(Beyond Pesticides, December 14, 2021) Multinational technology corporation Amazon.com, Inc will pay $2.5 million as part of a settlement with the Washington state Attorney General over illegal sales of highly toxic restricted use pesticides. The company has entered into a consent decree with the state of Washington, requiring the retailer to perform certain actions if it wants to restart pesticide sales, in addition to the fine. This is the second major penalty Amazon has received for illegal pesticide sales in recent years. The company was fined $1.2 million by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2018. Heath advocates are applauding Washington State officials for addressing the issue and urging increased vigilance and enforcement from other states regarding illegal online pesticide sales.

According to the legal complaint, between 2013-2020, Amazon sold thousands of both restricted and general use pesticides to individuals in the state of Washington without a pesticide sales license. The company failed to disclose this information to consumers, and also failed to connect information from buyers of restricted use pesticides, a requirement in Washington state. As a result of Amazon’s illegal activities, there are now thousands of highly hazardous pesticides being used in Washington without documentation on its use site or location. In addition to its own sales, the company is accused of facilitating illegal sales from third party dealers, who also violated aforementioned licensing and documentation requirements. As the legal complaint reads, “Amazon’s sale and distribution of RUPs [restricted use pesticides] and GUP-Ls in Washington is a matter of public interest because it  endangered consumer health and welfare, and the environment. Some of these pesticides can cause  damage or injury to  and, humans, desirable plants and animals, or wildlife.”

In addition to paying Washington State $2.5 million, under the consent decree Amazon is required to obtain a pesticide seller license if it plans to continue selling pesticides. It must track the pesticides it is listing for sale and prohibit illegal sales. If a customer “inadvertently” purchased a restricted use pesticide, Amazon is also required to notify them and work with the customer to dispose of the product, reimbursing the customer for their costs. Third-party sellers will also be required to obtain a license and maintain sales records.

“Amazon is a powerful corporation — but it’s not above the law,” said Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said. “I will continue to serve as an independent watchdog to protect consumers and our environment, and ensure this major Washington company complies with the law.”

Enforcement around online pesticide sales in an ongoing concern. In 2018, Amazon’s $1.2 million settlement addressed a different illegal practice related to pesticide sales. In this case, Amazon racked up nearly 4,000 violations for allowing third-party sellers to sell imported pesticides that are not registered in the United States. The products sold contained false and misleading statements of safety on their labels, and contain active ingredients like synthetic pyrethroids, propoxur, and azamethiphos, a chemical not permitted in the U.S. In one egregious example, EPA noted the sale of chalk products, applied by drawing a pesticide-laden barrier on a surface the user does not want an insect to cross and survive. They are often packaged in bright colors making the products look like sidewalk chalk, toys or even candy. Children can easily open and play with the products, or even put them in their mouths.

Given the repeat violations, some advocates say that Amazon should not be permitted to sell pesticides online at all any longer. Beyond the illegal sales, the company continues to sell pollinator-toxic insecticides on its website, ignoring the concerns of pollinator advocates that urged the company to stop. A non-exhaustive list produced by Beyond Pesticides at the time identified over 100 products dangerous to pollinators, many of which are still being sold by the company today.

Concerned residents are encouraged to attempt and exhaust nontoxic pest management practices first before considering the use of even an organic compatible pesticide. Try to purchase pesticide products directly from your local home and garden centers. If they don’t carry less these less toxic products, use tools like the Making the Switch webpage to start a conversation about transitioning to safer product selections.

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

Source: Washington State Office of Attorney General (press release)

(Beyond Pesticides, December 13, 2021) If you plan to give socks, sweatshirts, or other items of clothing as holiday gifts, you need to be aware that many such items are treated with toxic chemicals. Such treated items may be labeled as “odor free” and may contain nanosilver, triclosan (banned in soaps, but allowed in textile and household products), or other (undisclosed) chemicals hiding behind brand names such as Microban® or FreshIQ. Since it is not always possible to determine which chemical may be used in these textiles, the best option is to buy clothing that is organic or made locally. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exempts treated articles from registration requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Although the chemicals themselves may be registered antimicrobial pesticides, the treated products in which they are found—and which expose the public to them—are not considered pesticides. Besides clothing treated with antimicrobials to control odors, EPA also allows seeds, wood, paints, cutting boards, sponges, mops, and even toothbrushes to be treated with antimicrobial pesticides under the exemption—as long as claims made for the treatment only pertain to protecting the treated article. For example, sock manufacturers may claim that the treated socks won’t stink but may not claim that they will protect the wearer from athlete’s foot.

Failure to regard treated articles as pesticides has serious implications. Manufacturers are not required to reveal the actual chemicals to which consumers are exposed. Studies have found that, when impregnated into textiles like sportswear, nanosilver does not just wash out in the washing machine, it can also seep into a person’s sweat and end up being absorbed into the skin. The size of nanosilver means that it can easily pass into the body’s blood and lymph system, and circulate through sensitive areas such as the brain, liver, and heart. Triclosan has been linked to a range of health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistance, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems.

EPA does not evaluate the effects of exposure to these fabrics. It does not apply the risk-benefit standard in FIFRA to these uses. It simply considers them outside of the scope of pesticide regulation.

Tell EPA to regulate pesticide-treated articles as pesticides, examining alternatives and requiring labels. 

Letter to EPA (Office of Pesticide Programs and Administrator Regan)

Please remove the exemption for registration of pesticide treated articles (PR-2000-1). Treated articles pose uncontrolled threats to human health and the environment. EPA is not deciding to allow such uses based on FIFRA’s risk-benefit standard but is applying an arbitrary criterion based on the advertising claims of purveyors of treated articles.

Who decides that the benefits of seeds coated with neonicotinoid insecticides outweigh the risk of an apocalyptic collapse of insect populations? Who decides that the benefits of wood impregnated with toxic copper compounds outweigh the risks to workers and those using treated wood? How does EPA justify ignoring the risks to consumers of cutting boards, toothbrushes, socks, and underwear exposed to toxic antimicrobial chemicals?

None of these decisions should be made in the absence of data. None should be made in the absence of a showing of need (“benefits”) of the pesticide. Certainly, none of these uses should be allowed without full and transparent disclosure to the consumer of the chemical—not a brand name whose properties cannot be determined.

In other words, all such “treated articles” should be required to be registered as pesticides.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2021) In a win for pollinators, a California Superior Court has issued a ruling that sulfoxaflor, a systemic pesticide that is “field legal” but “bee lethal,” can no longer be used in the state. The suit was brought by the Pollinator Stewardship Council and the American Beekeeping Federation. The ruling of the Superior Court of the State of California for Alameda County finds that the argument of the petitioners — that sulfoxaflor approval decisions by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — is valid. Eliminating this highly bee-toxic pesticide from use in the state is expected to protect not only native bees and other pollinators (including Monarch butterflies in early Spring), but also, the many millions of managed-colony bees that are transported to California for pollination of almond and other crops.

The suit was filed against DPR, Corteva inc., Dow Agrosciences LLC, the Siskiyou County Department of Agriculture, and James E. Smith as Siskiyou County Agricultural Commissioner. Having found for the petitioners’ request for a Writ of Mandate (a court order requiring a lower court or public authority to perform its statutory duty), the court instructed the petitioners to submit a draft writ for the court’s consideration within 30 days of this decision. Thus, the effective date of the ban is not yet known.

Sulfoxaflor is an insecticide registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in controlling sucking insects such as aphids, stink bugs, plant bugs, and thrips in agricultural production. It was registered in 2013 for use on many fruit and vegetable crops. Then, as The Washington Post reported, “In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that federal regulators lacked adequate data to show the pesticide did not pose serious risk to pollinators, and the court vacated the agency’s approval of sulfoxaflor. . . . In 2016, EPA approved use of the pesticide for crops that do not attract bees, as well as for use on certain plants after blooming was complete. The agency also has repeatedly granted emergency waivers to states to allow the use of sulfoxaflor on certain crops because of a lack of effective alternatives for farmers — including more than a dozen such exemptions this year alone for sorghum and cotton.”

In 2019, EPA went on to add to registered uses of sulfoxaflor: for alfalfa, corn, cacao, grains, pineapple, sorghum, teff, teosinte, and tree plantations; it also restored approval for its use, on a huge scale, on crops that pollinators find very attractive, such as citrus, cotton, cucurbits, soybeans, and strawberries. Beyond Pesticides covered the resulting lawsuits against EPA, by the Pollinator Stewardship Council and the American Beekeeper Federation, and by both the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety.

Though the agrichemical industry argues that sulfoxaflor is distinct from the neonicotinoid (neonic) class of insecticides, it is considered a very close cousin because its mode of action is essentially the same as that of the neonics. Sulfoxaflor excites or desensitizes nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, and thus, can disrupt normal nervous system development and function. (See more here.) Like all neonics, it is a systemically acting compound; it gets absorbed by all parts of a plant, and is a toxic threat to insects for many days following application. All sorts of organisms can be exposed to sulfoxaflor through their consumption of any plant parts, or as in the case of pollinators, in the collection of pollen and/or nectar.

Neonics are very toxic to pollinators. Sulfoxaflor can damage honey bees even via low-level, short-term exposures — impacts of which can include increased adult mortality, reduce rates of offspring survival, compromise of foraging and learning behaviors, and reproductive damage. A recent Daily News Blog article reports on the extreme sensitivity of wild bees to neonic exposures; the headline reads “One Single Neonic Exposure Saps Wild Pollinator’s Ability to Reproduce.” When bees bring sulfoxaflor-contaminated pollen and nectar back to their hives, the effect on the entire colony can be catastrophic, according to EarthJustice.

Neonics have been widely implicated in the scourge of Colony Collapse Disorder. As Beyond Pesticides wrote in its What the Science Shows webpage, “These individual impacts are compounded at the level of social colonies, weakening collective resistance to common parasites, pathogens other pesticides, and thus leading to colony losses and mass population declines. In 2018, more than two hundred scientists co-authored a ‘Call to restrict neonicotinoids’ on the basis of the . . . evidence implicating neonicotinoids in mass pollinator and beneficial insect declines.” Impacts on wild and native bees are likely to be amplified, compared to those on honey bees, writes the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). In addition to effects on bee populations, sulfoxaflor can negatively affect other insects, such as lady beetles, green lacewings, and minute pirate bugs, all of which are considered beneficial insects because they are aphid predators.

Even some mammals are threatened; according to CBD, “Small mammals — [such as] chipmunks, shrews, and bats — can be exposed to enough sulfoxaflor to cause a significant increase in the death of newborn pups. Increased death in newborns was due to involuntary muscle tightening, leading to the constriction of the diaphragm and asphyxiation. Uncontrollable muscle tightening was so severe in newborn pups exposed to sulfoxaflor in utero that the developing bones were bent and contorted enough to produce severe skeletal birth defects at higher doses. . . . Leading pollinator experts have called sulfoximines, of which sulfoxaflor is the first commercially available member, the second-most pressing threat to pollinators in the coming years.”

Response to the court’s decision has been positive in the advocate world. President of the Pollinator Stewardship Council Steve Ellis commented: “Just about every commercial honey bee colony in this country spends at least part of the year in California, so this ruling is incredibly important for protecting pollinators in the United States. In recent years, we’ve seen astounding losses to our honey bee colonies. Removing systemic insecticides such as sulfoxaflor will help ensure honey bees have a healthy future.”

President of the American Beekeeping Federation Joan Gunter had this to say: “The American Beekeeping Federation strongly supports one less systemic insecticide exposure that affects our honey bees. We hope this ruling in California will set a precedent for other systemic insecticides that threaten honey bees.”

One of the two Earthjustice attorneys for the petitioners (with Gregory Muren), Greg Loarie, asserted, “Honeybees and other pollinators are incredibly important in our food systems and our wider ecosystem, but they’re dying in droves because of pesticides like sulfoxaflor. With this ruling, the bees in California are getting much-needed relief just as we’re seeing some of the worst signs of colony collapse. Now, California needs to turn its attention to protecting pollinators from the entire class of neonicotinoid pesticides that threaten our future.”

Beyond Pesticides has reported regularly on the massive decline in insect, and in pollinator, populations, and the outsized role played by pesticides. In 2019, it covered a review of a huge number of insect population studies; the authors pointed to the ubiquity of and reliance on agrochemicals (pesticides and synthetic fertilizers), and increasingly chemical-intensive agriculture globally, as causes of insect decline. Several of the studies in that review cited pesticides as the factor most likely responsible.

EPA’s history of allowing the use of pesticides known to be toxic — to insects, to people, to other organisms, to ecosystems — is literally too long to chronicle in this article. From poor and incomplete risk analysis to what some advocates consider the agency’s “capture” by industry and its agenda, EPA continues its modus operandi — continuing to register, re-register, and expand uses for many noxious pesticides. Beyond Pesticides concurs with this analysis from the Center for Biological Diversity, calling out “EPA’s current trajectory of replacing older neonicotinoids with nearly identical insecticides like sulfoxaflor. Simply replacing one toxic pesticide with another will do nothing to stem the declines in insects we are seeing across the globe.”

Beyond Pesticides welcomes the decision to remove this highly bee-toxic pesticide from use in California, and wishes that EPA would “see the light” and ban sulfoxaflor and all neonics from use. Litigation on damage caused by pesticides is likely only to increase, given the extent of harms and the momentum of recent cases, such as those related to glyphosate and chlorpyrifos. That said, each judicial settlement or knock-down of a particular pesticide highlights the fact that the pace and scope of the “whack-a-mole” approach — whether via litigation or emanating from EPA itself — are wholly inadequate to the harms that toxic pesticides are causing 24/7/365. A precautionary approach is far more suited to the task of genuinely protecting public health and the environment than EPA’s current approach.

As Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2019, “Since Rachel Carson stunned the world and ignited the modern environmental movement with Silent Spring, pesticide regulation has been stuck in a whack-a-mole approach that targets only the most publicly visible, toxic, and researched chemicals for restrictions. By transitioning to organic, not only in food production, but also in the management of pests in lawns and landscapes, and other pest control practices, we can eliminate the broad range of chemicals linked to diseases that are all too common in today’s world, and truly protect public health, wildlife, and the environment.

Sources: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-trump-epas-200-million-acre-expansion-of-bee-killing-pesticide-2019-08-20/ and https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/2021-1203_order_granting_writ.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2021) The cost to maintain crops using conventional pesticides outweighs the economic benefits from crop production and yield, according to a report, Pesticides ‘cost double the amount they yield,’ by the French-based organization Bureau for the Appraisal of Social Impacts for Citizen Information (BASIC). Moreover, the annual cost of increasing organic farms three-fold by 2030 is less than the cost of pesticides to society (i.e., adverse health and ecological effects from pesticide use and contamination). However, the price to pay from pesticide use encompasses much more than the products themselves. Researchers point to the need for government and health officials to consider the billion-dollar costs associated with adverse health effects from pesticide use, especially as studies confirm that pesticides cause cancer, Parkinson’s, and other diseases that are increasing. Thus, this report adds to the growing body of research demonstrating the unsustainability of conventional, chemical-intensive agricultural practices. The National Academy of Sciences identifies four goals of sustainable agriculture—productivity, economics, environment, and social well-being for future generations. However, current chemical pesticide use threatens sustainable agriculture. Although the primary concerns about pesticide usage centers on health and ecological concerns, including food security, this report provides an economic assessment that offers an important holistic perspective on real costs and food sovereignty.

The report notes, “In a few decades, and thanks to the constant support of public authorities, the agricultural world has invested massively in the use of pesticides. While the profits of this sector are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few multinationals, society faces a considerable bill to pay each year to cover the costs linked to pesticide use. But even those amounts will not be able to repair the irreversible damage caused to humans and the environment. In contrast, the varied agroecological models have proven to be more sustainable. While transition to these also requires investments, the latter will be smaller and above all more sustainable… [I]n 2022, Member States will have to assume their responsibility and choose between a costly, polluting model concentrated in the hands of a few players whose decision-making centers are outside Europe, and a sustainable agro-ecological model championed by citizens and farmers. It is the future food sovereignty for the EU – and, more broadly, for the planet – that is at stake.”

The study offers insight into the social and economic costs and benefits of the pesticide industry (i.e., production and use). The BASIC NGO investigated the current agricultural model that relies on conventional toxic chemical use involving four primary manufacturers: BASF, Bayer/Monsanto, Corteva, Syngenta/ChemChina. Although the study’s focus is the European market, pesticide exposure is widespread, and residues can travel across the globe. Thus, researchers analyze new pesticide data to evaluate the repercussions on the ecosystem, including effects on species health, diversity, and services (e.g., pest control, pollination, water/soil/climate regulation). The researcher then established the cost from pesticide use and paid for by European citizens regarding these repercussions. Lastly, the organization evaluated the profits of the four major pesticide producers through pesticide use.

The study finds that Europe pays nearly twice as much (2.3 billion Euros) in subsidies than is generated in economic return to sustain pesticide production and use in 2017. The profit generated by industry that same year was 900 million Euros. The report notes that without subsidies, lobbying, and payment of expenses associated with the adverse effects of pesticides, the pesticide sector would lack profitability. Moreover, the reports confirm intense pesticide use produces multiple harms. Declines in insect populations, birds, and sensitive organisms are prevalent among regions with extensive chemical use. The researchers warn that insufficient pesticide regulations do little to protect the occupational and general population from various toxic substances.

The United Nations’ 1987 report, Our Common Future (the Brundtland Report), outlines the benefits of sustainable agriculture in protecting the Earth’s natural resources for future generations, advancing equal income allocation from food production, and supporting small-scale farming. The report emphasizes the challenges of sustainable agriculture, highlighting, “[it] is to raise not just average productivity and incomes [from resources], but also the productivity and incomes of those poor in resources… Land use in agriculture and forestry must [use] scientific assessment of land capacity, and the annual depletion of topsoil, fish stock, or forest resources must not exceed the rate of regeneration.”

However, a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report establishes that pesticide use does not adhere to sustainable agriculture goals. Toxic pesticide residues readily contaminate soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set standards. Scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of adverse effects on the environment, including wildlife, biodiversity, and human health. Pesticides can present acute and long-term health impacts worldwide, especially to farmers, 44 percent of whom experience pesticide poisoning every year. Furthermore, a 2020 study attributes ~385 million cases of non-fatal unintentional poisonings and 11,000 deaths annually to pesticides. Thus, increased use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers—driven by rising demand for food, fiber, fuel, and feedstock crops—puts public and environmental health at risk.

Not only do pesticides impact ecosystem and species health, but also essential ecosystem services such as pollination and nutrient availability. Over the last decade and a half, increasing scientific evidence shows a clear connection between the role of pesticides in the decline of honey bees and wild pollinators (i.e., wild bees, butterflies, beetles, birds, bats, etc.) alike. The agricultural industry relies on insect pollinators to aid in plant pollination and sustain annual crop yield. Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. Moreover, conventional pesticide use contaminates soil and their respective Critical Zone (CZ) compartments, especially within monocrop (single crop) agriculture systems. It is critical for plants to allocate resources for reproduction or seed-bearing. Commercial, chemical-intensive agriculture has implications on a much grander scale as farmers more frequently apply pesticide treatments to larger, monoculture crop areas. Scientific literature supports that larger, monoculture croplands contain higher pest concentrations. These regions can foster pests that persist as they have ample quantity of the same food source, thus resulting in greater insecticide use. Perversely, monoculture crops induce biodiversity and pollinator loss from exposure to these chemical applications. Pesticides can drift from treated areas and contaminate non-commercial landscapes, limiting pollinator foraging habitat. Considering commercial agricultural management has become more chemical-intensive and less diverse, agricultural and economic productivity and social (human/animal) and environmental well-being are at stake.

Despite an increase in agricultural activity since the 1950s, crop yields are declining. Moreover, scientists cited in the report point to previous studies on lower yields in specialized crops—such as monocrops. The current agricultural production system relies on pesticides that researchers attribute to the “growing phenomena such as pest resistance, soil and biodiversity degradation, and also the destruction of natural resources needed for agricultural production (soil, fauna, and flora required for crop development, etc.).” A 2003 report on pesticide caused damages, estimating a total cost of $10 billion to society. However, the BASIC report finds the number of pesticides used in agriculture doubled in the past 20 years, and so the economic damage is much greater than previous figures demonstrate. Although the pesticide industry carries out large-scale lobbying to defend current pesticide use, total costs for lobbying approaches 10 million euros per year, which is greater than the pesticide regulation budget for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Traditionally, tradeoffs between productivity and environmental benefits focused on productivity and overlooked hazards to the environment and general population. Scientists suggest payment incentives to compensate for any reduction in yield, helping farmers to reconsider excessive pesticide use to sustain profit. Considering studies find that toxic pesticide use does little to benefit farmers through productivity or economic means, the primary focus on yield in agriculture is unsustainable. However, agricultural systems that commit to regenerative organic agriculture and land management can meet future, long-term sustainability goals. Past research shows that organic farming can help address economic insecurity, the climate crisis, and public health disparities. Although there are claims that organic agriculture cannot sustain global crop production, scientific studies argue organic yields are comparable to conventional and require significantly lower chemical inputs. Furthermore, the report reveals the cost to convert to organic farming is much less than the cost to sustain current pesticide use. Therefore, the study researchers advocate for the organic solution to eliminate the economic costs of pesticide damages on society. Organic agriculture can and must feed the world.

Organic farming is increasing globally and on track to meet the European Union sustainability goals. However, the number of organic farms remains under two percent. Increased global participation in organic agriculture can protect human and animal health, promote biodiversity, improve the global socioeconomic status, and eliminate toxic chemical use in agriculture. Organically managed systems support biodiversity, improve soil health, sequester carbon (which helps mitigate the climate crisis), and safeguard surface- and groundwater quality. Everyone plays a key role in promoting a sustainable future through organic practices. Therefore, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows synthetic pesticides—can help curb exposure and resulting adverse health effects. A common misconception is that organic products are “too expensive,” but low-cost organic products exist in the marketplace. Education about organic agriculture, buying organic products (food and non-food items), growing your own organic produce, creating marketplace demand, and advocating for organic regulations in the marketplace can aid in the global transition to organic agriculture. Learn more about how consuming organic products can reduce pesticide exposure and the harmful health and environmental impacts of chemical-intensive farming produces.

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

Source: Bureau for the Appraisal of Social Impacts for Citizen Information (BASIC), EU Observer

(Beyond Pesticides, December 8, 2021) The diversity, abundance, and richness of invertebrate species on oceanic islands declines as a result of pesticide use, urban development, and other human activities, finds research published recently in Royal Society Open Science. Oceanic islands, despite their small size, harbor 20% of all species, and 50% of endangered species, making conservation critically important in the context of a sixth mass extinction and insect apocalypse. As the study indicates, “Although agriculture is currently considered the predominant driver of the worldwide species decline, it is crucial to investigate and consider all human land uses for obtaining a global impact assessment, especially in regions where land use types other than agriculture are predominant.”

To determine the primary drivers of species declines on oceanic islands, researchers divided land use type into urban, tourist, and uninhabited. To provide a clean delineation between the various land uses, the study was carried out in the Republic of Maldives. Out of the roughly 1,200 Maldives Islands, researchers chose four uninhabited islands without any permanent human activity, four densely inhabited ‘urban’ islands comprised of Maldives residents, of four resort islands focused solely on tourism. Researchers applied a grid of 1 by 1 meter plots across a map of each island, and randomly picked 20 grids in which to conduct ground-based species sampling. Remote-sensing data were also utilized to determine vegetation cover.  

Results show that, compared to uninhabited islands, urban islands contain roughly half the number of species, while tourist islands contain approximately one third. On urban islands, researchers attribute the disparity to habitat fragmentation, loss of habitat quality, and loss of natural vegetation cover. Specifically, activities involved in land reclamation and new construction projects were cited as being the major drivers of species decline on densely populated oceanic islands.

Data shows that a different factor is driving species declines on tourist islands. “In contrast with the urban development on the permanently inhabited islands, tourist facilities are interested in keeping much of the natural forest and shrub vegetation intact to conserve the image of a ‘tropical paradise’ for their guest,” the study notes. On tourist islands, natural vegetative cover remains mostly intact, and with most human development occurring in the resort area, habitat fragmentation was much lower than on urban islands. But tourist islands nonetheless display lower diversity indexes than urban islands. With increased occurrences of cosmetic landscaping, small gardens, golf courses, and other tourism-related activities, researchers thus attribute pesticide use as the driver of declines on tourist areas. Every tourist island studied indicates that they regularly apply insecticides, specifically synthetic pyrethroids like deltamethrin, in and around structures to manage common pests like mosquitoes, bedbugs, and cockroaches.  

This research reveals that although agriculture is not occurring on these small oceanic islands, pesticide use can still be a significant driver of species decline. Pesticide use can directly and indirectly harm both terrestrial and aquatic species, including coral, as chemicals run off from land into the ocean. With nearly two million unique species inhabiting the ecosystems in and around oceanic islands, it is critical that these areas receive attention. As study co-author Sebastian Steibl told Mongabay, “You can make very effective conservation if you protect islands compared to other ecosystems.”

Tourists and vacationers are encouraged to ask the resorts and hotels they plan to stay at whether they use toxic pesticides as part of their management. The issue is a concern not only for ecological health; horror stories of families poisoned at resort facilities occur far too often for comfort.

Get involved today by urging action to address the sixth extinction. And for more information on the dangers pesticides pose to water quality, see Beyond Pesticides’ Contaminated Waters webpage.  

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

Source: Mongabay, Royal Society Open Source

(Beyond Pesticides, December 7, 2021) One exposure. That’s all it takes for wild bees to experience declines in reproduction and population growth from neonicotinoid insecticides, according to research recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). This incredible sensitivity is exactly the sort of process that could rapidly drive pollinator species into extinction. It is the sort of finding that one would expect government agencies tasked with protecting the environment to discern. Yet, regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs have consistently failed to listen and meaningfully respond to the latest science. As this is done, the agency is fully aware that ever more pollinators are slated for endangered status, jeopardizing our agricultural economy, ecosystem stability, and the joy we all gain from watching our favorite pollinators flit about the landscape.

Over the course of two years, researchers established a crossed experiment with ground-nesting blue orchard bees (Osmia lignaria). These pollinators, native to North America, overwinter and nest in narrow holes or tubes, making them particularly sensitive to ground-based pesticide applications. Researchers conducted their study during the first year by exposing a group of larval bees to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid through a ground drench at the highest rate on the label for the product AdmirePro, produced by Bayer. Another group was left unexposed. Then, during the second year, some of the unexposed adults were dosed with the same rate of imidacloprid.

Orchard bees exposed to imidacloprid as adults during year two were 4% less likely to initiate nesting, and when they did, they created their nest 38% percent slower, and produced 30% less offspring than those left unexposed. This population also produced 49% fewer female offspring than unexposed bees. Larval bees that were exposed during year one, and subsequently established nests during year two also laid significantly (20%) fewer eggs. This finding indicates that a single pesticide exposure at a young age can result in effects on overall fitness that extend into adulthood and negatively impact reproductive success. “Pesticide exposure reduces bee reproduction, and exposure in either past life stages, or a previous generation, impacts performance of the adult be in the next year,” said lead author Carla Stuligross to The Guardian. “Especially in agricultural areas, pesticides are often used multiple times a year and multiple years in a row. So this really shows us what that can actually mean for bee populations.”

These results line up almost identically with the findings of a study on blue orchard bees published in April 2021. At the highest exposure rate of imidacloprid produced 40% fewer offspring overall. Nesting activity was similarly reduced by 42% in the exposed group. For the lowest exposures at 50 ppb (the equivalent of adding 50 drops of pesticide in a 10,000 gallon swimming pool), the sex ratio for offspring was skewed toward male bees. This group had 50% fewer female bees than the unexposed control group.

While the dangers that imidacloprid poses to mason bees are now clear, the current study adds a critical dimension to the equation: time. A pesticide used over a year ago can harm pollinators today, from a single exposure. These results add considerable urgency to efforts to stop pollinator declines. Imidacloprid can remain in soil for nearly a year, meaning that even if these chemicals were eliminated today, it could be two or more years before ground-nesting pollinators stop declining.

It is time to scrap and rebuild our nation’s approach to pesticide safety. EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs is now a shell of its former self, hollowed out by industry flunkies who continue to exchange the future of pollination for the profits of multinational pesticide companies. Help us tell EPA that its failed pesticide program needs a new start. We must also go further. In order to achieve this goal, Congress must act to change the laws that permit this crisis to continue by passing the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. Your voice is also needed for that effort: pollinators and the natural world have no lobbyists – they cannot make campaign donations. They only defense is how much we as humans care about their continued existence, and whether we take action on their behalf as a result.

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

Source: The Guardian, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

(Beyond Pesticides, December 6, 2021) An effort is underway in New York State to restrict, and in certain cases ban, “bug bombs,” led by State Senator Zellnor Myrie (D-NYC). Total release foggers, more aptly referred to as bug bombs (because in some cases, they literally blow up), are dangerous indoor devices that release an aerosolized plume of toxic pesticides and unknown inert (or other) ingredients in an overpowered, ineffectual attempt to manage common pest problems. As Senator Myrie notes in his legislative justification for the bill, “This is an environmental justice issue disproportionately affecting lower-income individuals, as bug bombs are a relatively inexpensive pest management solution. As a result, individuals living in older, larger multi-dwellings, who also suffer from adverse health outcomes like asthma at higher rates, are disproportionately exposed to the harmful effects of bug bombs.”

Urge your Governor (Mayor for DC residents) to ban bug bombs in your state!  

Senator Myrie’s legislation, S.7516, will allow only certified pesticide applicators to purchase and use the dangerous devices, and would completely ban their use in multi-unit dwellings. “Foggers should not be used in multi-dwelling buildings, but existing New York state law does not prohibit this use,” Senator Myrie continues in his legislative justification. “Restricting the sale of pesticide foggers to consumers, restricting their use in multi-dwelling buildings, or restricting the use to licensed pesticide applicators will reduce their use by ensuring they are applied only by personnel trained to understand and follow the restrictions and warnings on the product label and will result in better targeting when they are used.”

While eliminating consumer use by restricting the devices to certified pesticide applicators would be an important step forward, there is considerable evidence to justify an all-out ban that extends beyond multi-family units. Problems with these devices stretch far back. In spite of over 450 bug bomb related illnesses between 2001-2006 in the United States, EPA rejected a petition from the NYC Department of Health (DoH) in 2009, claiming that incidents were “overwhelmingly minor in nature,” resulting from “a few basic errors” and concluded that “label improvements can mitigate these risks.” EPA subsequently introduced new labels, this time with comic-book style pictures indicating the steps required to use the products.

Almost a decade later, in 2018, CDC officials published a new report on the revised labels, determining that EPA’s actions represented a public health failure.  Between 2007 and 2015, CDC cataloged 3,222 illnesses caused by bug bomb use. This nearly 8-fold increase in reported incidents reveals that EPA’s new labels caused more problems and confusion than the previous labels already determined to be deficient. The main cause of poisoning was a failure to leave the premises. The CDC report also notes, “Some users ventilated treated premises for the recommended length of time or longer, but still became ill, suggesting that ventilation might be inadequate or the recommended period might be insufficient to fully eliminate TRF [total release fogger] residuals before occupancy.”

In addition to the inherent dangers of using these products is the fact that they do not work at all, according to a 2019 study.  “In a cost-benefit analysis, you’re getting all costs and no benefits,” said Zachary DeVries, PhD, co-author of the study. “Bug bombs are not killing cockroaches; they’re putting pesticides in places where the cockroaches aren’t; they’re not putting pesticides in places where cockroaches are and they’re increasing pesticide levels in the home.

Many common household pests, like cockroaches and bed bugs, have displayed widespread resistance to the insecticides primarily used in bug bombs—synthetic pyrethroids—the primary failure with bug bombs is that the pesticide does not get into the cracks and crevices where the insects hide. As a result, pesticide levels in one’s home can increase 600-fold – creating a long-term problem, with synthetic pyrethroids persisting on indoor surfaces for over a year.

Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe webpage provides nontoxic or least-toxic methods to eliminate cockroaches, bed bugs, ants, and other household pests. The success of these methods highlight the unnecessary danger of allowing use of bug bombs. New York residents are encouraged to write or call their state lawmakers in support of this legislation, and those outside of New York can contact their state elected officials and urge them to introduce a similar ban.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that EPA label restrictions on total release foggers, otherwise known as “bug bombs,” are a public health failure. Bug bombs pose a significant risk of acute illness to individuals even when they attempt to follow new label instructions. Beyond Pesticides has long called for bug bombs to be banned, as myriad nontoxic alternative strategies are available to successfully manage household pests.

Urge your Governor (Mayor for DC residents) to ban bug bombs in your state!   

Bug bombs are small cans primarily comprised of an insecticide, often a synthetic pyrethroid, a synergist such as piperonyl butoxide (PBO), and an aerosol propellant. In addition to the explosion/fire risk if the aerosol product is used in an unattended home near a pilot light or other spark-producing appliance, both synthetic pyrethroids and PBO pose acute and chronic human health risks. PBO is added to pesticide formulations to increase the toxicity of synthetic pyrethroids, and has been linked to childhood cough. Peer-reviewed research associates synthetic pyrethroids with behavioral disorders, ADHD, and delayed cognitive and motor development, and premature puberty in boys. Not only can bug bombs acutely poison, but once applied these chemicals can persist in the home for over a year, putting individuals and families at risk of chronic exposure and subsequent health issues.

CDC’s 2018 report, Acute Illnesses and Injuries Related to Total Release Foggers, updates a previous study released in 2008 with new data reveals that EPA’s attempt to reduce bug bomb illness and injury through label changes was unsuccessful. Looking at records from 2007-2015, a total of 3,222 unique cases of illness and injury were reported. The report indicates, “No statistically significant reduction in overall incidence of TRF [total release fogger]-associated injuries and illnesses was observed in the first 3 years after the label revisions took effect.” Incidents ranged from failing to leave an area after releasing the bug bomb, reentering the premises too early, use of too many products for the space provided, and even explosions related to the ignition of aerosols released from the product.

Urge your Governor (Mayor for DC residents) to ban bug bombs in your state!  

With EPA’s failure to protect people from the aptly named “bombs,” it is important for states to take action to protect citizens. Many of us have had problems with these products. Please add your own experience to the suggested letter below.

Letter to Governor (states other than NY):

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that EPA label restrictions on total release foggers, otherwise known as “bug bombs,” are a public health failure. Bug bombs pose a significant risk of acute illness to individuals even when attempting to follow new label instructions. Myriad nontoxic alternative strategies are available to successfully manage household pests. Most common pest problems can be successfully dealt with by eliminating pest entryways into the home (e.g., caulking cracks/crevices, doorsweeps, repairs, etc.), and sealing off access to food, water, and shelter (e.g., cleaning often, removing clutter, sealing food in airtight containers, placing a tight lid on trash can). Remaining pests can be dealt with through least toxic products such as boric acid bait stations and desiccating dusts. Many pests, such as bed bugs, display widespread resistance to the pyrethroid insecticides contained in most bug bombs.

CDC’s 2018 report, Acute Illnesses and Injuries Related to Total Release Foggers, updates a previous study released in 2008 with new data revealing that EPA’s attempt to reduce bug bomb illness and injury through label changes was unsuccessful. In the period 2007-2015, a total of 3,222 unique cases of illness and injury were reported. The report states, “No statistically significant reduction in overall incidence of TRF [total release fogger]-associated injuries and illnesses was observed in the first three years after the label revisions took effect.” Incidents ranged from failing to leave an area after releasing the bug bomb, reentering the premises too early, use of too many products for the space provided, and even explosions related to the ignition of aerosols released from the product.

Now New York State Senator Zellnor Myrie (D-NYC) has introduced legislation to restrict, and in certain cases ban, the use of ‘bug bombs’ in the state. Senator Myrie’s legislation, S.7516, allows only certified pesticide applicators to purchase and use the dangerous devices, and would completely ban their use in multi-unit dwellings. Total release foggers are dangerous indoor devices that release an aerosolized plume of toxic pesticides and unknown “inert” ingredients in an overpowered, ineffectual attempt to manage common pest problems. As Sen. Myrie notes in his legislative justification for the bill, “This is an environmental justice issue disproportionately affecting lower-income individuals, as bug bombs are a relatively inexpensive pest management solution. As a result, individuals living in older, larger multi-dwellings, who also suffer from adverse health outcomes like asthma at higher rates, are disproportionately exposed to the harmful effects of bug bombs.”

Please protect citizens from these dangerous “bombs.”

Thank you.

Letter to New York Governor (or Mayor of District of Columbia) and state legislators

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that EPA label restrictions on total release foggers, otherwise known as “bug bombs,” are a public health failure. Bug bombs pose a significant risk of acute illness to individuals even when attempting to follow new label instructions. Myriad nontoxic alternative strategies are available to successfully manage household pests. Most common pest problems can be successfully dealt with by eliminating pest entryways into the home (e.g., caulking cracks/crevices, doorsweeps, repairs, etc.), and sealing off access to food, water, and shelter (e.g., cleaning often, removing clutter, sealing food in airtight containers, placing a tight lid on trash can). Remaining pests can be dealt with through least toxic products such as boric acid bait stations and desiccating dusts. Many pests, such as bed bugs, display widespread resistance to the pyrethroid insecticides contained in most bug bombs.

CDC’s 2018 report, Acute Illnesses and Injuries Related to Total Release Foggers, updates a previous study released in 2008 with new data revealing that EPA’s attempt to reduce bug bomb illness and injury through label changes was unsuccessful. In the period 2007-2015, a total of 3,222 unique cases of illness and injury were reported. The report states, “No statistically significant reduction in overall incidence of TRF [total release fogger]-associated injuries and illnesses was observed in the first 3 years after the label revisions took effect.” Incidents ranged from failing to leave an area after releasing the bug bomb, reentering the premises too early, use of too many products for the space provided, and even explosions related to the ignition of aerosols released from the product.

Now New York State Senator Zellnor Myrie (D-NYC) has introduced legislation to restrict, and in certain cases ban, the use of ‘bug bombs’ in the state. Senator Myrie’s legislation, S.7516, allows only certified pesticide applicators to purchase and use the dangerous devices, and would completely ban their use in multi-unit dwellings. Total release foggers are dangerous indoor devices that release an aerosolized plume of toxic pesticides and unknown “inert” ingredients in an overpowered, ineffectual attempt to manage common pest problems. As Sen. Myrie notes in his legislative justification for the bill, “This is an environmental justice issue disproportionately affecting lower-income individuals, as bug bombs are a relatively inexpensive pest management solution. As a result, individuals living in older, larger multi-dwellings, who also suffer from adverse health outcomes like asthma at higher rates, are disproportionately exposed to the harmful effects of bug bombs.”

Please protect citizens from these dangerous “bombs” by supporting S.7516.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 2, 2021) A study published in Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry finds atrazine (ATR) exposure worsens lung disease outcomes in individuals with idiopathic (spontaneous) pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a group of incurable lung diseases involving damaged/scarred lung tissue. Furthermore, chemotherapeutic products used to treat lymphoma (immune system cell cancer) like bleomycin can induce pulmonary fibrosis complications exacerbated by pesticide exposure. However, pesticide-related pulmonary fibrosis can have implications for neurological health, such as motor function. Scientific literature already finds an association between pesticide exposure and respiratory illnesses such as asthma, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis). Although IPF impacts over 5 million people a year globally, the disease is difficult to predict, which is concerning as the death rate is 50 to 56 percent within the first few years. Therefore, studies like this highlight the significance of evaluating how pesticide exposure impacts respiratory function, especially when exposure to respiratory toxicants increases vulnerability to existing respiratory-fixated illnesses like Covid-19. Advocate have urged the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) to incorporate scientific findings that these—where chemical exposures exacerbate an existing medical condition—into its pesticide registration review program.

Researchers note, “[O]ur data represent an addition to the complex information on ATR-induced pulmonary toxicity. In particular, in this study, we aimed to demonstrate that not only is atrazine able to induce alterations to lung parenchyma, fibrosis, oxidative stress, inflammation and behavioral alterations, but it can also worsen the situation that arises following the injection of bleomycin. This could also represent the first step in recognizing that this substance as a problematic air pollutant and not only a water and/or soil pollutant.”

Researchers exposed select cohorts of mice to atrazine, bleomycin (from an administered intratracheal injection), or both. Since the European Union classifies atrazine as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, the study evaluated tissue damage, cell inflammation, oxidative stress, and behavioral alterations following exposure. Next, the researchers examined blood and lung samples and compared behavioral data to sample results. The results demonstrate that damage, fibrosis (tissue scarring), and oxidative stress within the lungs increases after chemical exposure. These adverse effects worsen among cohorts exposed to atrazine and bleomycin, with mice experiencing concurrent brain impairment (i.e., motor function).

The connection between pesticides and associated respiratory risks is nothing new as various studies link pesticide use and residue to various respiratory pathologies. Previous reports demonstrate 78 agricultural pesticides have direct links to wheezing – potentially the first step towards chronic disease. A 2017 study finds lifetime pesticide exposure has associations with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), a degenerative lung disease. Furthermore, pesticide use increases a person’s risk of lung cancer, and a comprehensive literature review found strong correlations between pesticide exposure and various respiratory diseases. 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. However, damage to the respiratory system can cause a plethora of issues—from asthma and bronchitis to oxidative stress that triggers the development of extra-respiratory manifestations or comorbidities (co-occurring illnesses) like rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease. Therefore, the rise in respiratory illnesses over the last three decades is highly concerning, especially as research fails to identify an exact cause for the increase in respiratory disease cases. In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, a disease that does significant damage to the body’s pulmonary system, it is essential to alleviate respiratory stress from egregious environmental pollutants.

Endocrine disruption is an ever-present, growing issue that plagues the global population. Research demonstrates that endocrine disruption is prevalent among many pesticide products like herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and even pesticide manufacturing by-products like dioxin (TCDD). Hence, it is concerning that scientific literature demonstrates exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals also affects the brain, nervous system, and accompanying components, similar to this study. A 2021 study finds that all classifiable endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including common use pesticides like atrazine and Roundup/glyphosate, negatively affect the nervous system, causing neurological disruption via the thyroid (20 percent) or other general mechanisms (80 percent). These chemical ingredients can enter the body, disrupting hormones and causing adverse developmental, disease, and reproductive problems. In addition to this research, several studies demonstrate autism, mood disorders (e.g., depression), and degenerative neurological conditions (e.g., ALS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s) among aquatic and terrestrial animals, including humans, exposed to pesticides. Although the biological function and cause/effect of neurotoxicity related to endocrine and nervous disruptors is unclear, scientists note synchronized communication within and between cells. Many of these endocrine compounds are petroleum derivatives that have a mechanism of action involving “spamming” communication signals.

The nervous system is an integral part of the human body and includes the brain, spinal cord, a vast network of nerves and neurons, all of which are responsible for many of our bodily functions—from what we sense to how we move. Thus, the impacts of pesticides on the nervous system, including the brain, are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farm workers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Mounting evidence over the past years shows that chronic exposure to sublethal (low) levels of pesticides adversely affects the central nervous system (CNS). Specifically, researchers identify agricultural chemical exposure as a cause of many adverse CNS impacts. In addition to CNS effects, pesticide exposure can impact a plethora of neurological diseases. These diseases include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson’s disease, dementia-like diseases such as Alzheimer’s, and other effects on cognitive function. Therefore, advocates say it is essential to avoid toxic chemical exposure to lessen potential acute and chronic health risks.

EPA registers atrazine as a restricted-use pesticide, and only certified pesticide applicators can use the chemical due to the effects on health and ecology. However, contact with pesticides can happen at any point in the production, transportation, preparation, or application processes. According to this study, the general population mainly encounters atrazine through drinking water. These findings are consistent with preceding reports of atrazine contamination being commonplace in waterways (i.e., rivers, streams, surface/groundwater). However, licensed pesticide applicators may also encounter atrazine via inhalation during crop treatments. Furthermore, atrazine can evaporate into the atmosphere by up to 14 percent of the applied volume during treatments. Atrazine is a notoriously toxic herbicide known to cause an amalgamation of different health issues, including skin and respiratory diseases, cancer, and kidney/liver damage. An Agricultural Health Research (AHS) analysis on respiratory illnesses finds a correlation between wheezing and atrazine exposure. 

The etiology or cause of pulmonary fibrosis can be from genetics, immune disorders, or exposure to environmental toxicants. Although the cause may differ, the overproduction and accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) inducing oxidative stress remains a common underlying disease mechanism. This study suggests atrazine induces toxicity by producing ROS, leading to an antioxidant system imbalance involving nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) expression. NRf2 is essential in protecting against lung inflammation and damage from oxidation. According to the University of Tokyo, Nrf2 is an emerging treatment for chronic diseases in which oxidative stress and inflammation are the manners of disease development. Furthermore, studies find Nrf2 can alleviate pulmonary fibrosis risk induced by bleomycin treatments for lymphocytic cancers.

This study adds to the many that highlight comorbidities involved with endocrine-disrupting chemicals that occur outside the endocrine system. Past research shows exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely impact human, animal—and thus environmental—health by altering the natural hormones in the body responsible for conventional fertile, physical, and mental development. Hence, advocates maintain that policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure.

Furthermore, the connection between common and chronic respiratory diseases and exposure to pesticides continues to strengthen, despite efforts to restrict individual chemical exposure or mitigate chemical risks using risk assessment-based policy. Although the etiology of respiratory diseases encompasses several circumstances, including smoking patterns, poverty, occupation, and diet, studies show that relative exposure to chemicals like pesticides can occur within each circumstance, making chemical exposure ubiquitous. Additionally, pesticide drift is an omnipresent issue affecting communities surrounding farming operations, and dust may harm humans, plants, and aquatic systems.

It is vital to understand how exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developing acute and chronic respiratory problems. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on asthma/respiratory effects, cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases. Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Regenerative organic agriculture revitalizes soil health through organic carbon sequestration while reducing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry

(Beyond Pesticides, December 2, 2021) Thousands of residents in Houston, Texas are suing Union Pacific Railroad Company for contaminating their properties with highly hazardous creosote wood preservatives. One of these lawsuits comes from Latonya Payne, legal guardian of Corinthian Giles, a 13-year-old boy who died of leukemia after a five year battle with the disease. A recent report found that the community is in the midst of a childhood leukemia cancer cluster, with disease rates five times the national average. Late last month, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan toured the area as part of his Journey to Justice tour. However, while Administrator Regan vows federal assistance with the cleanup of these long-lived chemicals, EPA is currently in the process of reauthorizing creosote use for another 15 years with the knowledge that it is virtually impossible to produce and use without causing contamination and poisoning. Some environmental advocates are suggesting that Administrator Regan take a tour of EPA’s pesticide registration program and stop the unnecessary poisoning that disproportionately affects people of color and those with vulnerabilities or preexisting medical conditions that increase their vulnerability to toxic chemical exposure. While advocates say that cleaning up EPA’s mess in communities is critical, they insist that it is just as important to prevent future harm by keeping hazardous chemicals out of the market.

Creosote was used to treat and extend the life of railroad ties at a location in Houston’s Greater Fifth Ward up until 1984, but since that time a plume of contamination in the soil has slowly worked its way through the low-income, predominantly black community currently living near the old site. Creosote is a is a complex mixture of approximately 150 to 200 chemicals derived from coal. Chemical analysis of creosotes show that it is composed of approximately 85 percent polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 10 percent phenolic compounds, and five percent nitrogen-, sulfur-, or oxygen- containing heterocyclic compounds. PAHs are hazardous environmental pollutants and are well known carcinogens and mutagens with endocrine disrupting properties that pose a serious threat to human health. The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists creosotes as probable carcinogens (group 2A) with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based on animal studies. Creosote is still registered for use on railroad ties and utility poles.

Residents of the Fifth Ward say they have been dealing with the health effects of creosote pollution for decades. Long-time resident Dianna Cormier Jackson told Click2Houston that she could smell the creosote when living in the area as a child. “My mom, my uncle, two of my brothers, one of them worked for Southern Pacific, but they just brushed it off, my ex-husband died, my mother in law, a whole bunch of my neighbors,” Ms. Jackson told the news station. Houston resident Sandra Edwards told CBS News that over a dozen people living on her street have died of cancer. “We’ve been fighting this threat four, five years and nobody has come over,” she said. “Everybody want to come see what’s going on, but nothing has been done.” 

Pressure increased on Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, and the city eventually requested that the state conduct a cancer cluster study in the region. The findings reveal incidence of acute lymphoblastic leukemia nearly five times higher than what would be expected. These results add considerable weight to ongoing lawsuits, including Latonya Payne’s fight for justice for her nephew Corinthian Giles. Ms. Payne’s wrongful death suit names Union Pacific, alleging that the company consciously released hazardous creosote into the area and then attempted to conceal the danger the contamination posed. The lawsuit was also filed against the City of Houston, claiming that the city failed to alert the community to the hazards of creosote, or take any action to reduce or mitigate the contamination. “He just wanted to make sure that the doctors did everything they could to try to save his life. Until the very last breath, he fought and he fought,” Ms. Payne told CBS News. “Everyday it’s hard, honestly, we are all struggling with having to live without him.” 

“Children are dying from contamination that has been spreading for decades. Enough is enough. Union Pacific and the City of Houston need to accept responsibility and take action to remedy this tragedy immediately,” said attorney Jason Gibson of The Gibson Law Firm to Bellenews.

Administrator Regan visited Fifth Ward neighborhoods and acknowledged the lack of action from state and federal officials. “We have a sense of urgency in cleaning up this mess,” Mr. Regan told CBS News. “I don’t believe we’ve been aggressive enough in terms of state and federal reaction.” At a roundtable meeting, KHOU11 indicates he told residents, “The goal is definitely not a photo-op for EPA, but it is an opportunity to elevate environmental justice on the national stage.”

While it is important for this environmental crisis to receive additional attention from state and federal officials, and begin the long clean up process, it is equally important for regulators to stop this issue from happening to other Americans in the future. Last year, a proposal to produce another highly hazardous wood preservative, pentachlorophenol at a site in South Carolina was met with overwhelming public opposition. Gulbrandsen Chemicals, a multinational company with ties to India, attempted to site the penta plant in the majority low-income African American community Orangeburg, South Carolina, raising serious concerns over environmental racism. However, a series of high-profile investigative reports, community advocacy, and political action ultimately resulted in the company abandoning its plans. This victory all but eliminated the global market for penta, leading EPA to issue a notice of intent to cancel uses of pentachlorophenol wood preservatives earlier this year.

But EPA and Administrator Regan still stand behind carcinogenic creosotes. In its proposed interim decision for creosote, EPA wrote, “Creosote-treated wood offers unique benefits in the preservation of railroad crossties, wooden utility poles, and round timber foundation piles for land, freshwater, and marine use.” In light of these “unique benefits,” the agency did not even consider the viability of alternatives, such as steel, composites, and fiberglass that could replace the hazardous wood preservative process with non or less toxic materials.

It is evident from both history and the present day that chemical corporations target low income, BIPOC neighborhoods to site hazardous industrial processes, creating fence line communities with higher rates of disease incidence and other health problems. Administrator Regan now has the opportunity to not only clean up contamination caused by past injustices, but also stop future injustice directed toward black and brown communities by suspending the registration of hazardous wood preservatives like creosote. America’s ongoing post-cautionary approach to environmental management, where we address issues only after environmental pollution and contamination has already occurred, is unsustainable and anathema to public health and environmental stability. Administrator Regan has the power to move our regulatory systems toward precaution, preventing the need for long-term pain and suffering by taking action to stop the release of harmful pesticides and other chemicals before they wreak havoc on individual lives.

Join us today in calling on Administrator Regan, EPA, and Congress to chart a new path for pesticide regulation that holds pesticide companies accountable, and stops unnecessary poisoning. For more information on the dangers of creosote and other wood preservatives, see Beyond Pesticides  wood preservative program page, as well as comments submitted by Beyond Pesticides to EPA earlier this year.

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

Source: CBS News, KHOU 11, Click2Houston, BelleNews

(Beyond Pesticides, December 1, 2021) Women exposed to metabolites of the banned insecticide chlordane are over three times more likely to develop endometriosis, finds research published in the journal Environment International. The study is the latest to find links between persistent organic pollutants (POPs), still lingering in our environment and in our bodies, and chronic disease. According to an economic analysis conducted in 2016, exposure to endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals, often implicated in considerable damage to the body’s reproductive system, results in billions of dollars of health care costs from female reproductive disorders.

Researchers set out to integrate two methodologies into their evaluation, combining analysis of POP biomarkers in blood with an analysis of biomarkers in that body that correspond with cell functioning, inflammation, and stress. A total of 87 women were enrolled in the study, half of whom had deep endometriosis, a quarter of whom also had the disease and sought surgical intervention, and a remaining quarter without reproductive concerns acted as a control. Twenty polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 30 organochlorine pesticide compounds were analyzed, as were various biomarkers and inflammatory cytokines.

The analysis revealed two compounds to be positively associated with endometriosis – trans-nonachlor, a breakdown product of the banned organochlorine insecticide chlordane, and PCB 114 (there are 209 different PCB compounds), with odds ratios of 3.38 and 1.83, respectively. Compared to the control group, those with endometriosis also had higher total levels of PCB in their blood. Scientists also identified cytokine biomarkers, determining that women with higher levels of these compounds in their bodies were more likely to have endometriosis with endometrioma. According to the study, “Results suggest the role of certain POPs in promoting pro-inflammatory metabolic conditions which may be involved in the development of severe endometriosis.”

Although the authors note the need for additional, larger studies, there is already a considerable body of literature linking POPs and other legacy chemicals to chronic female reproductive diseases. Research published in 2012 found links between high blood levels of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), a breakdown product of the insecticide lindane and endometriosis. A 2013 study looking at technical grade organochlorine insecticides lindane and mirex found similar results. In that study, women with the highest levels of mirex in their bodies had a 50% greater risk than women with the lowest levels. For lindane, the risk was higher, at 70%. While both chemicals have long been banned on food crops, lindane is still permitted for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to kill head lice.

While the long-term dangers of organochlorine insecticides are now well known, organophosphates insecticides developed to replace these hazardous chemicals pose similar health risks. A 2019 study found that both the metabolite of the organophosphate diazinon and a breakdown product of the organophosphate chlorpyrifos were both associated with increased risk of endometriosis. While risks from breakdown products are likely to be similar to effects seen with the parent compound, there is growing evidence that these metabolites are even more toxic than the original compound. Relevant to the current analysis, a 2021 study found that many of these breakdown products may exhibit MORE powerful endocrine-disrupting impacts than its parent chemical.

The decision to approve a pesticide has effects that ripple across the future. In the U.S. these decisions, made under a cloak of secrecy that skirts public oversight, are often unofficially approved before even reviewing the science, with agencies receiving “yes packages” from powerful individuals connected to the pesticide industry. But the impacts of these decisions have real impacts on the health of individuals, and the subsequently trajectory their lives take. These health impacts also weigh down economic potential, costing billions of dollars in health care.

When viable alternatives to the use of hazardous pesticides are available, we must deny pesticide registrations in favor of safer practices, and less toxic compounds. Join today with Beyond Pesticides and 37 other health, farming, beekeeper, and environmental groups urging major reforms at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

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

Source: Contemporary OB/GYN, Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2021) The chronicle of developments in the glyphosate saga has just grown longer: the California Supreme Court has rejected a request by Bayer AG for review of the August 2021 First District Court of Appeal (San Francisco) ruling, for the plaintiffs, that Monsanto knowingly marketed a product — Roundup — whose active ingredient (glyphosate) could be dangerous. The $87 million in damages awarded to the plaintiffs in the litigation, Alberta and Alva Pilliod, has thus survived Bayer’s challenge. This highest state court decision racks up another loss for Bayer (which now owns the Monsanto “Roundup” brand) — despite its dogged insistence, throughout multiple lawsuits (with many more still in the pipeline), that glyphosate is safe. Beyond Pesticides has covered the glyphosate saga extensively; see its litigation archives for multiple articles on glyphosate lawsuits.

Glyphosate has been the subject of a great deal of public, advocacy, and regulatory attention, as well as the target of thousands of lawsuits — particularly since the 2015 declaration by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) that the compound is a likely human carcinogen. In June 2020, facing approximately 125,000 suits for Roundup’s role in cancer outcomes, Bayer announced a $10 billion settlement to resolve roughly 75% of current and potential future litigation; claimants who signed on to the settlement were to receive compensation and were not to pursue any additional legal action.

That said, roughly 30,000 complainants ultimately did not sign on to the settlement, so the queue of potential lawsuits is still potentially enormous. Seeing the writing on the wall, Bayer tried for a second settlement (of roughly $2 billion) to handle any future claims, but in 2021, a U.S. District Court judge (for the Northern District of California) rejected Bayer’s settlement proposal, saying that it was inadequate for future victims diagnosed with cancer after using the herbicide.

Still, Bayer has never acknowledged any harm caused by glyphosate. Indeed, the company responded to the California Supreme Court’s decision with this: “We continue to stand strongly behind the safety of Roundup, a position supported by assessments of expert regulators worldwide as well as the overwhelming weight of four decades of extensive science.” Fast forward to late July 2021, when Bayer announced its plan to end sales of its glyphosate-based herbicides (including its flagship product, Roundup) in the domestic U.S. residential lawn and garden market in 2023.

At the same time, it also announced its allocation of $4.5 billion to meet potential long-term “exposure” (i.e., financial liability resulting from lawsuits) through litigation brought by people who would suffer harms in the future. Bayer noted that, in lieu of glyphosate for its residential lawn and garden market products, it plans to change to herbicide formulations that “rely on alternative active ingredients” in order to “manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns.”

Lest the announcement generate too much excitement (welcome as the move is), Beyond Pesticides noted that: (1) this still leaves Roundup on the market for agricultural food production — where glyphosate gets the heaviest use — and particularly, for use with genetically engineered crops; and (2) what will replace glyphosate in the company’s herbicide formulations is not yet clear, but the residential herbicide market will likely shift to other toxic weed killers to replace glyphosate uses. There is an opportunity, and compelling reason, for members of the public to change their lawn and garden purchasing practices, and for and communities to transition to organic land management practices, which are not dependent on the application of toxic compounds. (See Beyond Pesticides’ Health Effects of 30 Most Commonly Used Pesticides.)

The Pilliods brought suit against the company in 2019 after both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), claiming that their exposures to the Roundup herbicide over decades of use on their properties were responsible. Theirs was the third prominent Roundup “cancer” case to go to trial and result in big wins for plaintiffs. The award in the Pilliod’s case was originally $2.055 billion; the judge later reduced the verdict to $86.7 million on the basis that “the ratios of punitive to compensatory damages as awarded by the jury (27 to 1 for Alberta and 54 to 1 for Alva) were unconstitutionally large.” The judge in the case wrote that Monsanto had demonstrated a “willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”

The law firm that represented the Pilliods (Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman) noted, in a press release on the California Supreme Court’s ruling rejecting Bayer’s request for review, that the couple had their case expedited to trial due to their advanced ages and cancer diagnoses. Brent Wisner, co-lead attorney in the case, commented: “This is not even remotely surprising. It’s not clear how many times Monsanto needs to lose before it stops making frivolous appeals. The Pilliod verdict was based on solid science and unanimous law. They need to stop using the appeals process to deny paying this family its judgment.”

Mr. Wisner has served on the trial teams for all three of the initial, high-profile Monsanto trials:
• that of Dewayne Johnson, who developed NHL through his groundskeeping work and was awarded a staggering $289 million by the jury in his 2018 lawsuit ($39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages, later reduced by the judge to $39 million for each, for a total of $78 million)

• that of Edwin Hardeman, who also developed NHL following decades of Roundup use on his 56-acre property, and in 2019 was awarded $80 ($5 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages)
• that of Alberta and Alva Pilliod

With that deep experience with litigation on glyphosate and with Bayer/Monsanto, Mr. Wisner has said: “Monsanto’s history is one full of vast lies. They mislead people, promise that their products are safe and make a lot of money by doing so. And when things get uncomfortable, they simply move on to another product. This strategy has proven successful for over 100 years.”

A fellow attorney at the firm, Pedram Esfandiary, said in an interview with Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News that Bayer’s expected withdrawal of glyphosate from the residential uses market is a step in the right direction, but added that the company should also discontinue its use in agriculture, where glyphosate use is a huge issue (as Beyond Pesticides has covered). Mr. Esfandiary said that staff at the firm had spoken with many agriculture workers, as well as with representatives from the United Farm Workers, about glyphosate’s impacts on both farmworker health and the environment in central California. He noted that part of the problem in securing justice for agricultural workers is that some of those most directly and severely impacted are undocumented and, therefore, quite reluctant to come forward.

“We are glad for the settlement in this case,” Mr. Esfandiary said, “but Bayer’s takeaway from this should be a moral reckoning for the damage its products are causing.” He said that, rather than focus solely on shareholder satisfaction, the company should have more regard for its impacts on global health and the environment. That, Beyond Pesticides concurs, would be a lasting win.

Sources: https://apnews.com/article/business-lifestyle-environment-and-nature-california-san-francisco-b0ef61238f5e83778fb12e748bc97593 and author communication with Attorney Pedram Esfandiary

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2021) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is reviving its proposal to aerially apply (by helicopter) the toxic rodenticide brodifacoum to kill house mice on the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge off the Northern California coast. Globally significant wildlife populations inhabit the Farallones, including hundreds of thousands of seabirds and thousands of seals and sea lions. According to FWS, these include: thirteen species seabird species that nest on the islands including Leach’s Storm-petrel, Ashy Storm-petrel, Fork-tailed Storm-petrel, Double-crested Cormorant, Brandt’s Cormorant, Pelagic Cormorant, Black Oystercatcher, Western Gull, Common Murre, Pigeon Guillemot, Cassin’s Auklet, Rhinocerous Auklet, and Tufted Puffin; pinnipeds including Northern fur seals, Steller sea lions, California sea lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant seals that breed or haul-out onto Farallon Refuge; and endemic species including white sharks, hoary bats, and arboreal salamanders.

Tell the California Coastal Commission to deny the proposed aerial dispersal of the highly toxic rodenticide brodifacoum on the Farallon Islands.

Brodifacoum is a “second generation anticoagulant rodenticide” (SGAR) that is highly toxic to birds, mammals, and fish. It also poses a secondary poisoning risk to predators. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation quotes the FWS: “Secondary exposure to SGARs is particularly problematic due to the high toxicity of the compounds and their long persistence in body tissues. For example, brodifacoum, a common SGAR, is persistent in tissue, bioaccumulates, and appears to impair reproduction… Even in cases where the proximate cause of death has been identified as automobile strike, predation, or disease, toxicologists and pathologists have attained sufficient toxicological evidence to conclude that rodenticide-induced blood loss increased animal vulnerability to the proximate cause of death.” The threat of secondary poisoning has led the state of California to ban the use of brodifacoum for almost all uses. Although this particular use is an exception, the risks of the use are extremely high.

Aerial application of brodifacoum places at risk the mammalian and avian wildlife on the Farallon Islands, as well as marine life that may be exposed when the poison washes or settles into the ocean. There is no way to limit the impact to the targeted house mouse. A 2015 study conducted after aerial drop of rodenticides on Palmyra Island off the coast of Hawaii reported: “We documented brodifacoum [rodenticide] residues in soil, water, and biota, and documented mortality of nontarget organisms. Some bait (14–19% of the target application rate) entered the marine environment to distances 7 m from the shore. After the application commenced, carcasses of 84 animals representing 15 species of birds, fish, reptiles and invertebrates were collected opportunistically as potential nontarget mortalities. In addition, fish, reptiles, and invertebrates were systematically collected for residue analysis. Brodifacoum residues were detected in most (84.3%) of the animal samples analyzed. Although detection of residues in samples was anticipated, the extent and concentrations in many parts of the food web were greater than expected.”

Home to rare, endemic seabirds such as the ashy storm-petrel, the Farallon Islands certainly have a serious mouse problem – 59,000 rodents occupy the rocky islands. Mice compete with native species for resources and attract an average of six burrowing owls a year. Owls prey upon ashy storm-petrels when mouse populations drop during the winter, killing hundreds of petrels annually. The global population of the ashy storm-petrel is small (10,000 – 20,000), but it is not considered an endangered species.

As important as native ecosystems are, the application of a poison is a toxic, simplified solution to a complex problem that requires the wisdom of nature herself, as species evolve and adapt to new conditions. The SEIS should investigate the possibility of controlling the mice through controlled intensified predation by providing nesting boxes for barn owls and/or kestrels.

Tell the California Coastal Commission to deny the proposed aerial dispersal of the highly toxic rodenticide brodifacoum on the Farallon Islands.

Letter to California Coastal Commission:

I request that you deny the proposal to aerially apply (by helicopter) the toxic rodenticide brodifacoum to kill house mice on the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Globally significant wildlife populations inhabit the Farallones, including hundreds of thousands of seabirds and thousands of seals and sea lions. These include: thirteen species seabird species that nest on the islands; pinnipeds including Northern fur seals, Steller sea lions, California sea lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant seals; and endemic species including white sharks, hoary bats, and arboreal salamanders.

Brodifacoum is a “second generation anticoagulant rodenticide” (SGAR) that is highly toxic to birds, mammals, and fish. It also poses a secondary poisoning risk to predators. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation quotes the FWS: “Secondary exposure to SGARs is particularly problematic due to the high toxicity of the compounds and their long persistence in body tissues. For example, brodifacoum, a common SGAR, is persistent in tissue, bioaccumulates, and appears to impair reproduction… Even in cases where the proximate cause of death has been identified as automobile strike, predation, or disease, toxicologists and pathologists have attained sufficient toxicological evidence to conclude that rodenticide-induced blood loss increased animal vulnerability to the proximate cause of death.” The threat of secondary poisoning has led the state of California to ban the use of brodifacoum for almost all uses. Although this particular use is an exception, the risks of the use are extremely high.

Aerial application of brodifacoum places at risk the mammalian and avian wildlife on the Farallon Islands, as well as marine life that may be exposed when the poison washes or settles into the ocean. There is no way to limit the impact to the targeted house mouse. A 2015 study conducted after aerial drop of rodenticides on Palmyra Island off the coast of Hawaii reported: “We documented brodifacoum [rodenticide] residues in soil, water, and biota, and documented mortality of nontarget organisms. Some bait (14–19% of the target application rate) entered the marine environment to distances 7 m from the shore. After the application commenced, carcasses of 84 animals representing 15 species of birds, fish, reptiles and invertebrates were collected opportunistically as potential nontarget mortalities. In addition, fish, reptiles, and invertebrates were systematically collected for residue analysis. Brodifacoum residues were detected in most (84.3%) of the animal samples analyzed. Although detection of residues in samples was anticipated, the extent and concentrations in many parts of the food web were greater than expected.”

Home to rare, endemic seabirds such as the ashy storm-petrel, the Farallon Islands certainly have a serious mouse problem – 59,000 rodents occupy the rocky islands. Mice compete with native species for resources and attract an average of six burrowing owls a year. Owls prey upon ashy storm-petrels when mouse populations drop during the winter, killing hundreds of petrels annually. The global population of the ashy storm-petrel is small (10,000 – 20,000), but it is not considered an endangered species.

As important as native ecosystems are, the application of a poison is a toxic, simplified solution to a complex problem that requires the wisdom of nature herself, as species evolve and adapt to new conditions.

Please deny a finding of consistency of the proposed aerial dispersal of the highly toxic rodenticide brodifacoum on the Farallon Islands and require that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) be conducted by an independent body examining alternatives, including the no action alternative and nontoxic integrated control methods. The SEIS should investigate the possibility of controlling the mice through controlled intensified predation by providing nesting boxes for barn owls and/or kestrels.

Thank you for considering this request.

(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 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, there are a host of pesticides, genetically engineered materials, and others in conventional Thanksgiving foods that not only impact human health, but 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.

The Climate

As climate impacts grow, an increase in uses of synthetic pesticides in agriculture is likely — because of waning efficacy (pesticide resistance) of these compounds, and mounting pest pressure (i.e., increasing insect population and metabolism). 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. 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. 

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. 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

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 body 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.

Disproportionate Risk

The agricultural industry has a long-standing history of synthetic chemical use, which disproportionally affects farmworkers’ health. Farmworkers are at the greatest risk of pesticide-induced diseases, and their average life expectancy bears this out. According to the National Farm Worker Ministry, farmworkers have an average life span of 49 years, a 29 year difference from the general U.S. population. Individuals working with and around these toxic chemicals are more susceptible to the augmented effects associated with adverse health effects. Furthermore, farmworkers’ children are at greater risk as their immune system response is immature and especially vulnerable to stressors from pesticide exposure. Synthetic chemicals present in pesticides can accumulate in bodies, causing an amalgamation of health effects. These effects can range from heightened risks of various cancers (i.e., prostate, hepatic, liver, etc.) and endocrine disruption to mental health problems (i.e., depression), respiratory illnesses (asthma), and many other pesticide-induced diseases. However, pesticide exposure is ubiquitous and not only confined to a field. Although pesticide exposure through the skin or inhalation is most prevalent among individuals working around these toxic chemicals, the general population also experiences pesticide exposure through residues in food and water resources. To learn more about farmworker protection, please visit Beyond Pesticide’s Agricultural Justice page.

People of color and low-income populations are at higher exposure risk of environmental contaminants (i.e., pesticides) exposure that can catalyze adverse health effects, especially in urban areas. Many people of color communities or members of low-socioeconomic backgrounds experience unequal amounts of chemical exposure from various sources. Placement of toxic waste plants, garbage dumps, industrial factories, farms, and other hazardous pollution sources lowers the quality of life for minority populations. Such high levels of chemical exposure can cause these communities to suffer from health outcomes that affect their ability at work and in schools. Women of color are especially vulnerable to chemical exposure as a 2020 study comparing women of different ethnicities in the U.S. finds these women have higher levels of pesticides and their metabolites, including toxic DDE and 2,4-D. The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for women’s health. Studies suggest women are more susceptible than men to certain types of cancers (i.e., breast cancer) as several pesticides produce endocrine-disrupting effects. Endocrine disruption promotes the development of hormone-related cancers that affect women more than men. The connection between cancer and pesticides is of specific concern to communities of color, as etiological studies often attribute cancer to genetics or environmental contamination without considering the disproportionate risk of exposure to contaminants.

Current pesticide laws lack adequate policies that protect workers and minority communities from pesticide exposure. Risk assessments that calculate “acceptable” risks across population groups fail to disclose the disproportionate effects pesticide use has on people of color communities. Although EPA’s Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) establishes safety standards that use a “health-based” standard for pesticide regulation, there is an inherent assumption that if a pesticide meets a highly questionable “acceptable” risk threshold, it has value or benefit. However, this flawed assumption allows the use of unnecessary toxic pesticide products without regard for either the health effects of chemical interactions or the availability of safer, non-toxic practices and products. These standards ignore the disproportionate risk, for example, to African American children whose asthmatic conditions are caused or triggered by the exact pesticide products that meet health-based standards. Furthermore, federal pesticide laws that aim to categorize disproportionate harm allows elevated risk to workers, particularly farmer and landscapers who are predominantly people of color, who experience aggregate effects of pesticide exposure from multiple sources.

Pollinators

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 rely 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 and you have not only a necessary link of the food production chain, but an incredibly economically valuable one as well.

Imagine if you will 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.

Ecosystems and Biodiversity

Since the 1940s, the 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. Ecological research already finds a positive association between plant diversity and biomass productivity in grasslands and meadows. In addition, a University of California, Santa Barbara study demonstrates that crop diversity in commercial agriculture is just as essential to supporting a stable biological system as plant diversity on non-commercial landscapes (i.e., grasslands/meadows). 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 quantity 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 loss of species biodiversity and stable ecosystem processes that are integral to sustainability. If one competent 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.

Genetic Engineering

Over the last 20 years, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture has massively increased toxic pesticide, threatening human health and the ecosystems on which we all depend. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s handling of dicamba, developed as a new GE crop due to widespread glyphosate resistance, is emblematic of an agency concerned more with protecting industry profits than following their namesake mission. The history of dicamba’s use in GE agriculture reveal this to be the case. In the mid-2010s, Bayer/Monsanto developed new dicamba-tolerant seeds and received approval to sell them from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. To complete the package, EPA needed to approve a corresponding herbicide the company developed. It failed to do in the time frame Bayer/Monsanto wished, so the company urged farmers to plant its new seed, claiming it would increase yields. The results of this were predictable: farmers began to use older, unapproved dicamba formulations on their new GE seeds, and reports of drift damage began to spring up throughout the US.  Dicamba has a strong propensity to drift off-site and can defoliate other crops at very low levels. Rather than take regulatory action to stop illegal use, EPA and USDA sat on their hands while GE agriculture pitted farmer against farmer, neighbor against neighbor, in communities throughout the U.S.

But by the end of 2017, according to reporting from Reuters, state agriculture departments had received thousands of complaints, and scientists indicated over 3.6 million acres of non-GE soybean crops had been damaged by dicamba drift.

EPA tried to tweak the label of the herbicide to lessen the impact, while Bayer persisted in blaming farmers for using older dicamba formulations. The agency let Bayer write its own rules on drift procedures, undermining the independent scientist who worked closely with the company at the last second. This led to the agency reapproving the highly drift-prone herbicide for another two year stint. Environmental groups sued, and a court ruling resulted in a ban on certain dicamba herbicides used on GE crops. However, EPA responded by reregistering the chemicals anyway, endorsing continued strife in farming communities. Consumers are encouraged to put their food dollars into organic cropping systems that do not utilize synthetic pesticides or GE plants, and place pressure on EPA to reform its failed pesticide regulatory system.

Clean Water

Pesticide contamination in waterways is historically commonplace and widespread throughout U.S. rivers and streams, with at least five or more different pesticides present in 90 percent of water samples. Thousands of tons of pesticides enter waterways (e.g., rivers, streams, lakes, oceans) around the U.S. from agricultural and nonagricultural sources, contaminating essential drinking water sources, such as surface water and groundwater. Thus, Aquatic environments continuously encounter environmental pollutants and certain unmonitored toxic compounds exceed federal drinking water standards. Pesticide use should be phased out and ultimately eliminated to protect the nation’s and world’s waterways and reduce the number of pesticides that make their way into drinking water. Replacing pesticides with organic regenerative systems conserves water, nurtures soil fertility, reduces surface runoff and erosion, and reduces the need for nutrient input (i.e., fertilizers). For more information about pesticide contamination in water, see Beyond Pesticides’ article Pesticides in My Drinking Water? Individual Precautionary Measures and Community Action, where Beyond Pesticides states: “This problem requires individual precautionary measures and preventive, community-based action to protect [individual and public health] and ultimately, stop ongoing pesticide use that ends up in drinking water from numerous agricultural, public land, and home and garden use. Beyond Pesticides urges a solution that keeps pesticides out of the water, rather than trying to clean them up after they enter our waterways and drinking water supply.”

One of the ways the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protects human and environmental health is by regulating pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and point source pollution in waterways as regulated by the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. However, according to advocates, government and state agencies fail to uphold their responsibility to protect the public from toxic pollutants. Previously, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) has criticized EPA for not establishing sufficient water quality benchmarks for pesticides. This lack of monitorization is concerning for the health of vulnerable individuals such as infants/children, pregnant women, and the elderly or immunocompromised. These health issues range from kidney problems to an increase in various cancers. However, the ubiquity and persistence of certain compounds make it difficult to limit the number of toxicants that enter waterways, especially since aquatic environments continuously encounter environmental pollutants and certain unmonitored toxic compounds exceed federal drinking water standards. Many of the most commonly used pesticides in the U.S. are detectable in both surface and groundwater, which serve as drinking water sources for half of the U.S. population. As the number of pesticides in waterways increases, it has detrimental impacts on aquatic ecosystem health, especially as some chemicals work synergistically (together) with others to increase the severity of the effect. In addition to adverse health effects on marine organisms, these chemicals harm terrestrial organisms relying on surface or groundwater. The report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” finds that the combination of nonpoint source chemical contamination from pesticide runoff can have an adverse synergistic effect on species’ health and ecosystem. Many of these chemicals cause endocrine disruption, reproductive defects, neurotoxicity, and cancer in humans and animals while being highly toxic to aquatic species. 

The Organic Solution

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for healthier and more environmentally friendly pest management practices to protect the environment and wildlife. Organic agriculture is necessary to eliminate toxic chemical use that threaten so many aspects of human and ecosystem life and ensure the long-term sustainability of food production, the environment, and the economy. Organically managed systems support biodiversity, improve soil health, sequester carbon (which helps mitigate the climate crisis), and safeguard surface- and groundwater quality. There are claims that organic agriculture cannot sustain global crop production. However, scientific studies argue organic yields are comparable to conventional and require significantly lower inputs. Additionally, some pesticide levels in the human body reduce by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet. Therefore, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and resulting adverse health effects. Learn more about how consuming organic products can reduce pesticide exposure and the harmful health and environmental impacts of chemical-intensive farming produces. For more information about organic food production, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keep Organic Strong webpage. To learn more about how organic the right choice for both consumers and farmers, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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, 2021) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced, in mid-October, a revision of its guidance on the evaluation of antimicrobial pesticides used against Candida auris (C. auris). This pathogen is a type of fungus (a yeast) that can cause serious infection, and can spread readily among patients and staff in hospitals and other congregate healthcare settings (such as nursing homes). C. auris has developed resistance to what used to be the therapeutic impacts of major antifungal medications. (Resistance is a major and growing problem in healthcare and in agriculture, with the latter exacerbating the former.) Another moving part in this unholy development of “chemical compounds no longer working” is EPA’s failure to assess the efficacy of any pesticides that are not used for public health purposes; for example, EPA evaluates the efficacy of only those antimicrobial compounds whose use patterns classify them as human-health-related. This failure to evaluate efficacy of all other pesticide products leaves many people in the dark about whether what they may be using actually works — never mind the potential risks associated with that use.

The antifungal medications that have been used for many years to treat Candida infections often no longer work for C. auris; some infections have shown resistance to all three types of antifungals available as treatments. Beyond Pesticides wrote, in 2019: “Echoing the development of resistance in bacteria, there have lately been resistant fungi showing up in hospitals and labs, adding to the already considerable worry in the medical community about how to treat people who contract infections caused by resistant pathogens. Matthew Fisher, Ph.D, a professor of fungal epidemiology at Imperial College London, has said, ‘It’s an enormous problem. We depend on being able to treat those patients with antifungals.’ Fungi, just like other organisms, adaptively exploit genetic mutations to defend against what would kill them — in this case, antifungal medications.”

The new guidance from EPA on C. auris offers recommendations for laboratory methods on producing and storing cultures of the drug-resistant pathogen, and evaluating the effectiveness of antimicrobial products intended to treat surfaces contaminated with it. To be clear, it is not all isolates (strains) of C. auris that have developed drug resistance — yet. Back in 2017, in consultation with The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), EPA issued interim guidance for evaluating the efficacy of disinfectants used in hospitals against C. auris. Later on, lab data were generated (based on CDC’s tracking of clinical cases of multi–drug resistant C. auris isolates in the U.S.) as a basis for comparing the relative resistance of various isolates of C. auris to antimicrobial disinfectants.

The updated EPA guidance directs that manufacturers of any new products seeking registration should test for efficacy using a more-relevant strain of C. auris. Beyond Pesticides notes again the serious flaw in EPA’s practice: the agency leaves to the chemical industry the responsibility for testing its products for safety (and in this case, efficacy), and submitting related data as part of the registration application process. EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs relies on industry-generated data to register and regulate pesticide products whose uses result in widespread public exposure.

Candida auris can be deadly; indeed, more than one in three patients with a serious C. auris infection of the blood, heart, or brain die from it, and nearly half of those who contract the infection die within 90 days. Immunocompromised people and infants are at high risk of lethality from these infections. C. auris is difficult to eradicate in patient surrounds, so healthcare settings are understandably concerned not only about the increasing inefficacy of antifungal medications, but also, about how to control the spread of C. auris once it has appeared in a patient and facility.

As recent research has noted, “Unfortunately, there are very few data available on the effectiveness of disinfectants against C. auris. Chlorine-based products appear to be the most effective for environmental surface disinfection. Other disinfectants, although less effective than chlorine-based products, may have a role as adjunctive disinfectants. A cleaning protocol will also need to be established as the use of disinfectants alone may not be sufficient for maximal decontamination of patient care areas. Furthermore, there are fewer data on the effectiveness of antiseptics against C. auris for patient decolonization and hand hygiene for healthcare personnel.”

As Beyond Pesticides wrote in its coverage of this growing problem, “One of the factors making this fungus so deadly is that it has developed resistance to existing antifungal medicines, with 90% of infections resistant to one drug, and 30% to two or more. As is true for resistant bacteria, culprits in C. auris’s development of resistance may be the overuse of antifungal medications in healthcare and overreliance on fungicides in agriculture.” The CDC calls C. auris “an emerging fungal pathogen,” with the incidence of infection having increased rapidly across many countries since it was first recognized in 2009 in Japan.

Beyond Pesticides has previously called attention to the role of EPA in the issue of inefficacy of pesticide compounds (which include fungicides, antimicrobials, insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, parasiticides, and others). The agency has a decades-long poor track record on this front. Back in 1990, the EPA Office of the GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office) issued recommendations, based on its review of EPA’s regulation of disinfectants, in a document titled “Disinfectants: EPA Lacks Assurance They Work.” Since then, EPA has begun to evaluate — sometimes — the efficacy of disinfectants and antimicrobial compounds through its Antimicrobial Performance Evaluation Program. Yet, even here, the scope of its review is narrow because EPA classifies disinfectants into three categories — hospital disinfectants, broad-spectrum (general) disinfectants, and limited disinfectants — and requires only that hospital disinfectants must have demonstrated efficacy against only two qualifying bacteria — Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus.

As for all the other pesticide compounds in use in a variety of settings, EPA essentially neither requests nor requires efficacy data in its registration of any that are used for non–public health purposes. (In addition, although required by law to weigh pesticide risks and benefits, EPA rarely has the data to make that determination). Thus, for nearly all pesticides used in agriculture, around homes and buildings, and on landscapes, decisions about whether a compound even works on the target pest or pathogen — and therefore, whether the risks inherent in its use can be deemed “worth it” — are left to consumers, farmers, and healthcare organizations to figure out. This is, obviously, a problem.

EPA’s position on this is that the marketplace (somehow) determines efficacy. Given that most healthcare professionals, farmers, and consumers do not have at hand the information with which to make such a decision, nor the ability to do laboratory efficacy evaluations, they are left to make decisions without benefit of full information about a pesticide product. This is especially nonsensical because resistance to pesticides builds over relatively short periods of time, meaning that without benefit of accurate, independent evaluation of efficacy, people are applying toxic compounds that may not even “work.”

Farmers may discover product inefficacy when they see infestations of weeds or insects among their crops — because the pests are no longer controlled by the herbicides or insecticides the farm has been purchasing and using, often for some years. [This is the resistance issue about which Beyond Pesticides has written often — see here, here, and here.] If a conventionally operated, chemical-intensive farm enterprise, which is typically very dependent on pesticides for pest control, discovers after a crop loss that a pesticide did not work, the results can be economically devastating.

Further, EPA’s implicit contention that the marketplace can be the arbiter of efficacy is implausible, at best. How can “the marketplace” determine relative benefits (based on efficacy and risks) — and thus, guide farmers’ and consumers’ and health professionals’ decisions — when lack of efficacy is discovered after the fact? That is some serious “cart before the horse” logic.

This lack of information on efficacy can have dire consequences that could be avoided if EPA were to conduct efficacy reviews to determine whether pesticides work over time. In agriculture, in part because the agrichemical industry has successfully indoctrinated producers into the “chemical controls” approach, EPA’s failure to do such reviews often results, downstream, in farmers seeking (very often granted) “emergency exemptions” to use unregistered pesticides (which may be in the registration pipeline), or those that are intended for other purposes.

There is often a “throw whatever you have at it” attitude in these “emergency” situations — which Beyond Pesticides regards as the “chickens of chemical control coming inevitably home to roost.” Agrichemical industry response to the development of resistance has largely been to promote use of yet another pesticide or herbicide for the problem, or to “double down” with paired pesticide compounds, or to roll out yet another herbicide-plus-GE-seed combination to try to stave off the pest. (This has been particularly true in the case of developing resistance to glyphosate-based herbicides.) But this entropic “resistance and response” dynamic is a unidirectional progression along an increasingly poisonous and unsustainable path.

Fraught as it is with negative impacts on human and environmental health, including the mounting resistance issues, chemically intensive agriculture should be understood as a sign of the ineffectiveness of conventional, chemical approaches to pest control. Adoption of organic agricultural practices can diminish the resistance problem, potentially helping to preserve important antibiotic and antifungal medicines for treatment of human infection. But EPA abdicates its responsibility “to protect human health and the environment” when it fails to address the issue of efficacy of pesticide products, causing downstream health, economic, and environmental harms. Beyond Pesticides recommends that EPA Administrator Michael Regan and officials in the Office of Pesticide Programs address this wide gap in agency function.

Sources: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-revises-guidance-ensure-effectiveness-antimicrobial-pesticides-against-candida-auris and https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/epa-announces-revisions-to-guidance-to-5506501/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 22, 2021) It is the time of the year for backyard bird counts to begin. Birdwatching is the most popular form of amateur science. It takes little to get started. Birds are fun to watch and photogenic. Birdwatching may be practiced alone or in groups.

Birdwatching is also a way to participate in science, and you can do it from home. Cornell Lab of Ornithology collaborates with other organizations to gather data collected at feeders and elsewhere. Cornell Lab’s eBird is one of the world’s largest biodiversity-related science projects, with more than 100 million sightings reported annually. eBird and FeederWatch data document bird distribution, abundance, habitat use, and trends. According to Cornell Lab, “eBird data are stored across secure facilities, archived daily, and are freely accessible to anyone. eBird data have been used in hundreds of conservation decisions and peer-reviewed papers, thousands of student projects, and help inform bird research worldwide.” Data submitted to eBird are also used to support conservation measures.

If birds aren’t your favorites, all kinds of citizen science programs that ensure that conservation decisions are informed by the best available data, which is a fundamental challenge in the face of rapid global environmental change. They focus on all sorts of organisms, from birds to monarchs and other butterflies to frogs, not to mention water quality and weather. Besides making contributions to science, projects like these help people to protect biodiversity and the world around them.

More citizen scientists are urgently needed to combat threats to biodiversity, like the 3 billion bird decline documented by the Breeding Bird Survey. Documenting such threats—including the insect apocalypse, reproductive effects on amphibians, and other impacts on biodiversity—are an essential step in eliminating those threats.

Pledge your organic and pollinator-friendly acreage and sign the Pesticide-Free Declaration! 

Become a citizen scientist. Use the links below to learn how you can participate:

• eBird or FeederWatch
• North American Breeding Bird Survey
• Christmas Bird Count
• Monarch Larvae Monitoring Project
• North American Butterfly Association
• North American Amphibian Monitoring Program
• FrogWatch USA
• Tracking Seasonal Changes in Plants and Animals
• Earth Echo Water Challenge Macroinvertebrate Add-on
• Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow NetworkGlobe at Night
• Citizen Science in National Parks
• National Geographic List of Citizen Science Projects
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency List of Citizen Science Projects

This Thanksgiving, and every day, we are grateful for all you do to support the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 19, 2021) Thanksgiving offers an opportunity for people to come together and give thanks for the bounty of an organic harvest. Unfortunately, many Thanksgiving meals are produced by chemical farming practices that utilize hazardous pesticides, genetically engineered (GE) crops, and petroleum-based synthetic fertilizers. These inputs, apart from being unnecessary, degrade ecosystems and affect the health of consumers and agricultural workers alike. It’s never too late to start a new tradition – for this year and into the future, make your Thanksgiving feast sustainable by going organic.

Now, more than ever, it’s important to go organic:

For Our Own 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 body 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 Pollinators

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 rely 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 and you have not only a necessary link of the food production chain, but an incredibly economically valuable one as well.

Imagine if you will 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.

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. 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 to 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 important 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 the crops (approximately 75% less than conventional agriculture) and the significant increase in carbon sequestration in the soil.

Eating organic is a first step as committed consumers, but we still must protect the true core values and principals of the organic label, as they are meant to be.

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 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 18, 2021) A study published by King George’s Medical University, India, finds exposure to xenobiotic substances like pesticides during pregnancy increases risks associated with preterm birth, including a rise in cesarean section (C-section) deliveries and a decrease in fetal body weight. Preterm births occur when a fetus is born early or before 37 weeks of complete gestation. Premature births can result in chronic (long-term) illnesses among infants from lack of proper organ development and even death.

Birth and reproductive complications are increasingly common among individuals exposed to environmental toxicants, like pesticides. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports the preterm birth rate is increasing annually. Therefore, studies like this can help government and health officials safeguard human health by assessing adverse effects following prevalent chemical exposure. The study notes, “To the best of our knowledge, this was a pioneering study, and it may help to increase our knowledge with regard to xenobiotic exposure in biological systems and the need for stringent guidelines for agricultural use of pesticides.”

The study examines the association between the transfer of xenobiotics (foreign synthetic substances like pesticides) from mother to fetus. Transferal of these toxic substances can result in biological and chemical changes (i.e., genotoxicity and oxidative stress). Using a cohort of 221 pregnant women in India, researchers collected blood samples from the mother and the fetal umbilical cord. The researchers separated blood samples by gestational (period of development inside the womb) and newborn birth weight. A comet assay examined genotoxicity or genetic DNA damage resulting in mutations from xenobiotic substances.

The results demonstrate that exposure to xenobiotic organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) during pregnancy increases risks associated with genotoxicity and other adverse birth outcomes. Overall, high maternal age and gestation length combined with xenobiotic exposure influence preterm birth and genotoxicity patterns. Nearly half (47 percent) of all pregnant women in the study gave birth prematurely or before 36 weeks of gestation. Preterm births have the highest associations with cesarean section deliveries and low birth weight. All of the blood samples from premature newborns and their mothers have higher levels of OCPs than full-term newborns. Aldrin, dieldrin, and hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) are the most prominent OCPs present in maternal and umbilical cord blood samples, followed by DDT, endosulfan, and endrin aldehyde. However, blood samples also contain concentrations of other pesticide types including, organophosphates (OPs) (i.e., dichlorvos, malathion, chlorpyrifos, profenofos), synthetic pyrethroids (i.e., cypermethrin, fenvalerate, cyhalothrin-L, deltamethrin, cyfluthrin), and neonicotinoids (neonics) (i.e., imidacloprid). Regarding specific birth outcomes, DDT metabolite DDE and dieldrin have significant associations with low birth weight.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Numerous studies indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water, and researchers caution that there are hundreds to thousands of chemicals that humans are likely to encounter. Although many countries ban most organochlorine compounds, these chemicals remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. These compounds have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. Thus, exposure to these toxicants can cause a plethora of adverse environmental and biological health effects. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse effects on human health (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.) and wildlife and biodiversity. With the increasing ubiquity of pesticides, current measures safeguarding against pesticide use must adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants.

Pesticides’ presence in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. A 2021 study finds pregnant women already have over detectable 100 chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned POPs. However, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are from unidentified sources, lack adequate information, or were not previously detectable in humans. Considering the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods of fetal development, exposure to toxicants can have much more severe implications. A 2020 study finds prenatal exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates that increase the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities. Some of these birth abnormalities include acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even common household pesticides use during pregnancy can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children. Therefore, prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides increases susceptibility to disease for both mother and child’s health.

Pesticide exposure not only poses a risk to mothers and their subsequent offspring but also future generations. Current-use pesticides and metabolites (or breakdown products) of many long-banned pesticides still impart adverse effects on human health. These negative effects can continue into childhood and adulthood and may have multigenerational consequences. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID). Although the U.S. bans many organochlorine compounds, the ongoing poisoning and contamination underscore how pervasive and persistent these chemicals are and their continued adverse impact on human health. 

This study amplifies the growing body of scientific research evaluating the effects pesticides have on mothers and newborns. The results indicate that pesticide exposure during pregnancy negatively affects the mother’s metabolism, promoting genotoxicity and oxidative stress among fetuses. An imbalance in reactive oxygen species (ROS) or the antioxidant system can lead to oxidative stress. Thus, the birthing process is hypoxic, with oxygen levels changing from low to high after delivery. Upon delivery, the change in partial pressure of oxygen within the uterine and outside of the uterus during birth results in cell and tissue destruction. However, preterm newborns have an immature antioxidant system, resulting in more severe cellular and tissues damage and increasing pediatric morbidity risk. Furthermore, DNA repair mechanisms among preterm and full-term newborns are inadequate and promote genotoxic effects.

In this study, OCP concentration levels are the highest among the Indian population compared to previously reported levels from past studies. Even at low concentrations, OCPs and their breakdown products reduce birth weight, most likely via interference with internal hormones like estrogens, androgens, and thyroid hormones. This interference is also known as endocrine disruption, with chemical compounds binding to hormone receptors, mimicking their mechanisms.

Considering rates of preterm births, miscarriages/stillbirths, and birth malformations are increasing, it is necessary to mitigate chemical exposure to safeguard future generations’ health. The authors conclude, “[N]on-occupational OCPs contamination to pregnant women may cause (1) DNA damage, (2) biochemical alterations, (3) reduction in infant birth weight, and other pregnancy outcomes. Our results also indicated that there is no transplacental barrier to OCPs across the mother-fetus axis and consequently nuclear damage linked with it, and it is of great concern. There is an urgent need of implementation of proper legislation and awareness programs to educate farmworkers for safe handling and spraying techniques, effective personal hygiene and cleanliness.”

There is a growing consensus that exposure to environmental toxicants before pregnancy can impair fertility, pregnancy, and fetal development. Thus, doctors and pediatricians strongly agree that pregnant mothers should avoid pesticide exposure during critical development periods. Exposure concerns about POPs are increasing significantly, especially for adults and children more vulnerable to their toxic effects. Moreover, many contaminants are subject to regulatory standards that do not fully evaluate disease implications associated with exposure. Advocates say that addressing the manufacturing and use of pesticides is essential to mitigate risks from chemical exposure to toxic pesticides. Therefore, advocates urge that policies strengthen pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Body Burdens, and other diseases. To learn more about how the lack of adequate pesticide regulations can adversely affect human and environmental health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

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

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

Source: Environmental Research (King George’s Medical College), Deccan Herald

(Beyond Pesticides, November 17, 2021) New York state senator Zellnor Myrie (D-NYC) introduced legislation this week that would restrict, and in certain cases ban the use of ‘bug bombs’ in the state. Total release foggers, more aptly referred to as bug bombs (because in some cases, they literally blow up), are dangerous indoor devices that release an aerosolized plume of toxic pesticides and unknown inert ingredients in an overpowered, ineffectual attempt to manage common pest problems. As Sen. Myrie notes in his legislative justification for the bill, “This is an environmental justice issue disproportionately affecting lower-income individuals, as bug bombs are a relatively inexpensive pest management solution. As a result, individuals living in older, larger multi-dwellings, who also suffer from adverse health outcomes like asthma at higher rates, are disproportionately exposed to the harmful effects of bug bombs.”

Senator Myrie’s legislation, S.7516, will allow only certified pesticide applicators to purchase and use the dangerous devices, and would completely ban their use in multi-unit dwellings. “Foggers should not be used in multi-dwelling buildings, but existing New York state law does not prohibit this use,” Sen Myrie continues in his legislative justification. “Restricting the sale of pesticide foggers to consumers, restricting their use in multi-dwelling buildings, or restricting the use to licensed pesticide applicators will reduce their use by ensuring they are applied only by personnel trained to understand and follow the restrictions and warnings on the product label and will result in better targeting when they are used.”

While eliminating consumer use by restricting the devices to certified pesticide applicators would be an important step forward, there is considerable evidence to justify an all-out ban that extends beyond multi-family units. Problems with these devices stretch far back. Reporting from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cataloged over 450 bug bomb related illnesses between 2001-2006 in the United States. Many of these incidents occurred in New York City, leading the NYC Department of Health (DoH) in 2009 to petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make these devices restricted use, as Sen Myrie’s legislation would accomplish. Around the same time that NYC DoH petitioned EPA, a 10-month old child died in South Carolina after their mother used bug bombs inside their home. At the time, Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides said, “This child’s death should move the leadership of EPA to take the necessary steps to ban foggers, an action that has been urged for years both within and outside the agency.”

Yet the agency ultimately sided with the device manufacturers, rejecting NYC DoH’s petition. EPA instead claimed that incidents were “overwhelmingly minor in nature,” resulting from “a few basic errors” and concluded that “label improvements can mitigate these risks.” EPA subsequently introduced new labels, this time with comic-book style pictures indicating the steps required to use the products.

Almost a decade later, in 2018, CDC officials published a new report on the revised labels, determining that EPA’s actions represented a public health failure.  Between 2007-2015, CDC cataloged 3,222 illnesses caused by bug bomb use. This nearly 8-fold increase in reported incidents reveal that EPA’s new labels caused more problems and confusion than the previous labels already determined to be deficient. Within both cases, the main cause of poisoning was a failure to leave the premises. The CDC report also notes, “Some users ventilated treated premises for the recommended length of time or longer, but still became ill, suggesting that ventilation might be inadequate or the recommended period might be insufficient to fully eliminate TRF [total release fogger] residuals before occupancy.”

In addition to the inherent dangers of using these products is the fact that they do not work – at all, according to a 2019 study.  “In a cost-benefit analysis, you’re getting all costs and no benefits,” said Zachary DeVries, PhD, co-author of the study. “Bug bombs are not killing cockroaches; they’re putting pesticides in places where the cockroaches aren’t; they’re not putting pesticides in places where cockroaches are and they’re increasing pesticide levels in the home.”

Although many common household pests, like cockroaches and bed bugs, have displayed widespread resistance to the insecticides primarily used in bug bombs – synthetic pyrethroids, it isn’t even this resistance that is the primary failure with bug bombs. These devices disburse pesticide residue throughout one’s home, but it often doesn’t make it into the cracks and crevices where pests hide. As a result, pesticide levels in one’s home can increase 600-fold – creating a long-term problem. With evidence that synthetic pyrethroids persist on indoor surfaces for over a year, bug bombs simply add insult to injury.

Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe webpage provides non-toxic or least-toxic methods to eliminate cockroaches, bed bugs, ants, and other household pests. The success of these methods highlight the unnecessary danger of keeping bug bombs on the market. New York residents are encouraged to write or call their state lawmakers in support of this legislation, and those outside of New York can contact their state elected officials and urge them to introduce a similar ban.

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

Source: New York Senate S.7516, The Post-Journal
Image source: Homedepot.com

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2021) Populations of disease-carrying mosquitoes are higher in urban areas of lower socioeconomic status, according to research published this year in the Journal of Urban Ecology. With insect-borne diseases on the rise due to a rapidly changing climate, it is critical to highlight disease patterns and target aid to communities at greatest risk. While pesticide use is often the knee-jerk reaction to high mosquito populations, it is critical not to compound health risks through toxic chemical use. The factors that lead to higher rates of disease-carrying mosquitoes can be remedied through considerate planning and targeted, consistent investment in sustainable infrastructure.

To determine the prevalence of mosquito populations, in particular populations of disease-carrying Aedes aegypti, along a gradient of socioeconomic status, researchers began their work in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Eight neighborhoods across the region were categorized based on socioeconomic factors such as household income, population density, health coverage, unemployment level, education, and the amount of trash and abandoned homes in the area.  Mosquitoes were sampled from October 2018 to May 2019, using six mosquito traps per neighborhood.

A total of over 12,000 mosquitoes were trapped over the course of the study, with nearly 90% of traps finding Culex quinquefasciatus, and roughly 12% being Aedes egypti. Both mosquitoes have the ability to transmit disease. While C. quinquefasciatus is known for its ability to spread West Nile, Zika, and eastern equine encephalitis, Ae. egypti can transmit yellow fever, chickungunya, Zika, and dengue.

The abundance of Ae. egypti mosquitoes trapped correlated closely with the socioeconomic status of a neighborhood, with lower income communities seeing higher numbers and declining as a neighborhood economic factors increase. The two wealthiest neighborhoods had the lowest levels of Ae. egypti, while the three least well-off neighborhoods had the highest rates of disease carrying mosquitoes.

Researchers note that although population density is higher in neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic status, it is the resulting physical and structural differences between the neighborhoods that are the biggest contributors. The human built environment in lower income areas are more likely to have infrastructure that is poorly maintained, with more litter and stagnant water in the streets due to lack of sanitation services and a functioning drainage system. It was noted that two of the lowest socioeconomic status neighborhoods flooded multiple times during the course of research. All of these factors increase larval mosquito habitat and subsequently the risk of mosquito borne disease.

While some may conclude that the answer is simply to target more mosquito control methods towards lower income neighborhoods, that decision belies data from higher socioeconomic status neighborhoods. The way humans alter the environment inherently attracts mosquitoes that are already attracted to humans as a source of food. Comparing natural landscapes to human built environments, mosquito abundance increases by an average of 2.9 times, according to recent studies. It follows that within an environment already catered to its needs, mosquitoes will thrive in areas that provide the most ideal conditions.

To remedy the disparities in mosquito abundance and disease prevalence, policies are needed to target investments toward improving physical infrastructure, bringing trash and sanitation services to underserved communities, and focusing on other measures that manipulate the potential habitat of disease-carrying mosquitoes. This approach is likely most helpful, but not limited to low socioeconomic communities – emphasizing non-chemical management of insect born disease should always be the first consideration. After these factors are addressed, there may be a role for the judicious use of biological based larvicides like bacillus thuringiensis, but mosquito adulticing should almost never be necessary, and only conducted when there is a sustained presence of a disease vector and buy-in from the surrounding community. Ae. egypti mosquitoes are rapidly evolving resistance to commonly used pyrethroid insecticides, underlining the need for residents of every socioeconomic status to focus on personal protective measures, like mosquito-proof clothing and natural repellents.

For more information on safer mosquito management, see Beyond Pesticides resource page.

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

Source: Sciworthy, Journal of Urban Ecology

(Beyond Pesticides, November 15, 2021) A recent hearing in the U.S. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Food and Nutrition, Specialty Crops, Organics, and Research, subcommittee chair Senator Cory Booker stressed the failures of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food and nutrition programs, saying, “Our food system is not a “free market,” we are picking winners and losers, and it’s consumers, family farmers, and food workers who are losing.”

Tell USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to require organic school lunches.

Experts at the hearing pointed out impacts of poor nutrition choices that are driven by USDA’s policies. Associate professor Angela Odoms-Young, PhD of Cornell University said, “People of color overall, and Black populations specifically, face higher rates of diet-related chronic conditions and have poorer dietary intakes as compared to whites. We did not get here by chance but through policy.”

Childhood obesity is a serious problem in the U.S., leading to a host of health problems in childhood and later in life. Juvenile obesity is highest in Hispanic, African American, and lower income groups, which provides an opportunity for USDA’s school lunch program to have a positive impact. At the hearing, Donald Warne, MD, MPH of the University of North Dakota medical school said obesity rates for American Indians and Alaska Natives were 1.6 times higher than white Americans and diabetes rates were three times higher. Heart disease rates were 50% higher.

Obesity is associated with a number of related health conditions—including high blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol levels collectively known as the “metabolic syndrome.” Metabolic syndrome increases risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes. Among the known causes of the metabolic syndrome is exposure to chemicals known as obesogens. Avoiding pesticide exposure is a good way to avoid obesogens, so organic food should be part of every strategy—including school lunch programs—designed to provide nutrition to children.

Although the Senate hearing stressed food choices, how food is produced is also a factor in obesity. Bruce Blumberg, PhD, University of California, Irvine, first hypothesized the theory on the role environmental chemicals play in promoting obesity in 2006. Coining the term “obesogen,” Dr. Blumberg found that a chemical his team was researching for other issues, a now-banned pesticide called tributyltin, happened to be make laboratory mice fat. Since then, research on the issue continues to expand significantly, and government bodies, such as the National Institute for Environmental Health Services, have recognized the role pesticides and other chemicals play in weight gain and the global obesity epidemic.

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential childcare institutions to provide “nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day.” As part of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the NSLP provides free or reduced cost lunches to qualified children, making it an excellent way to ensure that children can receive obesogen-free meals. However, since many pesticides are obesogens, those school lunches must be organic.

Tell USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to require organic school lunches.

Letter to Food and Nutrition Service Deputy Under Secretary Stacy Dean, USDA Secretary Vilsack, and Members of Congress:

Consistent with the mission of the Food and Nutrition Service to end hunger and obesity through the administration of 15 federal nutrition assistance programs including WIC, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and school meals, it is important that school lunches be free of chemical obesogens. The only way to ensure this is to require that school lunches be made from organic food.

A recent hearing in the U.S. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Food and Nutrition, Specialty Crops, Organics, and Research, subcommittee chair Senator Cory Booker stressed the failures of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food and nutrition programs, saying, “Our food system is not a “free market”, we are picking winners and losers, and it’s consumers, family farmers, and food workers who are losing.”

Experts at the hearing pointed out impacts of poor nutrition choices that are driven by USDA’s policies. Associate professor Angela Odoms-Young, PhD of Cornell University said, “People of color overall, and Black populations specifically, face higher rates of diet-related chronic conditions and have poorer dietary intakes as compared to whites. We did not get here by chance but through policy.”

Childhood obesity is a serious problem in the U.S., leading to a host of health problems in childhood and later in life. Juvenile obesity is highest in Hispanic, African American, and lower income groups, which provides an opportunity for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) school lunch program to have a positive impact.

Although the Senate hearing stressed food choices, how food is produced is also a factor in obesity. Bruce Blumberg, PhD, University of California, Irvine, first hypothesized the theory on the role environmental chemicals play in promoting obesity in 2006. Coining the term “obesogen,” Dr. Blumberg found that a chemical his team was researching for other issues, a now-banned pesticide called tributyltin, happened to be make laboratory mice fat. Since then, research on the issue continues to expand significantly, and government bodies such as the National Institute for Environmental Health Services have recognized the role pesticides and other chemicals play in weight gain and the global obesity epidemic.

Obesity is associated with a number of related health conditions—including high blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol levels collectively known as the “metabolic syndrome.” Metabolic syndrome increases risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes. Among the known causes of the metabolic syndrome is exposure to chemicals known as obesogens. Avoiding pesticide exposure is a good way to avoid obesogens, so organic food should be part of every strategy—including school lunch programs—designed to provide nutrition to children.

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential childcare institutions to provide “nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day.” The NSLP provides free or reduced cost lunches to qualified children, making it an excellent way to ensure that children can receive obesogen-free meals. However, since many pesticides are obesogens, those school lunches must be organic.

Please initiate policy requiring organic school lunches.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 12, 2021) Omnivorous readers may have encountered an article, in the November 15 issue of The New Yorker magazine, titled — at best misleadingly, and certainly sensationally — “The Great Organic-Food Fraud.” The subhead comports with the tone of the headline: “There’s no way to confirm that a crop was grown organically. Randy Constant exploited our trust in the labels — and made a fortune.” The piece, by Ian Parker, tells a complex tale of the machinations of dishonest and greedy people who saw, in the commerce in organic grains, an opportunity to misrepresent nonorganic crops as organic and make a boatload of money in doing so. What the article fails to do is render any comprehensive picture of how National Organic Program certification and inspection work, and the underlying principles, values, and standards in federal law (the Organic Foods Production Act), nor does it review either the benefits of organic agriculture broadly or the massive harmful impacts of conventional, chemical-intensive agriculture in the U.S. Beyond Pesticides provides ballast, in this Daily News Blog article, to the failings of the New Yorker article and the damage it might do to the organic movement.

It is worth noting that Mr. Parker seems to cast a slightly jaundiced eye on the whole organic enterprise, as evidenced by his comment: “In 2000, organic sales in ordinary supermarkets exceeded, for the first time, sales in patchouli-scented health-food stores. During the next five years, domestic sales of organic food nearly doubled, to $13.8 billion annually. The figure is now around sixty billion dollars, and the industry is defined as much by large industrial dairy farms, and by frozen organic lasagna, as it is by the environmentalism and the irregularly shaped vegetables of the organic movement’s pioneers.”

The development of modern organic agriculture in the U.S. was, until late in the 20^th century, genuinely (warning: pun ahead) “organic.” Practiced by a relatively small cadre of interested farmers across the country, it was pursued according to a variety of definitions and practices, and evolved, in a highly diffuse fashion, as an alternative to the growing post–World War II emphasis on chemical “pest control” in agriculture. Organic and its scientific principles, although practiced as a matter of course before that time, was brought to the mainstream in the U.S. by J.I. Rodale, Rodale Press and Organic Farming and Gardening Magazine (1942), followed by Robert Rodale, and the Rodale Institute. In England, Sir Albert Howard, a botanist, wrote the 1940 book An Agricultural Testament, and Lady Balfour, a farmer and educator, popularized organic with the publication of The Living Soil in 1943. The National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), now Beyond Pesticides, formed in 1981 (after field hearings in the late 1970s) and advanced organic to eliminate hazardous chemical exposure for farmers and farmworkers, in addition to addressing the food safety and environmental protection concerns.

Organic in the marketplace began with support from a loyal group of consumers who sought out organic through farm stands and farmers markets, community-supported agriculture (CSAs), food cooperatives, and buying clubs. As the nonprofit SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) writes, “Although there was general agreement on philosophical approaches, no standards or regulations existed defining organic agriculture. The first certification programs were decentralized, meaning that each state or certifying agent could determine standards based on production practices and constraints in their region.” Even prior to state involvement, voluntary standards were organized by producers under the Organic Foods Production Association of North America (OFPANA) and nonprofit certifiers. 

The lack of a unified definition of “organic” across the states moved Congress to pass, in 1990, the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), which called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create organic standards and regulations for producers, processors, and certifiers — what came to be the National Organic Standards (NOS). The legislation also created the NOSB (National Organic Standards Board), an advisory entity that evaluates and recommends substances that may and may not be used in organic production. These elements comprise the National Organic Program (NOP), rules that were finalized in 2002.

Only those food and fiber products grown and processed within the rules of the NOS can bear the USDA Certified Organic label. The NOS rules codify organic principles into regulations for what is allowed, not allowed, and required for certification. The Certified Organic label is the symbol of a system that is well defined, based on verifications, and critically, trusted by stakeholders in the food system — consumers, producers, processors, and retailers. Mr. Parker astutely notes, “More than in most retail transactions, the organic consumer is buying both a thing and an assurance about a thing.”

Now, the reality is that a stalk of organic broccoli and a stalk of conventionally grown broccoli cannot be assayed to say which is organic. It is actually the production land itself, and the management of it (or in the case of livestock, the facility where they are raised), that is certified organic. Food grown on that land (or animals raised at that facility), according to the NOS rules, can be labeled “organic.” Thus, the organic sector relies on the integrity of the regulations, but also that of the certifiers and inspectors, and to some extent, the producers, to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and trustworthiness of the organic label.

This is how the NOP certification and inspection processes do work: producers and handlers of organic products are required to be certified by a USDA accredited certifying agent in order to make the claim that their products are USDA Certified Organic. Certifying agents make annual visits to farms and processing plants, and can make unannounced visits to ensure that a farm, ranch, or other facility is in compliance with the NOS.

Farmers have to talk with the agent, answer questions, and provide to the certifier a comprehensive plan that covers the land history of all production fields; pest, weed, and disease management; fertility and nutrient-management; and origins of, and feed and healthcare for, any livestock. A grower must report all products/inputs used on the farm (such as fertilizers and pesticides), as well as rates and dates of their application. Failure to report a product used puts the grower out of compliance, and results in a reprimand and/or revocation of certification. (For a complete explanation of these standards see the NOS.)

The independent Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) is an additional organization engaged with certification. It reviews products used in organic production to assess their compliance with the NOS. The OMRI list is used widely as the most comprehensive list of products approved for organic production, but not all products approved for organic production by the NOS are listed with OMRI.

The New Yorker article is written as an intriguing story about an episode of gross malfeasance that unfolded in the organic grain sector from roughly 2001 through 2018. The story centers on Randy Constant, who managed, over the course of those years, to engage a half-dozen other men in his multiple shady business ventures — nearly all of which involved deception and/or outright fraud. The scheme for which he was ultimately convicted, according to the article, “had led to more than a hundred and forty-two million dollars in sales of fake organic grain between 2010 and 2017.”

Mr. Constant’s schemes were enacted largely through (1) his purchases of truckloads or rail cars of conventional corn and soybeans (sometimes at remote locations so as to escape notice), and then passing them off as organic, and (2) exploiting the certification process by getting his primary business entity, “Organic Land Management,” certified on the basis of one or two of its farms, but then buying up additional, nonorganic grain and claiming it as “organic.” The article reports, “The scheme . . . is the largest-known fraud in the history of American organic agriculture: prosecutors accused him of causing customers to spend at least a quarter of a billion dollars on products falsely labelled with organic seals.”

In 2001, a purchaser of Mr. Constant’s “organic” grain tested the shipment for evidence of genetic modification (GM). (Foods can be tested to determine whether they come from genetically modified seeds and plants.) Non–genetically modified crops might be organic or nonorganic, but no GM crop can legitimately be organic. The shipment was, in fact, genetically modified. That moment is when some people stopped dealing with Mr. Constant; yet his deceptive dealings continued for some years.

Although Mr. Parker’s article seems to imply that the nefarious activity of Randy Constant, the primary “bad guy” in his story, is somehow a function of the organic sector itself, this is a claim without context. There are plenty of examples of greed, malfeasance, and shady business dealings to go around; these are hardly confined to the organic food system.

As Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman points out, “This [article] is a piece about scammers and greedy people who knew they were violating the law. But is that any different than in conventional agriculture, or in other areas of society? Yes, we can strengthen inspections, recordkeeping, and enforcement, but as with all law and policy, there will be people who care more about their profits than about the intention and purposes of the laws they are violating. For perspective, the author should have given readers a true sense of the conventional chemical-intensive side of agriculture — all the contamination and poisoning that go on, and the undercurrent of fraud and abuse. Were we to consider just litigation that Beyond Pesticides has brought, which is only a tip of the iceberg — against General Mills, TruGreen, Sargento, and others — we would find companies that have been forced to change their fraudulent misrepresentation of their products as safe or natural. And those are just about corporate advertising!”

The damaging impacts of chemical-intensive agriculture — and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) failures to act protectively on these chemicals — are legion. Impacts on human health, ecosystems and vulnerable species, soils, wildlife, pollinators and biodiversity, and climate are evidence that, as Mr. Feldman says, “we live in a polluted world, a toxic soup, that has been foisted on us by the agrichemical industry and other industrial groups.” Witness, for example:

• the PFAS debacle
• the contamination of biosolids that are spread across the landscape in agriculture, and on home lawns, gardens, and open space
• USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) reports about poisoning of waterways and drinking water by agricultural chemicals
• the range of diseases directly tied to pesticide chemicals in food
• glyphosate in the food we eat and in our bodies
• continued residues of DDE (hazardous breakdown product of DDT) throughout the environment and in food

Organic regenerative agriculture (and organic land management broadly) are pivotal in solving many of the environmental and public health crises we face — 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); a food system 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.

That organic agriculture is a viable, protective, and better approach — for health, for environment and economy, and for climate, is unassailable. So, when Mr. Parker writes that “the real difference . . . between a ton of organic soybeans and a ton of conventional soybeans is the story you can tell about them,” Beyond Pesticides strongly objects. Ironically, Beyond Pesticides encountered Mr. Parker’s article on the same day it published the Daily News Blog article, “Unless You Go Organic, Switching to ‘Healthier’ Mediterranean Diet Increases Pesticide Exposure Threefold.” So much for the difference being “the story you can tell.”

Yet, with all of that said, the NOP certainly is not perfect; enforcement and accountability of the program, and the organic sector broadly, have flaws that should be remedied. Indeed, Mr. Parker notes several incidents and perspectives related to the Constant case that underscore some of those flaws. He writes:

• “The N.O.P. never penalized Constant for noncompliance. And in 2018, when the U.S. Department of Justice finally indicted Constant for his crimes, the announcement didn’t prompt those who had helped to bring his grain to market — certifiers, grain buyers, food manufacturers, retailers — to inform organic consumers about his deceit. Though the government’s case went back only as far as 2010, my conversations with grain dealers and others suggest that Constant’s fraud had probably begun by 2001. Any American who regularly bought supermarket organic products while Constant pursued his scheme likely bought mislabelled goods, but the organic industry — however alarmed its internal discussions — seemed disposed to leave the public in the dark. This impulse has survived: the N.O.P. declined to discuss any aspect of Constant’s career for this article.”
  
  
• “In the trader’s complaint to the N.O.P., he wrote, ‘I strongly feel that there is a major fraud occurring in the Organic Grain industry. Please do not take this lightly.’ He described — astutely — what he suspected was happening: Constant was buying non-organic grain, attaching organic certifications to it, and selling it through Jericho Solutions, which provided another ‘layer to protect’ him. A few weeks later . . . the N.O.P. compliance official e-mailed the trader: ‘Our investigation did not find any apparent violations of U.S.D.A. organic regulations. The investigation is hereby closed.’ The trader lost his mind. He told me, ‘I call this . . . guy and left him a . . . voice mail, saying, “My next call’s to the newspapers! This is BS. How can you guys not look into this?’” ([The NOP individual], who remains a U.S.D.A. official, did not respond to a request for comment.)”
  
  
• “I recently spoke with Chris Barnier, who, between 2004 and 2007, oversaw Organic Land Management’s [Constant’s company’s] finances and records. . . . He said, ‘It’s a huge flaw in the organic industry that the farmers pay the certifier — sometimes many thousands of dollars. The certifier has a conflict of interest, because they [sic] really don’t want to blow the whistle on a fraud. . . . An established grain trader recently told me that the certification industry is essentially toothless, adding, ‘If you saw my operation, then came and saw what they do on an inspection, your mind would be blown. I do thousands of transactions a year. They look at three.’”
  
  
• “It’s unusual for a farm to lose an organic certification. If a certifier sees evidence of bad practices, the consequences come slowly. The farmer is nudged to reform, and, if then still found noncompliant, may be invited to a mediation. Only after those efforts fail is a revocation proposed. Actual suspension can take another year.”
  
  
• “The National Organic Program accepts complaints from the public, and from interested parties. But, as . . . the founder of OneCert, a long-established certification company, told me, ‘It seems like when you report things, they’re looking for reasons not to have to investigate.’ As Lynn Clarkson, of Clarkson Grain [the company that tested a Constant shipment for GM grain], sees it, the system was set up in such a way that ‘as long as someone is covered with paper documentation you don’t go after them.’ He argued that, across the industry, there’s a fear of breaking something fragile. ‘It’s: Do I stand up and talk about the fraud that’s happening? Is that going to do more good or more harm? Am I going to kill the movement? Am I going to destroy the market that I’m trying to perfect?’”

Underscoring the importance of accountability, enforcement of NOP regulations, and a role for the judicial system, the article notes: “Jacob Schunk, an Assistant U.S. Attorney from Cedar Rapids, [Iowa,] pressed for a prison sentence [for one of the six men involved in the scheme]. Misrepresenting a product as organic should not be considered a crime with no victims, Schunk said: harm had been done not only to consumers — who paid for something that they didn’t get — but also to honest organic farmers who had been forced to compete against cheats. . . . More virtuous farmers ‘may not be in the courtroom. . . . But they’re going to figure out whether it matters to do the right thing.’”

Beyond Pesticides’ Jay Feldman responds to Mr. Parker’s chronicling of an imperfect system. “Yes, we believe in continuous improvement, but articles like this, written without any context about the goals of the transition to organic, do a real disservice. Fortunately, organic consumers understand that, overall, organic producers and advocates are eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, fighting for people’s health, and addressing the climate and biodiversity crises. Yet, articles such as this one could have the unfortunate effect, for those who are less knowledgeable about organics, of planting doubt and slowing the sector’s growth. Currently, organic agriculture is only about 5-6% of agriculture globally, but we must — urgently — make the transition to an organic agricultural system, worldwide. This must include clear timetables for meeting benchmarks, and might look similar to Europe’s Farm to Fork program, though far more ambitious.”

“Yes, there are scammers. We need to strengthen the NOP to disable and catch them; such initiatives could include stronger enforcement mechanisms, better and more-frequent inspections, and higher penalties for violations — we need all of that strengthened. But the point is that we have a clear and protective system in place. Chemical-intensive agriculture has no system, save for the ineffective and laissez-faire approach of no inspections, no record keeping, and no particular oversight. Our job is to strengthen this organic system, which has a strong foundation in OFPA, and not allow it to be weakened by those who are motivated by pure profit, and who do not respond to, or apparently care about, the existential crises we are facing as a global community. Shame on them for the ill-will that they impose on all of us. Shame on the author for not bringing perspective to the real value of organic, overall, in solving our existential crises.”

Source: The Great Organic-Food Fraud

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 11, 2021) Evidence is building that so-called ‘inert’ ingredients in pesticide formulations are harming pollinators and undermining regulatory determinations that designate products as ‘bee-safe.’ According to a new study published in Scientific Reports, the fungicide Amistar causes lethal and sublethal effects that can be primarily attributed not to its active ingredient azoxystrobin, but to alcohol ethoxylates, a co-formulant, or inert ingredient intentionally added to a pesticide formulation. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) utilizes a ‘bee advisory box’ on pesticide labels to indicate danger to pollinators, results of this and previous studies on inert ingredients underline how EPA’s ‘cute little bee icon’ is little more than window dressing for massive regulatory failures and a pollinator crisis that has shown no signs of abating.

Scientists at Royal Holloway University in London, UK began their study with three packaged colonies of Bombus terrestris, a European bumblebee often bred for commercial use in greenhouses throughout the world. In order to suss out differences in toxicity between the various ingredients in the formulated Amistar fungicide, bees were separated into multiple groups. One group acted as a positive control, and was dosed with dimethoate, a pesticide known to be highly toxic to pollinators. Another acted as a negative control and received only water. Researchers exposed separate groups to fully formulated Amistar, and then began to break down exposures based on particular ingredients, with separate bumblebee groups exposed to benzisothiazol, naphthalenesulfonic acid, alcohol ethoxylates, and a mixture of all three, respectively. While the aforementioned ingredients can be found on the material safety data sheet of Amistar sold in the UK, researchers note that because of laws that protect pesticide company trade secrets, other additional co-formulants may be present. Further, Amistar’s formulation in Europe may differ from its formulation in the United States and other countries, despite that fact that chemical company Syngenta/ChemChina is the primary registrant in both locations.

Even with this complexity and the secrecy around pesticide formulations, researchers were able to gather important data on the safety of Amistar’s inert co-formulants. Pollinators were exposed to doses equivalent to amounts used in European regulatory tests, and monitored for five days, beginning four hours after initial exposure.

All positive control bees died, and all negative control bees lived. None died from benzisothiazol, and only one died from naphthalenesulfonic acid exposure. Fully formulated Amistar resulted in 23% mortality, while alcohol ethoxylates, and the mixture of benzisothiazol, naphthalenesulfonic acid, and alcohol ethoxylates resulted in death rates of 30 and 32%. Researchers found that bees that weighed more at the beginning of the study were more likely to survive. That is because alcohol ethoxylates were causing sub-lethal impacts that didn’t necessary kill every exposed bumblebee outright.

Dissection after the experiment determined that alcohol ethoxylates were creating dark brown patches in bumblebee guts. This was leading to a range of observable warning signs. “Whilst 30 percent of bees exposed to the fungicide product died, the other 70 percent were far from healthy; they had damaged guts, were eating about half as much food and were losing weight,” said study coauthor Ed Straw, PhD. “Pesticide regulation typically only looks at whether or not a bee dies, but we found that even bees who survive can be under severe stress.”

With each test, alcohol ethoxylates displayed the same hazards as the fully formulated product, leading researchers to conclude that these substances were the primary danger within this Amistar, a product assessed by regulators as ‘bee safe.’ “To reflect potential sublethal differences caused by co-formulation composition, all formulations could undergo a much more rigorous set of lower tier testing or be automatically entered for higher tier testing,” the study recommends.

Scientists note that their laboratory data were recently confirmed through another experiment conducted under field-realistic conditions. “While the results of lab experiments like this are often questioned, other research done under field-realistic conditions within the PoshBee project show similar results. This combination of results, enabled by this European-wide project, really supports the idea that co-formulants in pesticides need to be considered more seriously as threats to bee health.”

Research around the hazards of inert ingredients is not new, but concerns are increasing as evidence mounts. A 2014 study found that bee larvae exposed to mixtures of active and inert ingredients harmed honey bee larvae. Research published in 2017 determined that a specific organosilicone surfactant known as Slygard 309 presented unique risks to pollinators, making them more susceptible to viruses. In a similar vein, findings published earlier this year by the same research team at Royal Holloway University as the present study, found that bumblebees exposed to Roundup formulations, but not glyphosate itself, sold in the UK were the primary culprit of pollinator hazards.

Ultimately, as a 2018 paper concludes, differentiating inert ingredients from active ingredients in formulated pesticide products has no scientific basis. All ingredients in pesticide products that could endanger humans or wildlife should be tested both separately and in combination. As it stands in the United States, a pesticide product can include up to 99% inert ingredients, which may be as harmless as canola oil or as toxic as hydrochloric acid, but these are not required to be disclosed on the product label. Beyond Pesticides and its allies have sued EPA over this regulation, ending in a lackluster ruling that merely disclosed products that had already been removed from EPA’s list of allowed inerts.  

As a result, public right-to-know over pesticide ingredients must come from policy changes brought about by public pressure. Beyond Pesticides runs actions every week aimed at changing the way pesticide products are reviewed and registered by EPA. Help us tell EPA that its failed pesticide program needs a new start, reoriented toward its original mission to protect public health and the wider environment.

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

Source: Royal Holloway University of London press release, Scientific Reports

Correction: The article has been corrected to accurately reflect the mortality rate associated with different pesticide mixtures. A separate update clarifies that the same research team at Royal Holloway University worked on both this study, and the prior Roundup formulation study.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 10, 2021) The diversity and abundance of freshwater aquatic insects plunges when commonly used neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides leach into waterways, finds research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this month. While this is the latest study exploring the effects of neonicotinoids in the field at real-world exposure levels, it is far from the first to show unacceptable hazards to wildlife and ecological health. As research on neonics piles up, advocates are watching in dismay as regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fail to respond to the science and allow indiscriminate poisoning to continue.

To determine how neonicotinoids affect critical aquatic species near the bottom of the food chain, researchers created a series of 36 experimental ditches, split into four groups of nine. One group acted as a control and received no pesticide, and each other group received, 0.1, 1.0, or 10 parts per billion (ppb) of the thiacloprid, a neonic insecticide often cited by industry and regulators as having lower toxicity concerns than other neonicotinoids. Mimicking a pulse that may come from a nearby insecticide application, each group of ditches was dosed every two weeks for a period of three months.

Scientists collected over 55,000 insects over the course of the experiment. However, overall abundance, biomass, and diversity of insects collected declined in dosed ditches over the three-month period. By the end of the study, compared to the control group overall insect biomass declined by 11, 4, and 50% along a gradient of increasing amounts of neonic dosing. Diptera, the large order of flies, accounted for the bulk of biomass declines. Within one order of Diptera known as Chironomidae midges, populations crashed from an initial identification of 29 species down to a single species in the highest dosed ditches.

A range of other aquatic insects were also harmed. Coleoptera beetles declined by over 90% at the highest dose and 61% at 1ppb, though were not significantly impacted at the lowest concentration. Similar results were seen for Odonata dragonflies and Trichoptera caddisflies. At the highest thiacloprid concentration, Ephemeroptera Mayflies declined by 98% compared to the control.

“We saw dramatic declines in all the species groups studied, such as dragonflies, beetles and sedges,” said study author Henrik Barmentlo, PhD, both in absolute numbers and in total biomass. “In the most extreme scenario, the diversity of the most species-rich group, the dance flies, even dropped to a single species.” Dr. Barmentlo notes that these effects have major trophic impacts for other wildlife, like birds that rely upon these insects. “So it is quite possible that these bird species suffer from a lack of insects, or in other words: food,” he said. Amphibians are likely to feel the full effect of neonicotinoid contamination, as are not only exposed through water, but also rely upon a healthy insect population for sustenance. A 2017 study found that neonicotinoid exposure can delay metamorphosis in exposed wood frogs.

The results of the study are damning for U.S. waterways, where neonicotinoids are nearly everywhere. A 2015 study found the chemicals in half of U.S. streams. Research published in 2018 determined that neonicotinoids persist year-round in the Great Lakes, with ambient levels sampled as high as .6ppb. Water treatment plants are not often prepared to filter out this contamination, which can become increasingly complex as it breaks down in waterways. A 2019 study found the metabolites of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, desnitro-imidacloprid and imidacloprid-urea, in drinking water. Despite being the degradation products of the original insecticide, these metabolites can still be toxicologically active and harm human and environmental health.

“Given the urgency of the large-scale decline in insects, we think the mass use of these insecticides should be reconsidered. In the EU, the use of thiacloprid was banned last year, but not yet in other parts of the world. In order to protect freshwater insects and all the life that depends on them, we must stop using these [neonicotinoids] as soon as possible,” said Dr. Bartmentlo.

While the EU has acted to eliminate the neonicotinoids, in the U.S., advocates are taking pains just to make the Environmental Protection Agency evaluate their effects on endangered species, and protect these species’ declining populations and habitat. It is clear that EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has failed, trading a mission of environmental protection for a revolving door of industry profits. But it will take concreted efforts from an engaged public and elected officials to make changes that ensure the agency lives up to its namesake. Take action by joining with 37 organizations seeking major reforms in the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). And for more information on the dangers neonics pose to aquatic organisms, see Beyond Pesticides Poisoned Waterways report.

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

Source: Leiden University press release, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)