generally fed to birds through treated corn. The chemical is highly toxic to mammals, harming the nervous system and resulting in potential death through heart failure. Avitrol has a significant risk of killing nontarget birds and other organisms that may eat the disbursed grain. Birds that do experience seizure-like symptoms, but the manufacturer claims that affected animals “are not in pain.” In 2014, Houston’s Bush International Airport utilized the chemical and shocked airport employees as they watched hundreds of birds succumb to the poison. Animal rights groups have strongly criticized the practice, with Humane Society of the US senior scientist John Hadidian, PhD noting, “These deaths look anything but humane… The birds that are dying after ingesting this compound are suffering and in great distress.” At the time, an airport employee posted a video of what they experienced.

Help support efforts to protect migrating from toxic pesticides and other threats by urging your Senator to cosponsor S4187, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Enhancements Act. And to learn more about the threats pesticides pose to wildlife, see Beyond Pesticides Wildlife program page.

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

Source: Journal of the Royal Society Interface

Photo Credit: R. F. Storms et al./J. R. Soc. Interface (CC BY 4.0)

(Beyond Pesticides, November 8, 2022) Glyphosate weed killers induce antibiotic resistance in deadly hospital-acquired bacteria, according to a new study published late last month in the journal Scientific Reports. This is the latest finding connecting commonly used herbicides to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria, with prior research showing glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba able to create resistance in Salmonella and E. coli. While federal regulatory agencies continue ignore the role of pesticides in the development of antibiotic resistance, it is critical for states and localities to take action to protect their most vulnerable both from toxic exposure to these herbicides and the multitude of indirect effects caused by their use. This is all happening as antibiotic resistance is rising to dangerously high levels in all parts of the world, according to the World Health Organization. In the May 1, 2022 issues of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Samira Choudhury, PhD, et al. writes, “Often referred to as the silent pandemic, antimicrobial resistance claims the lives of over 700,000 people annually.” The authors continue, “A study suggests that if no actions are taken, antimicrobial resistance will cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050 and an economic impact of over 100 trillion United States dollars.”

Scientists focus their research on Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a bacteria commonly found in the environment, but able to cause serious disease in humans. Healthy people can be infected from improperly cleaned hot tubs or swimming pools, resulting in skin rashes and eye and ear infections. However, the greatest risk of P. aeruginosa is in the hospital setting. The bacteria is well known to infect those suffering from burn wounds, on a ventilator or other invasive medical device, and or with a catheter. Hospital-acquired P. aeruginosa is deadly in large part due to the wide spectrum of multi-drug antibiotic resistance the bacteria possesses. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that in 2017 32,600 Americans hospitalized came down with a P. aeruginosa infection, with 2,700 passing away as a result.

To better understand the role pesticides like glyphosate are playing in these deadly infections, scientists examined five different strains of P. aeruginosa, four retrieved from the environment and one from a clinical setting. All represented strains that were initially sensitive to antibiotics.

These strains were exposed to both technical grade glyphosate and a range of glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) formulations, including the products Roundup Mega, Dominator Extra 608 SL, Gladiator 480 SL (which are sold only in Europe). P. aeruginosa was exposed to 0.5% of glyphosate and GBH products per the volume of the medium (equivalent to 1.8–2.8 g/L [glyphosate] acid depending on the type of formulation). “This concentration falls within the recommended dilution range of GBHs [0.2–3.5% (v/v)] for agricultural and household use and similar to those found in water after agricultural practices,” the study notes.

At this level, glyphosate and its formulated products significantly increase the minimum inhibitory concentration (the lowest concentration of an antibiotic that would inhibit the growth of a given bacteria) of P. aeruginosa to the carbapenem-type antibiotic imipenem by between 2-32 fold. This occurred in all strains and under different exposure scenarios. “Considering the worldwide use of [glyphosate] and GBHs, and the simultaneous emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in environmental matrices, the detected interactions between these chemicals may affect microbial communities and possess a potential environmental and human health risk,” the authors explain. Future studies will likely determine the mechanism through which this problem is occurring,

It is becoming increasingly evident that glyphosate is creating resistance problems in more than merely the weeds on which the chemical is being applied to control. Initial reports on glyphosate’s antibiotic resistance properties came in 2015, a week after the chemical was deemed a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization. Two years later these reports were confirmed in greater detail by the same team of scientists. In 2018, researchers found that bacteria exposed to glyphosate-based Roundup can develop antibiotic resistance 100,000 times faster than average. The most recent findings indicate that this resistance is developing directly in the field, with soils sprayed with weed killers likely to contain higher amounts of antibiotic resistant bacteria.  

The regulatory response to this near decade of research on the antibiotic resistance properties of commonly used herbicides has been nil. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires herbicide product labels to include information on abating weed resistance, antibiotic resistance is not mentioned. If anything, EPA uses the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance as a comparison point to weed resistance, without any mention of the role glyphosate and other herbicides could be playing in both phenomena.

With inaction from federal regulators, it is up to states and localities to protect their residents from the rise of pesticide-induced antibiotic resistant bacteria. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is known to attack the most vulnerable at their weakest stage. Yet, it is perfectly possible for a landscaper to be spraying glyphosate outside of the room of a patient suffering from a P. aeruginosa infection. Despite the high level of care that doctors, nurses, and custodial staff may put into deterring the spread of P. aeruginosa infections within a hospital, pesticide use outside may be resulting in patients and staff tracking in resistant bacteria, acting as a steady source of environmental exposures. Resistant bacteria travels throughout the environment through a process called horizontal gene transfer, causing widespread resistance even if the use site of the chemical does not come into direct contact with someone suffering from or vulnerable to an infectious disease. The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be directly sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely “vertical” –that is from parent to progeny– but can be “horizontal” –from one bacterial species to another. 

Stopping the use of carcinogenic, antibiotic resistance forming pesticides outside hospitals where individuals are suffering from the diseases these chemicals can cause is common sense. But Beyond Pesticides challenges individuals to find hospitals that are paying attention and considering the connection between their landscape practices and the health of their patients. Although some like the Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, MD stopped their use of pesticides and supported the passage of local laws restricting their use, their involvement is unfortunately rare. More broadly, use of pesticides that cause bacterial resistance to antibiotics in agriculture is contributing to widespread resistance throughout society, making it more and more different to treat infectious diseases with antibiotics. Individuals concerned about this problem, who may have had family members or friends poisoned by pesticides or harmed by antibiotic resistant diseases, are encouraged to get active in their community to fight for meaningful protections from toxic pesticides. This fall take action to tell your mayor or county executive to transition your community landscapes to pesticide-free, organic management.  

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

Source: Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2022) The Maine Congressional delegation — Senators Collins (R) and Angus King (I), and Representatives Chellie Pingree (D) and Jared Golden (D), along with New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D) — have  introduced a bipartisan bill — the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act — to help farmers who have been adversely affected by the scourge of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals. The bills are the identical S. 5070 and H.R. 9186, both titled “Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act.”

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

PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” are legacy contaminants or those whose historical use, including many decades ago in some instances, has led to their toxic persistence in the environment and in organisms. PFAS chemicals are not the only legacy contaminants. Others include wood preservatives, DDT, dioxins, and the termiticide chlordane. Unfortunately, some of these continue to be added to the environment, sometimes inadvertently, but also intentionally, particularly through pesticide use.

As indicated by the title of these bills, farmers have often been “hit with” legacy contaminants through no fault of their own, and these bills will authorize $500 million over FY 2023-2027 to the U.S Department of Agriculture to help farmers address the aftermath of the contamination, including: more capacity for PFAS testing of soil or water sources; blood monitoring for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; relocation of a commercial farm if the land is no longer viable; alternative cropping systems or remediation strategies; educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and research on soil and water remediation systems, and the viability of those systems for farms. The money comes from taxpayers, not the manufacturers of the chemicals responsible for the contamination.

However, since these legacy “forever chemicals” continue to be added to the environment, it is particularly important to stop their use. Many of them, like PFAS are endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and EPA has neglected its duty to ensure that the pesticides it registers are not endocrine disruptors. Thus, while we urge Congress to pass bills offering relief to farmers harmed with PFAS, we must also do all that we can to prevent further contamination.

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

Letter to cosponsoring Senators:

Thank you for cosponsoring S. 5070, the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act, to help farmers who have been adversely affected by the scourge of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals. As indicated by the title of the bill, farmers have often been “hit with” legacy contaminants through no fault of their own, and the bill authorize $500 million over FY 2023-2027 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help farmers, including: more capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; blood monitoring for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; relocation of a commercial farm if the land is no longer viable; alternative cropping systems or remediation strategies; educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and research on soil and water remediation systems, and the viability of those systems for farms. I should note that this money, if appropriated, comes from taxpayers, not the manufacturers of the chemicals responsible for the contamination.

However, PFAS chemicals are not the only legacy contaminants. Others include wood preservatives, DDT, dioxins, and the termiticide chlordane. Unfortunately, some of these continue to be added to the environment, sometimes inadvertently, but also intentionally, particularly through pesticide use.

I urge you to use your oversight of EPA to ensure that persistent toxic pesticides and other chemicals are no longer allowed to be released into the environment. Ensure that EPA carries out its responsibility to ensure that the pesticides it registers are not endocrine disruptors.

Thank you.

Letter to Senators not yet cosponsoring:

I am writing to urge you to cosponsor S. 5070, the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act, to help farmers who have been adversely affected by the scourge of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals. As indicated by the title of the bill, farmers have often been “hit with” legacy contaminants through no fault of their own, and the bill will authorize $500 million over FY 2023-2027 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help farmers, including: more capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; blood monitoring for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; relocation of a commercial farm if the land is no longer viable; alternative cropping systems or remediation strategies; educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and research on soil and water remediation systems, and the viability of those systems for farms. I should note that this money, if appropriated, comes from taxpayers, not the manufacturers responsible for the contamination.

PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” are legacy contaminants whose historical use, including many decades ago in some instances, has led to their toxic persistence in the environment and in organisms. However, PFAS chemicals are not the only legacy contaminants. Others include wood preservatives, DDT, dioxins, and the termiticide chlordane. Unfortunately, some of these continue to be added to the environment, sometimes inadvertently, but also intentionally, particularly through pesticide use.

Since these legacy “forever chemicals” continue to be added to the environment, it is particularly important to stop their use. Many of them, like PFAS, are endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and EPA has neglected its duty to ensure that the pesticides it registers are not endocrine disruptors. Thus, while I urge you to pass this bill offering relief to farmers harmed by PFAS, we must also do all that we can to prevent further contamination.

I urge you to use your oversight of EPA to ensure that persistent toxic pesticides and other chemicals are no longer allowed to be released into the environment. Ensure that EPA carries out its responsibility to ensure that the pesticides it registers are not endocrine disruptors.

Thank you.

Letter to cosponsoring Representatives:

Thank you for cosponsoring H.R. 9186, the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act, to help farmers who have been adversely by the scourge of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals. As indicated by the title of the bill, farmers have often been “hit with” legacy contaminants through no fault of their own, and the bill authorize $500 million over FY 2023-2027 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help farmers, including: more capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; blood monitoring for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; relocation of a commercial farm if the land is no longer viable; alternative cropping systems or remediation strategies; educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and research on soil and water remediation systems, and the viability of those systems for farms. I should note that this money, if appropriated, comes from taxpayers, not the manufacturers responsible for the contamination.

However, PFAS chemicals are not the only legacy contaminants. Others include wood preservatives, DDT, dioxins, and the termiticide chlordane. Unfortunately, some of these continue to be added to the environment, sometimes inadvertently, but also intentionally, particularly through pesticide use.

I urge you to use your oversight of EPA to ensure that persistent toxic pesticides and other chemicals are no longer allowed to be released into the environment. Ensure that EPA carries out its responsibility to ensure that the pesticides it registers are not endocrine disruptors.

Thank you.

Letter to Representatives not yet cosponsoring:

I am writing to urge you to cosponsor H.R. 9186, the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act, to help farmers who have been adversely affected by the scourge of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals. As indicated by the title of the bill, farmers have often been “hit with” legacy contaminants through no fault of their own, and the bill will authorize $500 million over FY 2023-2027 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help farmers, including: more capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; blood monitoring for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; relocation of a commercial farm if the land is no longer viable; alternative cropping systems or remediation strategies; educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and research on soil and water remediation systems, and the viability of those systems for farms. I should note that this money, if appropriated, comes from taxpayers, not the manufacturers responsible for the contamination.

PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” are legacy contaminants whose historical use, including many decades ago in some instances, has led to their toxic persistence in the environment and in organisms. However, PFAS chemicals are not the only legacy contaminants. Others include wood preservatives, DDT, dioxins, and the termiticide chlordane. Unfortunately, some of these continue to be added to the environment, sometimes inadvertently, but also intentionally, particularly through pesticide use.

Since these legacy “forever chemicals” continue to be added to the environment, it is particularly important to stop their use. Many of them, like PFAS, are endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and EPA has neglected its duty to ensure that the pesticides it registers are not endocrine disruptors. Thus, while I urge you to pass this bill offering relief to farmers harmed by PFAS, we must also do all that we can to prevent further contamination.

I urge you to use your oversight of EPA to ensure that persistent toxic pesticides and other chemicals are no longer allowed to be released into the environment. Ensure that EPA carries out its responsibility to ensure that the pesticides it registers are not endocrine disruptors.

Thank you.

Letter to EPA Administrator and OPP:

The Maine Congressional delegation — Senators Collins (R) and Angus King (I), and Representatives Chellie Pingree (D) and Jared Golden (D), along with New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D), have introduced a bipartisan bill — the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act — to help farmers who have been adversely affected by the scourge of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals. The bills are the identical S. 5070 and H.R. 9186, both titled “Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act.”

As you know, PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” are legacy contaminants whose historical use, including many decades ago in some instances, has led to their toxic persistence in the environment and in organisms. However, PFAS chemicals are not the only legacy contaminants. Others include wood preservatives, DDT, dioxins, and the termiticide chlordane. Unfortunately, some of these continue to be added to the environment, sometimes inadvertently, but also intentionally, particularly through pesticide use.

As indicated by the title of these bills, farmers have often been “hit with” legacy contaminants through no fault of their own, and these bills will provide funding to help farmers address the aftermath of the contamination, including: more capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; blood monitoring for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable during or after known PFAS contamination; relocation of a commercial farm if the land is no longer viable; alternative cropping systems or remediation strategies; educational programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and research on soil and water remediation systems, and the viability of those systems for farms.

However, since these legacy “forever chemicals” continue to be added to the environment, it is particularly important to stop their use. Many of them, like PFAS, are endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and EPA has neglected its duty to ensure that the pesticides it registers are not endocrine disruptors. Thus, while we urge Congress to pass bills offering relief to farmers harmed by PFAS, EPA has a duty to do all that it can to prevent further contamination.

I urge you to cancel the registrations of persistent toxic pesticides as well as those not shown to be free of endocrine-disrupting activity.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 4, 2022) Rural populations in the U.S., a new study finds, are particularly at risk for agriculture-related exposures associated with respiratory diseases and other kinds of airway inflammation. The exposures include those to pesticides, livestock facilities, smoke from biomass burning, agricultural dust, and endotoxin. The study paper also looked at potential protective roles for dietary DHA, and for raw milk consumption (early in life). Beyond Pesticides has regularly covered the relationships between pesticide exposures and asthma (including the outsized risks for children), COPD (chronic, obstructive pulmonary disease), and other respiratory anomalies. See our webpage on Pesticide-Induced Diseases: Asthma/Respiratory Effects for more information.

Published in Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America [please note: this research paper is behind a paywall], and authored by a team from the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, the study used data from the past five years plus literature reviews of research on asthma and respiratory issues in rural populations. The team notes that multiple studies have suggested that “farming-related exposures as an adult increase the risk of asthma or asthma-like symptoms development,” adding that agricultural workers are exposed to “a complex working environment with associated disease outcomes dependent on the interplay of many factors, including genetics, gender, history of atopy [predisposition to immune response against a variety of antigens and allergens], duration of exposures, livestock diet, and pesticide exposures.”

Beyond Pesticides has reviewed the particular exposure risks farmworkers endure and health outcomes; for example, agricultural (and other) workers exposed to pesticides and other contaminants are at increased risk of developing a lung condition known as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

The study researchers assert that, “When compared with those who live in metropolitan counties, dwellers of rural areas . . . have increased percentages of preventable deaths from the five leading causes of death (i.e., cancer, heart disease, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke), with the largest disparity demonstrated from chronic respiratory disease.” They add, “Despite significant progress in farming technology, modern farming is still associated with many hazardous exposures, and is consistently identified as one of the most dangerous industries in which to work, from a health and safety perspective.”

The paper also notes that rural community members often have less access to appropriate health care and worse health outcomes than their urban cohorts, and points to barriers such as transportation problems, costs, concerns about immigration status, and language access. A 2021 study cited in the subject paper concluded that asthma mortality rates are significantly higher across all ages groups in areas with populations lower than 10,000 (with an average incidence rate of 13.4 per million residents) than in large metropolitan areas (at an average rate of 8.8 per million). This study and one from 2015 challenge the common perception that urban asthma rates are “off the charts” compared with rates in other areas.

According to the researchers, there is increasing evidence that pesticide exposures contribute to both allergic and nonallergic asthma and “wheeze.” The U.S. National Institutes of Health defines “wheeze” or “wheezing” as “the symptomatic manifestation of any disease process that causes airway obstruction. Wheezing is commonly experienced by people who have asthma but can also be present in individuals with airway foreign bodies, congestive heart failure, airway malignancy, or any lesion that causes narrowing of the airways.” In babies and young children, wheeze often is a clinical sign of lower respiratory problems, the “lower respiratory” tract comprising the lungs, bronchi, trachea, and larynx.

Farmworkers can be exposed to pesticides through direct inhalation or via contaminated dust during handling, mixing, or spraying (or other kinds of application). The authors cite a 2017 study that examined 78 pesticide compounds and their association with both allergic and non-allergic wheeze; of more than 22,000 male applicator participants, 6% manifested allergic wheeze, and 18%, non-allergic wheeze. Of the herbicides reviewed, nearly 42% were associated with a wheeze outcome; 36% of insecticides showed this relationship. The authors note that “although non-allergic wheeze was found to be three times as common as allergic wheeze, pesticide associations were stronger with allergic wheeze, potentially implying that pesticides have greater effects in atopic individuals.” Several other studies reviewed by the University of Nebraska team show significant effects of pesticide exposures on the respiratory health of participants.

The mechanisms that underlie these associational relationships are not well understood, say the authors. They point to the need for research on these dynamics; what is obvious is that both allergic responses and non-allergic responses share some form of immunological inflammatory reaction to pesticide (and other exacerbating) exposures.

The research team looked at impacts of exposures to livestock and any relationships to respiratory issues. Farmworker exposure to livestock and their environs appears to bump up the risk of developing asthma and COPD, as well as worsening existing asthma. Unclear are the origins of causal or exacerbating exposures; the authors ask, is it exposure to the animals themselves, or exposure to some organic materials (e.g., hay, straw, dust, animal feed) in the farm environs that contribute to the heightened risk?

The researchers do point to the noxious exposures that can come with working on CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) — which sector Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly taken to task — such as gases (not least among which is the methane from animal waste), organic dusts, fungal spores, particulate matter, and whatever pathogens are “available” via the vast quantities of waste such facilities produce. Again, the paper cites several studies showing that incidence of asthma is higher not only for farmworkers, but for populations that live less than three miles from CAFOs, as compared with those who live farther away. Another research project, with more than 22,000 farmer subjects, found that raising livestock on medium-to-large scale operations was positively associated with symptoms of chronic bronchitis.

Next up on the list of problematic exposures of agricultural workers and rural populations is chronic inhalation of agriculture-related dust, which — in addition to the particulates it may contain from grains, feed, soils, and biological aerosols from plant and animal matter — may harbor synthetic pesticide and fertilizer residues. Ongoing inhalation of this dust is associated with increased incidence of airway inflammatory diseases, including asthma, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. The particulates in dust play a part in development of disease, but so, too, do the various microbiota that may be part of a dusty agricultural environment. A disruption of the homeostasis of the human microbiome (known as dysbiosis) has been associated with asthma and other respiratory diseases. In addition, pesticide exposures can alter the gut microbiome, which mediates a significant portion of human immune response. Currently, there is no treatment that can reverse respiratory diseases that arise from chronic agricultural dust exposures.

The researchers also conclude that endotoxin — primarily a lipopolysaccharide found in the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria — is found at higher levels in the indoor/household dust in rural farming communities, as compared with urban or rural non-farming areas. (An endotoxin is a toxin present inside a bacterial cell that is released when the cell disintegrates, and can be responsible for characteristic symptoms of a disease.) The common endotoxin, lipopolysaccharide, is known to interact with the human immune system, and to have an impact on asthma — amplifying its symptoms and those of COPD.

One of the particularly interesting studies the team reviewed show that, although other research has shown increased risk of asthma in adults with endotoxin exposures, children may experience some protection from asthma due to childhood endotoxin exposures. The 2016 study looks at children in two different farming communities — an Amish enclave in Indiana and a Hutterite community in South Dakota. The populations have similar ways of living, especially related to factors that might influence asthma, but exhibit a large difference in the prevalence of asthma. The disease rate in the Amish children was 5.2%, whereas for the Hutterite children, it was 21.3%. But that much lower level in the Amish cohort was true even though the endotoxin level in their homes was nearly seven times higher than in the Hutterite homes. The notable difference between the two communities is that the Amish live on single-family farms and use traditional farming practices, while the Hutterites live on large, communal farms and use industrialized agricultural practices.

Last on the “risk list” in this study are the respiratory impacts of the burning of biomass in agricultural areas. This burning can be the combustion of wood, crop residue, and/or animal waste as fuel, or the burning of crop residue in the field (sometimes called “stubble burning”) to clear it for the next round of planting. Both are associated with the airway inflammation of asthma and COPD. A study based in rural Arkansas compares emergency room visits for asthma and COPD between Craighead County, which burns roughly half of its production acreage post-harvest, and Sebastian County, which does not use any crop burning. ER visits for Craighead were 21% higher for asthma and 17% higher for COPD, compared with Sebastian. Unsurprisingly, particulate matter (PM) levels were significantly elevated in Craighead — but only during the fall season.

As for potentially protective nutritional impacts on chronic lung disease: the research team reviewed several studies from which it concludes that consumption of dietary DHA (docosahexaenoic acid, a polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acid) may help reduce airway inflammatory disease in those exposed to agricultural dusts. It also evaluated a study that suggests that consumption of raw milk early in life translates to better pulmonary function in adulthood, though the mechanisms for either of these effects is not yet understood.

The subject study identifies multiple factors that appear to exacerbate or contribute to development of chronic respiratory issues — asthma (both allergic and non-allergic), chronic bronchitis, and COPD chief among them — in both farmworkers and residents of rural communities. Read more about conditions for farmworkers, and their communities, on Beyond Pesticides Agricultural Justice webpage.

This research on rural environmental factors in respiratory disease reinforces Beyond Pesticides’ call for the transition to organic regenerative agricultural practices that do not involve the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, or the terrible conditions that attend CAFO operations, including impacts of their waste “management.” Human health would benefit from the transition to organic, as would climate, biodiversity, and broad environmental health.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889856122000406?via%3Dihub

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 3, 2022) In a fight against global warming, environmental groups Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) filed a formal legal petition in October 2022 urging the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to phase out the use of sulfuryl fluoride insecticides. Sulfuryl fluoride is a fluoride compound with various adverse health effects, including cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity (reduced IQ), and reproductive damage. CARB added sulfuryl fluoride to its list of “short-lived climate pollutants,” being the only state to do so since 1990. However, California does not include sulfuryl fluoride in the list of GHG emissions to reduce by 2020 as researchers were unaware the chemical was a greenhouse gas (GHG) until 2008. These termite and food use insecticides are 4,800 times more potent GHG than carbon dioxide at trapping carbon in the atmosphere. Furthermore, sulfuryl fluoride has high global warming potential and can remain in the atmosphere for more than 36 years.

The case of sulfuryl fluoride presents an all too familiar pattern of widespread chemical use without proper knowledge of health and environmental effects before implementation and a failure to take regulatory action on known hazards after allowed in commerce. Therefore, CBD’s environmental health legal director Johnathan Evans, senior attorney, states, “Phasing out sulfuryl fluoride would provide the same climate benefits as taking one million cars off our roads every year… California’s air regulators have a legal and moral obligation to reduce greenhouse gases that are helping to drive catastrophic global warming.”

Sulfuryl fluoride, registered for termite and other wood-boring pest extermination in 1959, gained additional attention as a potential alternative to methyl bromide, a broad-spectrum insect fumigant. Ninety-nine percent of structural fumigation treatments use sulfuryl fluoride. However, researchers have identified concentrations of sulfuryl fluoride in the atmosphere due to the chemical’s long half-life and greenhouse warming potential (GWP). Recent work from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) demonstrates North America was the leading global source of sulfuryl fluoride emissions in 2019. The risk of multiple chemical contaminants in the atmosphere increases as global warming progresses. Melting glaciers can release persistent organic pollutants into waterways. Recently, pesticides and fertilizers overtook the fossil fuel industry in environmental sulfur emissions. Thus, health and environmental concerns will increase significantly, especially for individuals and ecosystems more vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemical exposure.

Following the 2022 report, “Termite Fumigation in California Is Fueling the Rise of a Rare Greenhouse Gas,” researchers demonstrate that sulfuryl fluoride increases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although most sulfuryl fluoride emissions in the U.S. occur in California, most global emissions also occur in California. According to the most recent data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulations, sulfuryl fluoride is the 12th most used pesticide applied to sites across California, with over 2.9 million pounds used in 2018 for structural and agricultural pest control and over three million pounds used statewide in 2021. Although 50 to 60 percent of sulfuryl fluoride emissions mainly occur in California, researchers suggest that other states, like Florida, may also produce emissions that remain unaccounted for by current National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chemical tracking.

Similar to this petition, Beyond Pesticides, and others maintain that without the phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride, there will be no incentive for grain storage facilities to upgrade and adopt modern practices that forego hazardous chemical use. In addition to the phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride, the petition also seeks to add this fumigant to California’s greenhouse gas emission inventory for better monitoring.

The history of sulfuryl fluoride has pitted one chemical use against another, instead of incentivizing movement away from chemical dependency to viable alternative and organic management practices. For example, in 2011, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sent a letter to EPA stating its opposition to EPA’s phase-out of the toxic fumigant pesticide, which is marketed as a substitute for the outdated, ozone-depleting methyl bromide. EPA’s action was in response to a 2006 petition from Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Beyond Pesticides, and Environmental Working Group (EWG). According to its letter, NRDC believes that the “proposed action will imperil EPA’s ability to complete the long-overdue phase-out of methyl bromide, leading to prolonged and increased depletion of the ozone layer, higher levels of ultraviolet radiation, and higher risks of cancer, cataracts, and immunological disorders.” NRDC was objecting to EPA’s announcement to cancel all allowable pesticide residue levels (tolerances) for sulfuryl fluoride over three years, effectively banning its use in January 2014.

The agency found that when residues on food products are combined with fluoridated drinking water and toothpaste, aggregate exposure levels are too high. Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly pointed to nontoxic practices that have eliminated the need for either hazardous fumigant throughout the petition process. Despite this, in 2014, buried in the Agriculture Act of 2014 (the “Farm Bill”), Congress adopted an amendment at the behest of those seeking to keep sulfuryl fluoride on the market that prohibited EPA from moving against the chemical. For a more in-depth history on this, see When Politics Trumps Science and Health Suffers.

The current petition concludes, “Now that it is known and well supported by science that sulfuryl fluoride is a highly potent greenhouse gas that can remain in the atmosphere for 36 years, and there are viable alternatives to the fumigant, Petitioners request that CARB 1) initiate a rulemaking to include sulfuryl fluoride in California’s annual statewide greenhouse gas inventory pursuant to AB 32 and 2) initiate a rulemaking to phase out the use of sulfuryl fluoride.”

As the climate emergency continues, banned and current-use pesticides put human and animal health at risk upon release into the atmosphere and waterways. If pesticide use and manufacturing amplify the impacts of the climate crisis, advocates argue that pesticide policy and regulation must address and eliminate chemical use. There are many viable alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide fumigation. These alternatives include temperature manipulation, atmospheric controls, biological controls, and less toxic chemical controls (diatomaceous earth). Many existing commodity storage facilities are too old and outdated to prevent pest infestation. This ineffectiveness leads to a reliance on toxic fumigation. Thus, a clean, regularly-maintained storage or processing facility can easily keep facilities pest-free.

The European Union already bans sulfuryl fluoride from any food contact. Thus, switching from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis by eliminating toxic, petroleum-based pesticide use, building soil health, and sequestering carbon. Current organic food production and handling do not permit conventional pesticide use, including fumigants like sulfuryl fluoride. Therefore, organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions from chemical use. Learn more about how switching to organic management practices can mitigate the climate crisis by reading Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming. For more information about organic food production, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keep Organic Strong webpage. Learn more about the adverse effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure and benefits the environment.

For more discussion, background, and strategy on fighting the climate crisis through the elimination of petro-chemical pesticides and fertilizers, attend Health, Biodiversity, and Climate: A Path for a Livable Future, the 2022 National Forum Climate Session on November 29, 2022, which will feature two speakers: Rachel Bezner Kerr, PhD, noted professor in Global Development at Cornell University (and Coordinating Lead Author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability); and Andrew Smith, PhD, chief operating officer at the Rodale Institute and coauthor of the report Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change.

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

Source: CBD Report, CBD Petition

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2022) Inert ingredients called “amines” that are added to pesticides in attempts to reduce drift and volatility are themselves highly volatile and may represent a significant source of air pollution, according to research recently published in Environmental Science and Technology. The findings and implications for public health are unexpected, as research until now has not considered herbicide use as a source of amine emissions. “Researchers have looked at industrial applications, animal operations and environmental sources of amines, but no one has looked at herbicides at all, as far as we have seen, despite the fact that large quantities of herbicide-amine mixtures are being sprayed onto crops across the country,” said study author Kimberly Parker, PhD, of Washington University in St Louis (WUSL). “We were really surprised to see that this source had been overlooked.”

Amines are chemical compounds derived from ammonia and often added to herbicide formulations for glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D products to increase solubility and reduce volatilization. In theory, amines reduce volatilization by forming herbicide-amine salts which lock the herbicide vapors in place. However, the team of scientists conducting this research had previously found evidence that even new forms of dicamba billed by the agrichemical industry as “low volatility,” and restricted to formulations that include very specific amines, continued to cause drift problems for farmers.

This led first author Stephen Sharkey, a PhD student at WUSL to a question: “If the dicamba is volatilizing, what’s happening to the amine that’s supposed to be there stopping the volatilization process?”

In order to answer this question, researchers conducted an experiment measuring amine and herbicide losses from herbicide-amine salts. Various solutions containing glyphosate, 2,4-D, or dicamba, and combinations of these herbicides along with combinations of different amine compounds were analyzed by placing them in a glass beaker and drying them under a fume hood in the laboratory for 24 hours. After another 24 hours the beakers were then measured to determine lost residues. This process was repeated at different temperatures using a hot plate to replicate warmer conditions.

Initial testing on 2,4-D and the amine dimethylamine at room temperature saw a roughly 25% loss in dimethylamine but no significant loss of 2,4-D. As part of further testing using a process known as thermal desorption gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, researchers were able to measure the amine loss as it volatilized above a glyphosate formulation. Generally, more amines than herbicide residues were lost during the drying process, but this shifted slightly under higher temperatures. With increasing heat, researchers found both higher amine releases, and evidence of increased herbicide volatility, reinforcing earlier studies.  

To understand the aggregate impacts of amine volatility, scientists integrated herbicide use estimates from the US Department of Agriculture and US Environmental Protection Agency to model their atmospheric release. With half of glyphosate, 44% of 2,4-D, and nearly 90% of dicamba use employing an amine-based product formulation, the study estimates that herbicide use releases approximately 4,000 metric tons of amines in the US annually. When considering the use of these herbicides in other countries, as US applications account for only roughly 12% of global use, herbicide amine emissions can be compared to the 285,000 metric tons of amines globally recorded as released into the atmosphere each year from other sources, such as industrial manufacturing and livestock emmissions.

“There has been extensive work looking at the different ways in which amines enter the atmosphere. There has been a lot of effort put into understanding where amines come from, but research into its use with herbicides just wasn’t considered before,” said Dr. Parker.

Despite their listing as an “inert” ingredient, amines are toxicologically active substances. Once present in the atmosphere, amine vapors oxidize and form nitrosamines and nitroamines, which are potent carcinogens. Their release and transformation in the atmosphere likewise results in the creation of fine particulate matter that can affect heart and lung health.

While amines may be capturing some of an herbicide in formulation, it is clear through this research that drift is still occurring, merely with a different hazardous compound. Yet again, advocates note that the pesticide industry’s solution to a problem has created a new problem. This continues along the agrichemical industry’s modus operandi: privatize profits while publicizing harm to public health and the environment.  

As scientific studies continue to uncover a myriad of novel dangers herbicides and other pesticides present, it has become increasingly evident that an alternative approach is needed. The growth and success of organic regenerative agriculture that does not employ the use of amine formulated herbicides like glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba reveals the most viable path for a sustainable farming future. Help promote an organic future for farming by taking action today.

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

Source: Washington University in St Louis press release, Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2022) Honey bees exposed to a combination of multiple pesticides suffer a reduced lifespan and experience adverse changes to their gut microbiome, increasing susceptibility to pathogens and disease. This finding comes from a study published recently in Science of the Total Environment, which examines the interactions between the insecticides flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor and the fungicide azoxystrobin on honey bee health. Both insecticides studied are considered substitutes for notorious bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides, which move through the vascular system of the plant and contaminates its pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets. As declines in pollinator and insect life continue throughout the world, it is critical not only to understand and restrict widely used chemicals like neonicotinoids, but also the regrettable and deleterious substitutions the agrichemical industry has developed to replace them. As the present study reveals, pesticide risk assessments do not inadequately capture the range of harm that can result when pesticides are combined, necessitating a shift toward safer, alternative, and regenerative organic farming systems that do not use these dangerous chemicals.

To better understand the impacts of combined pesticide exposure on honey bees, researchers employed three colonies located in Germany’s Martin Luther University that were inspected and free of mites and viruses. Technical grade versions of each pesticide were used, eliminating additional confounders that could occur in consumer use products that also include “inert” (non-disclosed) ingredients.  

Bees were exposed to field relevant levels of each pesticide per U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, as well as combinations of pesticides, (specifically: flupyradifurone plus azoxystrobin and sulfoxaflor plus azoxystrobin) for a period of 10 days through sugar water. A separate experiment on the honey bee gut microbiome was constructed using newly emerged bees, which were housed and reared separately, and then exposed to a similar pesticide treatment as the initial experiment. An unexposed control group of honey bees was included in each experiment. “Our approach was based on the realistic concentrations that might be found in pollen and nectar from plants that have been treated with the pesticides,” says study coauthor Yahya Al Naggar, PhD, of Martin Luther University.

For the initial experiment on individual bees, those exposed to flupyradifurone fared the worst, experiencing significantly reduced survival (50% reduction). The addition of azoxystrobin did not significantly add to this effect. However, with sulfoxaflor, it did. Bees subjected to sulfoxaflor and azoxystrobin in combination experienced significantly reduced survival when compared to a sole sulfoxaflor exposure.

While direct mortality is disturbing, the pesticide induced alterations inflicted on the bees’ guts are a more insidious problem. Impacts to the gut are not seen within the first five days after pesticide exposure, but significant shifts did occur between days five and 10. At this time, treatments of flupyradifurone alone and in combination with azoxystrobin, as well as treatments of sulfoxaflor alone and in combination with azoxystobin show significantly increased abundance of Serratia spp. This rod-shaped bacteria can serious harm honey bee fitness. “These bacteria are pathogenic and harmful to bees’ health,” said Dr. Al Naggar. “They can make it harder for the insects to fight off infection, leading to premature death.”  

The ability for insecticides alone and in combination to cause delayed gut dysbiosis in honey bees is not an effect that an EPA pesticide risk assessment would ever capture under current data requirements. EPA requires very basic screening level tests initially, and more detailed tests only if these tests indicate a need. Yet in context, while any testing is better than none, many advocates question the value of EPA protocols when initial screening is so lackluster. Case in point, both flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor have been marketed by the agrichemical industry as “safer for bees,” despite having effectively the same mode of action as bee-killing neonicotinoids. And data since their EPA registration has backed up the concerns of pollinator advocates. In fact, EPA was sued over its approval of sulfloxaflor, and rather than accept the court’s decision to vacate the chemical’s registration, EPA went ahead and registered the chemical again. As a result, beekeepers and conservations groups are back in court yet again to stop this bee-killing decision. With flupyradifurone, this is now the second study showing that the chemical causes signficantly more harm to bees when used in combination with a fungicide. Per a 2019 study, combinations of flupyradifurone and the fungicide propiconazole resulted in 73% mortality and increased abnormal behavior among exposed bees. Despite these concerns EPA has facilitated the expanded use of the chemical.  

The combined impacts of different pesticides and how they may adversely affect the gut microbiomes of the animals we rely on to pollinate our food is something EPA should be at the cutting edge of investigating. Yet, the agency has consistently refused to implement measures that would investigate, let alone address these risks. As a result, more and more advocates, communities, and states are taking action to protect their pollinator populations. While many advocates and communities are embracing organic land care and eliminating all toxic pesticides, many states have merely restricted the neonicotinoids, permitting use of flupyradifurone, sulfoxaflor, and other equally harmful substitutes to continue. To meaningfully address the pollinator crisis, we need a team of pollinator experts to review the science and make recommendations to EPA. That is what the Saving America’s Pollinators Act would accomplish. Help bring this law into force by taking action today and telling your member of Congress to join in as a cosponsor.

For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to pollinators and what you can do see Beyond Pesticides Bee Protective webpage.

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

Source:  Martin Luther University press release, Science of the Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2022) Just as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a request for information on improving indoor air quality, it approved 32 varieties of a new “air sanitizer” to kill bacteria and viruses in the air. These products contain 14% dipropylene glycol and 86% secret (“other”) ingredients, including fragrances.

Tell EPA that clean air, NOT “sanitized” air, protects against disease.

Through its approval of such sanitizers, EPA promotes the false reasoning that a chemical that kills a pathogen necessarily protects health. Although disinfectants and sanitizers kill viruses, bacteria, and other microbes, they can also negatively affect the immune system, thus reducing resistance to disease. People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system, are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. Children are at elevated risk from exposure. When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern.

EPA opened a 60-day public comment period “to solicit information and recommendations from a broad array of individuals and organizations with knowledge and expertise relating to the built environment and health, indoor air quality, epidemiology, disease transmission, social sciences and other disciplines.” EPA’s request for information says it is “seeking input . . . about actions, strategies, tools and approaches that support ventilation, filtration and air cleaning improvements, and other actions that would promote sustained improvements in indoor air quality in the nation’s building stock to help mitigate disease transmission.” A new, airborne pesticide for indoor use is the opposite of what is needed.

Although dipropylene glycol, the active ingredient in the newly-approved air sanitizers, is considered less toxic than other chemicals, it may cause more problems when inhaled. These products contain 86% secret ingredients, including fragrances. Fragrances are known to trigger adverse respiratory effects.

Efficacy and creating a false sense of security is also of serious concern. The label directions instruct users to spray the chemical for 30 seconds and leave the room empty and closed-up for 12 minutes. Given that airborne viruses are being constantly introduced and reintroduced into public spaces, such as stores, schools, restaurants, and public spaces, the virus may continue to be transmitted through indoor air unless there is adequate ventilation and filtration. So, in this public context, a sanitizer application to an indoor space only protects against the target virus as long as the building is not used by the public.

EPA should focus its efforts on methods of providing increased ventilation without introducing additional chemicals into the indoor atmosphere. Ventilation with clean fresh air has been shown to reduce exposure to airborne viruses.

This action requires you to post a comment to Regulations.gov. Follow this link and type or paste in a comment. A suggested comment can be found below.

Suggested comment to EPA:

I am concerned that EPA’s request for information on improving indoor air quality coincides with the approval of 32 varieties of a new pesticide (“air sanitizer”) to kill bacteria and viruses in the air. These products contain 14% dipropylene glycol and 86% secret (“other”) ingredients, including fragrances.

Through its approval of such sanitizers, EPA promotes the false reasoning that a chemical that kills a pathogen necessarily protects health. Although disinfectants and sanitizers kill viruses, bacteria, and other microbes, they can also negatively affect the immune system, thus reducing resistance to disease. People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system, are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern.

EPA seeks “input . . . about actions, strategies, tools and approaches that support ventilation, filtration and air cleaning improvements, and other actions that would promote sustained improvements in indoor air quality in the nation’s building stock to help mitigate disease transmission.” A new, airborne pesticide for indoor use is the opposite of what is needed.

Although dipropylene glycol, the active ingredient in the newly approved air sanitizers, is considered less toxic than other chemicals, it may cause more problems when inhaled. These products contain 86% secret ingredients, including fragrances. Fragrances are known to trigger adverse respiratory effects.

Efficacy and creating a false sense of security is also of serious concern. The label directions instruct users to spray the chemical for 30 seconds and leave the room empty and closed-up for 12 minutes. Given that airborne viruses are being constantly introduced and reintroduced into public spaces, such as stores, schools, restaurants, and public spaces, the virus may continue to be transmitted through indoor air unless there is adequate ventilation and filtration. So, in this public context, a sanitizer application to an indoor space only protects against the target virus as long as the building is not used by the public.

EPA should not approve “air sanitizers” with the false hope of controlling bacteria and viruses in the air. EPA should focus its efforts on methods of providing increased ventilation without introducing additional chemicals into the indoor atmosphere. Ventilation with clean fresh air has been shown to reduce exposure to airborne viruses.