(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2022) A preliminary report on two years of water sampling from sites in the Atlantic Ocean near the United Kingdom (UK), by a team from the Global Oceanic Environmental Survey Foundation (GOES), suggests that plankton populations may have plummeted by 90% since baseline 1940 levels. Just as insects are crucial as the basis of terrestrial ecosystems, plankton are the base of aquatic and marine food chains. As reported by Scotland’s Sunday Post, the reasons include chemical pollution in the ocean from plastics, synthetic fertilizer runoff, and pharmaceuticals. Beyond Pesticides adds that intensive use of synthetic pesticides also contributes to inhospitable conditions for the variety of plankton in our oceans. The researchers warn, “An environmental catastrophe is unfolding. We believe humanity could adapt to global warming and extreme weather changes. It is our view that humanity will not survive the extinction of most marine plants and animals.”

The GOES website asserts, “The story that appeared on the front page of the Sunday Post was based on research and reports from www.GoesFoundation.com. We have just completed the largest Citizen Science project to map microplastic as well plankton productivity across the equatorial Atlantic. The results were so bad, we released an observational report to get the story out. . . . The Sunday Post picked up on this report, and published the information.” Thus, the newspaper’s story was based on that observational report, and not on the study itself. (See more, below.)

There is important background for understanding the GOES report: (1) “plankton” is actually a “catch-all” term that encompasses a wide variety of small and microscopic plant, animal, bacterial, and fungal organisms floating in seas or freshwaters; they comprise, chiefly, diatoms, protozoans, small crustaceans, and the eggs and larval stages of larger animals; and (2) plankton are critical to life on Earth because they form the base of the food chain; they are consumed by krill, which are eaten by fish, which are then consumed by larger ocean creatures, and by terrestrial animals — including billions of human beings.

In addition to their functions in the food chain, some kinds of plankton help oceans absorb carbon dioxide (CO₂) and even assist in the creation of clouds though their emission of diethyl sulfide (a primary precursor for production and growth of aerosol particles that can seed the formation of cloud droplets in the marine atmosphere). Overall, plankton do best in slightly alkaline conditions; thus, the rapidly acidifying oceans are increasingly problematic for them.

The barrage of pollution that enters our oceans has multiple impacts, but as the Sunday Post explains, the huge amount of CO₂ that seawaters absorb from the atmosphere is the primary driver of acidification. Add to that a toxic brew of the remnants of human activity — microplastics, pharmaceuticals, synthetic fertilizer and pesticide runoff, and personal care products (such as sunscreens and cosmetics) — and marine life is endangered. “Once the water reaches a tipping point of acidity, vast amounts of plankton will simply dissolve.” Much lower plankton counts in the recent samplings indicate that this threat is already extreme. The GOES team expected, based on earlier studies, to find something on the order of five pieces of plankton per 10 liters of water; what they found was an average of fewer than one.

Howard Dryden, PhD, marine biologist and former Scottish Government adviser, led the GOES team’s research. He commented, “Of course, we need to continue to reduce CO₂ emissions but even if we were carbon-neutral, it [would] not stop ocean acidification. . . . indeed, we will have catastrophic climate change because we have not fixed the primary root cause — the destruction of nature by toxic chemicals and substances such as plastic.” Dr. Dryden continued, “We have two choices. We can choose to wake up, understand and address the real issue or choose the game-over button for humanity come 2050.”

The GOES website explains this perhaps more digestibly: “We now know that even if we became carbon neutral by the end of the decade, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will still pass 500ppm [because of “baked-in” emissions], and oceanic pH will drop below pH 7.95 by 2045. . . . The solution is therefore not just CO₂ mitigation, but the regeneration of marine life by the elimination of [ocean] pollution.” The site also points at an obvious solution, noting that 60% of all oceanic life is planktonic, with a “doubling” time of just three days — whereas “terrestrial ecosystems take 60 years to double in mass. So, if we take the toxic brakes off the marine life, then it could bounce back very quickly. However, failure to act to eliminate toxic chemical and particle pollution . . . will affect everyone over the next 25 years.”

He added, in comments to the Sunday Post, “Based on our observations, plankton numbers have already crashed and are now at the levels that I predicted would not happen for another quarter of a century. Given that plankton is the life-support system for the planet and humanity cannot survive without it, the result is disturbing. It will be gone in around 25 years. Our results confirmed a 90% reduction in primary productivity in the Atlantic. Effectively, the Atlantic Ocean is now pretty much dead.” (See below for Dr. Dryden’s correction to this misquote.)

Many, including Beyond Pesticides, would take issue with the statement that “destruction of nature by toxic chemicals” is the root cause of climate change. It is well established that the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO₂ and methane) are the primary drivers of our warming planet. But his level of concern may be warranted, given that the profligate and global use of all kinds of chemicals is contributing massively to the decline not only of marine environments, but also, of our terrestrial habitats and organisms.

From Beyond Pesticides’ perspective, it is tough to escape the analogy between loss of plankton and other marine life and what is happening to terrestrial insect and pollinator populations, about which we have written extensively (see, e.g., here and here). Chemical pollution of many kinds, including that from pesticides, has emerged as a massive threat to humanity and ecosystems; pesticide use, along with other stressors (notably, climate change and habitat destruction) is having devastating impacts, both direct and indirect, on insect populations, wildlife, biodiversity broadly, human health, freshwater systems, and ecosystem integrity.

We have noted the role of keystone species, such as the mayfly, in the stability and integrity of ecosystems. “Protection of the nation’s waterways is fundamental to healthy ecosystems. The importance of the mayfly to aquatic habitats is demonstrated by its ability to convert sediment nutrients into food for many species of fish and others when they are eaten. Without this critical keystone species, an important food source and nutrient recycler would be lost. With the disruption or loss of important aquatic ecosystem functions, such as nutrient cycling, water filtration, and a host of other functions, including providing habitat, adverse effects are felt throughout both aquatic and terrestrial systems.” The oceans’ plankton could credibly be considered “über-keystone species” for their function as the basis of the marine (and a significant part of the terrestrial) food chain.

The Sunday Post article has generated criticism in some quarters. Seaver Wang, PhD, co-director of the Climate and Energy Program at California’s Breakthrough Institute — who seems to have conflated the actual research report with what was reported by the Sunday Post — was biting in a Tweeted comment. “The finding is bogus, full stop. I don’t even need to read the report. We’ve had a thing called the Continuous Plankton Recorder [CPR] for 60+ years. [Beyond Pesticides notes that the research used historical data from the CPR in its analyses.] In general, any sweeping trans-oceanic finding like this is immediate cause for skepticism. The ocean + marine life are heterogenous. A sizeable chunk of my dissertation research was on marine plankton in the western North Atlantic. We sampled phytoplankton blooms off the New England coast 2015 and 2017 with abundances of hundreds of millions of cells/liter. Oceans ain’t empty guys. Also, ‘13 vessels and more than 500 data points’ for a finding this sweeping in its assertions is enough to make any microbial oceanographer fall off their lab bench laughing.”

The Sunday Post wrote that the research team “has compiled and analysed information from 13 vessels and more than 500 data points. . . . GOES has been collecting samples from the Atlantic and the Caribbean from its yacht, Copepod. Setting out from Scotland, it sailed along French and Portuguese coasts before crossing the Atlantic. . . . In addition to their own samples, the GOES researchers have provided monitoring equipment to other sailing boat crews so that they can perform the same trawls and report back with their results.”

But the GOES website does note the misrepresentation in the Sunday Post’s coverage, which was picked up and amplified broadly: “The Sunday Post picked up on this report and published the information; please note that [the report] only referred to the area of the Equatorial Atlantic . . . not the whole Atlantic Ocean, although data now coming back from the Azores is just as bad. The findings are also based on a review of peer reviewed papers by the IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] and Government reports such as IPEN [International Pollutants Elimination Network]. . . . We have effectively joined the dots that have been missed.”

Beyond Pesticides encourages a serving of salt with Dr. Wang’s analysis, given his (presumably) not having read the actual report, and his affiliation with the Breakthrough Institute. The institute is described by Wikipedia (another grain of salt . . .) as being aligned with an “ecomodernist” philosophy that “advocates for increased use of natural resources through an embrace of modernization, technological development, and increasing U.S. capital accumulation, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization. Since its inception, many environmental scientists and academics outside of the institute have disagreed with Breakthrough’s environmental positions.” We take no position on the institute, but simply point out that a hyperfocus on technology and development tends to go hand-in-hand with unintended consequences, including for the natural world.

Ars Technica decried the quality of the Sunday Post’s reporting, and critiqued the research itself, in a piece titled, “Beware of bad science reporting: No, we haven’t killed 90% of all plankton.” Calling the article’s headline — “Our empty oceans: Scots team’s research finds Atlantic plankton all but wiped out in catastrophic loss of life” — “breathless,” Ars Technica (AT) wrote, “The article then goes on to predict the imminent collapse of our biosphere. There’s just one problem: The article is utter rubbish.”

Specifically, AT makes these points:

• the newspaper used as its source a preprint, non-peer-reviewed manuscript
• the small sample size, and lack of information about how and when samples were collected; AT notes that time of day (or night), and the depths at which samples are taken, can both affect the “count”
• lack of information about the magnification used to determine the presence of plankton in samples; insufficient, low-power magnification would likely miss some of the smallest zooplankton

AT reported an update (to its original July 19 article); it noted that Dr. Dryden had reached out to express dismay at having been misquoted by the Sunday Post. He told AT that the newspaper should have reported a “90% reduction in marine plankton in the Equatorial Atlantic, not the whole Atlantic. . . . The issue is that the findings are accurate and what is stated in the report are [sic] true. We are the first to identify the . . . drop in Plankton. We are working with some academic institutes to prepare a formal peer reviewed report, but this takes time. . . . The results should of course be verified independently, and it should be opened up to proper debate. This may be one of the few chances we [and others] have . . . to pick up the issues and deal with them. If we fail to act and eliminate PCC pollution, microplastics and forever chemicals then we are all going to suffer.”

Beyond Pesticides certainly concurs that our oceans are in big trouble from multiple sources of pollution that are impacting marine ecosystems and organisms. Indeed, the GOES report’s introduction notes that we have lost 50% of all marine life in the past 70 years, and that loss is rising by roughly 1% each year we continue to allow “business as usual.”

This Daily News Blog article presents coverage of this research, though it currently lacks peer review, because it raises very serious concerns that align with other findings about chemical (and plastic) pollution in aquatic environments. Results from even small studies can point to problems that have not yet been fully (or geographically broadly) studied; we ignore such “early warnings” at our peril.

At minimum, concerted efforts both to survey the status of other areas of the Atlantic Ocean (and other seawaters), and even more importantly, to curtail the flow of noxious chemical, plastic, and other pollution into our oceans, should be undertaken immediately. Beyond Pesticides Executive Direct Jay Feldman says of the GOES report, “Reports like this should be a red flag that moves scientists to gather more information, and quickly.”

Sources: https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/humanity-will-not-survive-extinction-of-most-marine-plants-and-animals/ and https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/no-the-oceans-are-not-empty-of-plankton/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2022) Research published in Scientific Reports finds an association between the increasing emergence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and exposure to endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals, like organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). It is well-known that traces of legacy (past-use) pesticides, like organochlorines, remain in the environment for decades—possibly centuries, post-final application, as OCPs have greater chemical stability and gradual attenuation. However, these chemicals have profound adverse impacts on human health, especially on the endocrine system. Obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and elevated liver enzyme resulting from endocrine disruption contribute to NAFLD and can lead to liver cirrhosis. Although some, but not all, manufacturing and use of specific OCPs have declined in the U.S., OCPs remain a global issue, as much of the developing world still reports usage. Considering the lack of studies on OCP-induced endocrine disruption and NAFLD, research like this highlights the need to understand the underlying mechanisms that contribute to growing endocrine disease incidents.  

The study determined that there is an association between OCP exposure and NAFLD using the fatty liver index (FLI), a predictor of lipid (fat) accumulation in the liver. The researcher collected blood serum to measure the concentration of OCPs, specifically evaluating detectable chemicals, including DDE, oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, and mirex. Additionally, the study investigated the relationship between liver enzymes and advanced liver fibrosis (scarring)associated with NAFLD and OCP exposure. The study finds all detectable OCPs pose a risk for NAFLD. Oxychlordane, a metabolite (breakdown product) of the OCP chlordane, is most significantly associated with NAFLD risk with the highest FLI and levels of liver enzymes, followed by trans-nonachlor, DDE, and mirex. Researchers note that OCPs are lipophilic, which dissolve into body fat and linger for several years, adversely affecting the hormonal system, metabolic function, and brain development. Thus, OCPs tend to accumulate more in individuals with higher BMIs, putting them at greater risk of NAFLD.

Pesticides are pervasive in all ecosystems, soils, water (solid and liquid), and air, frequently at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Long-range atmospheric transport and condensation significantly contribute to the global contamination of environmental pollutants like OCPs. Although many OCPs are well-known persistent organic pollutants (POPs) banned by the Stockholm Convention treaty in 2001, the properties of OCPs allow these substances to remain in the environment long after use, threatening environmental and biological health. These pesticides cause various adverse effects, from respiratory issues, nervous system disorders, and birth deformities to various common and uncommon cancers. Moreover, OCPs can accumulate in regions void of industrial or agricultural activities, like glacier tops and remote territories. For instance, the U.S. banned DDT and most other highly hazardous OCPs by the late 1980s, as some pesticides exceed the EPA guidelines for human subsistence on fish and wildlife, persisting in soil and water sediments, glacier meltwater runoff, and bioconcentrate in food webs. Exposure to DDT and DDE increase the risk associated with diabetes, early onset menopause, reduced sperm count, endometriosis, and obesity. Past studies indicate DDE exposure has multigenerational health effects on obesity, diabetes, and breast cancer occurrences. Considering that 90 percent of Americans still have at least one pesticide biomarker in their body, including OCPs, advocates urge that government officials assess the ubiquitous nature of pesticides impacting all ecosystems and the health of their inhabitants for future human, animal, and environmental well-being.

This study is one of the first to use FLI to analyze the association between OCP exposure and NAFLD. The researchers suggest that FLI is a better indicator for NAFLD as diseases (e.g., hepatitis) affecting liver enzyme levels do not impact FLI analysis like traditional ALT (liver enzyme) blood tests. Oxychlordane, a metabolite of chlordane, has the highest dose-dependent associations with NAFLD prevalence of all OCPs in the study. However, researchers indicate that all OCPs induce NAFLD through oxidative, disrupting detoxification or lipid metabolism in the liver. Although organochlorine use ended in many Western nations, developing countries still encounter these chemicals through use or imports from other manufacturing nations. Current-use pesticides also contaminate the ecosystem via drift, runoff, and leaching. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is becoming the most prevalent form of liver disease, impacting at least 25 percent of the globe. Therefore, the impact of both current and past use of pesticides on human, animal, and environmental health, especially in combination, is critical to any safety analysis. The study concludes, “Our results showed that OCP exposure was associated with NAFLD prevalence, some of which showed a linear dose-dependent relationship. Although most pesticides have been deprecated, periodic monitoring for NAFLD appears necessary in developing countries where pesticides are still used or in areas in which pesticides have been used in the past. Further studies using in vivo experiments are needed to clarify the mechanism of the influence of OCPs on the pathogenesis of NAFLD.”

The endocrine disrupting effects of pesticides and other chemicals have extensive documentation. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds as endocrine disruptors, including various household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (i.e., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms that pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Endocrine Disruption and other diseases.

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

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

Source: Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, July 20, 2022) Flood cleanup in Houston after Hurricane Harvey increased resident exposure to a range of pesticides and other industrial chemical compounds, according to a study published recently in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health by scientists at Oregon State University (OSU). The findings are particularly concerning for a community already subject to some of the highest rates of environmental contamination in the country. “Houston is one of our most industrialized cities,” said study co-author Kim Anderson, PhD, of OSU. “When we look a year after the storm, we see that several neighborhoods that are closer to industrial zones — socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods — had higher concentrations of chemicals right from the get-go, and that was only exacerbated when the hurricane came in.”

Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Southern Texas as a category 4 hurricane in 2017. Widespread flooding resulted in damage to chemical plants and oil refineries throughout the city, including 13 of the astounding 41 Superfund sites present in the city of Houston. Clean up and remediation efforts brought concern among residents that chemicals from these industrial sites were being mixed with floodwaters, exposing individuals to a range of hazardous compounds.

To better understand what chemicals individuals were coming in contact with and their level of exposure, scientists utilized silicone wristbands originally developed by Dr. Anderson. The wristbands are able to passively sample chemicals the wearer becomes exposed to in the environment. Scientists were able to get approval for their study within a week, and subsequently began distributing silicone wristbands within three weeks, timing their use as clean up efforts were still underway. “At that point, flooding was still occurring. I think that’s a huge strength of this study,” said co-author Diana Rohlman, PhD, associate professor at OSU. “From the public health perspective, that’s the data people want: ‘I’m actively flooded, actively cleaning my house; what am I being exposed to right now?'”

Research participants wore the silicone wristbands for seven days. Researchers then took the wristbands back to the lab, where over 1,500 potential chemicals, including pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), personal care products, flame retardants, phthalates, pharmaceuticals, and other industrial compounds were screened.

To compare the results recorded post-hurricane clean up to a baseline level of exposure for Houston residents, researchers followed up with a certain subset of study participants one year later. Overall, 172 individuals participated in the initial testing, and 238 in the follow-up testing. Within those groups, 99 Houston residents participated in both the initial screening and the follow-up.

Post hurricane clean-up resulted in Houston residents being exposed to 162 different chemicals. Of these, 41 were pesticides, 25 PAHs, 14 flame retardants, 36 personal care products, 10 phthalates, four PCBs, two pharmaceuticals, and 30 other industrial compounds. During the next year’s follow-up, researchers still found Houston residents exposed to 137 different chemicals. Within these two groups 101 chemical compounds overlapped. However, most concerning is that for 75% of the compounds detected at both times, including personal care products, pesticides, flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, and industrial compounds, levels of these chemicals were significantly higher during flood clean up.

Scientists note that it is difficult to specify health risks based on the sampling, as many of the chemicals detected do not have health guidelines or a much toxicological research behind them. As a result, they recommend in an OSU press release that those cleaning up after floods wear personal protective equipment when working in questionable standing waters.

The pesticides detected, including the insecticide chlorpyrifos, mosquito larvicide methoprene, synergist piperonyl butoxide and a range of synthetic pyrethroids, all present hazards to human health. Yet, beyond individual chemical toxicity, there is concern regarding the potential synergistic effect of multiple simultaneous chemicals.  

While the range of contaminants detected after Hurricane Harvey is particularly concerning within highly industrialized Houston, it is possible that similar levels of contamination would be seen in every highly industrialized urban city area subject to flooding. A 2019 study looking at urban runoff from heavy rains in 17 states found most samples containing over 73 different chemicals per site, with pesticides accounting for the most frequently detected chemical group.

While hurricanes are often associated with widespread damage to buildings and other infrastructure, the toll on public health must be further investigated as climate change continues to exacerbate the size and intensity of hurricanes hitting the United States. For more information on the risk pesticides pose to waterways, see Beyond Pesticides Threatened Waters program page.

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

Source: Oregon State University press release, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2022) Banned pesticides still persistent in the environment pose an increased risk of hearing impairment for U.S. adults, according to research published this month in Scientific Reports. Although regular use of DDT and hexachlorobenzene (HCB) no longer occurs in the United States, exposure to these persistent chemicals can still occur through a range of sources, including air, water, sediment, soil and food. As new science continues to find harmful health effects of older pesticides, advocates say new laws are needed to ensure long term hazards don’t arise from the more than 1,200 active ingredients currently registered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with little to no independent scientific oversight.

Hearing loss affects nearly 40 million (~15%) American adults over age 18. While it is clear that common causes like aging and noise exposure can result in hearing loss, there has been increasing attention to the role environmental contaminants may be playing in hearing disorders. To explore any potential connection, researchers analyzed data from the long-running U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Blood serum levels of the organochlorine insecticides HCB, p, p’-DDE (a breakdown product of DDT), trans-nonachlor, and dieldrin were compared against audiometry examinations conducted on American adults aged 20-69. Risk was determined by analyzing the level of organochlorines in one’s blood against the prevalence of hearing loss, indicated as pure-tone average greater than 20 decibels in one’s better ear. Researchers worked to address confounders that would otherwise be related to hearing loss, including age, sex, race, education level, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, tobacco smoking, firearm noise exposure, and loud noise or music exposure.

All of the pesticides tested were connected to hearing loss in a basic analysis conducted in the study. More complex modeling showed that HCB and DDE had the strongest associations to hearing loss, particularly affecting individuals under the age of 60. Results show that the risk of hearing loss increases alongside higher levels of organochlorine measurements in one’s blood serum.

Scientists posit a range of explanations for the chemical connection to hearing loss. Oxidative stress, impacts to gene receptors, and/or epigenetic changes have the potential to explain how pesticide exposure results in hearing loss. Other possible factors include effects on the thyroid or harm to cochlear outer hair cells.

Past research finds that, beyond harm to U.S. adults, the effects of pesticides on our auditory system has disproportionate impacts on sensitive populations like farmworkers and young children. Infants exposed to organochlorines at environmentally relevant concentrations are at an increased risk of hearing deficits, per a 2015 study. And mothers who use any sort of insecticide during pregnancy have been found to have their infants experience increased occurrences of Otitis Media, an ear infection that can result in hearing loss, according to research published earlier this year. A 2020 study found that simultaneous exposure to pesticides noise from agricultural machinery results in a significantly higher risk of hearing loss.

While EPA does conduct reviews on the health and environmental impacts of pesticides prior to their registration, many public health and conservation advocates consider these reviews incomplete due to glaring data gaps and a deliberately myopic review of adverse impacts. Pesticide end-use products are not tested, with risks extrapolated from tests on a single active ingredient, and very specific toxicity tests give the public good idea of the acute toxicity of an active ingredient but fail to adequately consider a range of long-term chronic harm and non-target effects. Despite the increasing prevalence of data and rates of hearing loss, pesticides are not required to be tested for their impacts on the auditory system.

With EPA is consistently failing to capture the full range of health and environmental impacts that can occur from the pesticides it approves for use, the task falls to independent science and scientific studies to convey this pertinent information to the public. In the context of a failing EPA, while independent science must fill in the gaps on pesticide dangers, it is up to local advocates and politicians to translate these concerns into on-the-ground protections. EPA’s lack of meaningful regulations necessitate action at the state and local level to fill in the gaps in protections left by a deficient federal regulatory approach.

Take action today to begin the process of creating these important protections from pesticide exposure in your community. Join Beyond Pesticides in asking your mayor or county executive to convert to organic land management in your local parks, playing fields, and other public places.

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

Source: Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2022) The failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to meet its statutory responsibility to protect people and wildlife from the dire consequences of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals must end. A study published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology adds urgency to the need to eliminate endocrine-disrupting pesticides. The authors find that prepubescent exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including pesticides, impairs male reproduction through the interruption of testicular homeostasis and development of reproductive Leydig cells, and can have multigenerational effects. This adds to the long list of scientific articles showing EPA neglect of the devastating effects of widely used pesticides.

Tell EPA that pesticide use cannot continue without findings of no endocrine disruption. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA does its job.

More than 50 pesticide active ingredients have been identified as endocrine disruptors that mimic the action of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; block hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones; or affect the synthesis, transport, metabolism and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. Endocrine disruptors have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, early puberty, infertility and other reproductive disorders, childhood and adult cancers, and other metabolic disorders. Similar effects are found in other species. In spite of legal requirements and the flood of research, EPA issues Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) on pesticide registrations, making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the potential for endocrine disruption, or identifying additional data needs to satisfy Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program requirements in the PIDs. EPA cannot make findings of no unreasonable adverse effects without findings concerning endocrine disruption. EPA continues to register pesticides posing unreasonable health effects.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a damning report on the agency’s progress in protecting the population from potentially damaging endocrine disruption impacts of exposures to synthetic chemical pesticides (and other chemicals of concern) that shows the situation to be even worse than previously reported. The OIG’s summary statement says, “Without the required testing and an effective system of internal controls, the EPA cannot make measurable progress toward complying with statutory requirements or safeguarding human health and the environment against risks from endocrine-disrupting chemicals.” As a result, according to the OIG, “we have yet to see EPA use endocrine disruption findings in pesticide registration decisions.”

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

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

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

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

Tell EPA that pesticide use cannot continue without findings of no endocrine disruption. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA does its job.

Letter to EPA Administrator and Office of Pesticide Programs

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

A study published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology adds urgency to the need to eliminate endocrine-disrupting pesticides. The authors find that prepubescent exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including pesticides, impairs male reproduction through the interruption of testicular homeostasis and development of reproductive Leydig cells, and can have multigenerational effects. This adds to the long list of scientific articles showing EPA neglect of the devastating effects of widely used pesticides.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a damning report on the agency’s progress in protecting the population from potentially damaging endocrine disruption impacts of exposures to synthetic chemical pesticides (and other chemicals of concern) that shows the situation to be even worse than previously reported. The OIG’s summary statement says, “Without the required testing and an effective system of internal controls, the EPA cannot make measurable progress toward complying with statutory requirements or safeguarding human health and the environment against risks from endocrine-disrupting chemicals.” As a result, according to the OIG, “we have yet to see EPA use endocrine disruption findings in pesticide registration decisions.”

In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 23 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), established to carry out the act, has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides.

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

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

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

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

I am writing to ask you elevate a critical public and environmental health issue –the regulation of endocrine disrupting pesticides. The failure of EPA to meet its statutory responsibility to protect people and wildlife from the dire consequences of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals must end. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia. And, EPA has simply not carried out its statutory mandate to regulate endocrine disrupting pesticides.

A study published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology adds urgency to the need to eliminate endocrine-disrupting pesticides. The authors find that prepubescent exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including pesticides, impairs male reproduction through the interruption of testicular homeostasis and development of reproductive Leydig cells, and can have multigenerational effects. This adds to the long list of scientific articles showing EPA neglect of the devastating effects of widely used pesticides.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a damning report on the agency’s progress in protecting the population from potentially damaging endocrine disruption impacts of exposures to synthetic chemical pesticides (and other chemicals of concern) that shows the situation to be even worse than previously reported. The OIG’s summary statement says, “Without the required testing and an effective system of internal controls, the EPA cannot make measurable progress toward complying with statutory requirements or safeguarding human health and the environment against risks from endocrine-disrupting chemicals.” As a result, according to the OIG, “we have yet to see EPA use endocrine disruption findings in pesticide registration decisions.”

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

Since EPA announced it was ready to begin testing both active and “inert” (usually the majority of the undisclosed product ingredients that make the solution, dust, or granule) pesticide ingredients for potential endocrine disrupting effects in 2009, the protocols EPA proposed to use have become significantly outdated, having been first recommended in 1998. In the interim, science has progressed such that it offered more sophisticated assumptions than those that informed the EPA test designs. 

In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 21 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), established to carry out the act, has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides. As of 2019, the program has stalled entirely.

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

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

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2022) Nature is too often sacrificed to a global and outsized focus on short-term profits and economic growth, according to a new report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The report warns that policy making, broadly, does not reflect the value of Nature’s roles in supporting human life and activity, never mind all the peripheral benefits (aesthetic, emotional, spiritual) people derive from the natural world. The report calls on leaders in all sectors to integrate the contributions of Nature in development and deployment of policy in a more-comprehensive way — as Le Monde writes, “beyond being ‘a huge factory.’” Beyond Pesticides offers a seminal reminder from Fred Kirschenmann, PhD: the prevailing philosophy of maximum efficient production for short-term economic return at the expense of Nature causes havoc in the world and will not work in the future; instead, we must develop a broad ecological conscience that guides all that we do.

The report’s Summary for Policymakers was approved on July 11 by representatives from 139 Member States; the report itself is the culmination of four years of effort by 82 collaborating scientists and experts from multiple disciplines. The same member representative approved an additional IPBES report that urges the member governments to sustainably manage the wild plant and animal species on which the world’s populations depend for their survival.

IPBES co-chairs Patricia Balvanera, Brigitte Baptiste, Mike Christie, and Unai Pascual noted, according to the UN’s press release, that examples of “embedd[ing] [N]ature into policymaking are ‘in short supply.’” The press release asserts that, although “economic and political decisions have predominantly prioritized market-based values of nature . . . they do not adequately reflect how changes in the natural world affect people’s quality of life.”

As Le Monde reports, for example, re: the biodiversity crisis: “According to IPBES, the value that is predominantly attributed to biodiversity, its market value, does not reflect the value of its contribution to humanity. And furthermore, doing so does not allow us to face the huge challenge of the loss of biodiversity. With their limited vision of what nature gives us, the political and economic decisions being made today are, on the contrary, ‘a key factor’ in the origin of the crisis.” An IPBES webpage leads with this headline about the values assessment: “Decisions Based on Narrow Set of Market Values of Nature Underpin the Global Biodiversity Crisis.”

Looking to history to explain some of this situation, we find that a combination of factors is likely at work, not least of which is the Industrial Revolution and its massive impacts — made possible by the extraction and burning of (finite) fossil fuels. Reaching farther back in time, we recall the Enlightenment (and biblical) notions that humans are somehow separate from, and destined to dominate and subdue, Nature. Dr. Kirschenmann argues that these led to people focusing dominantly on humans and their enterprises, and — detrimentally — less and less during the past half millennium on the natural world and its welfare.

From that paradigm — and fertilized by cheap energy, the rising power of corporations during the past 100 years, and their influence on government — have flowed particular approaches to human activity, including specialization, a focus on productivity, and the neurochemical and economic “feel-goods” of short-term profit. Those approaches are easily recognized in what they have wrought — most of the woes and crises of modernity, including:

• galloping climate change
• chemical saturation of humans, other organisms, and the natural world
• depleted resources (which were always finite, but which human hubris has often chosen to ignore)
• massive economic inequality
• increasing “brittleness” in systems’ ability to be resilient to a variety of assaults
• emerging civil and economic tensions and crises (historically followed by civil unrest)
• the rise of oligarchic and authoritarian figures in the political landscape

The UN IPBES report is an attempt to call humanity’s, and pointedly, global leaders’, attention to these matters, and to advocate for the integration of valuations of Nature into decision making. The authors began with a deep dive on valuations of Nature. The Summary for Policymakers identifies four “values-based leverage points” — undertaking valuation, embedding values in decision making, policy reform, and shifting societal goals — that co-authors say may catalyze a transformation to a sustainable and just future.

The more-academic work on the valuations of nature that informed the IPBES report (available in the “Contrasting Approaches to Values and Valuation” document) asserts that the current discursive paradigm tends to emphasize the split between anthropocentric (instrumental) and non-anthropocentric (intrinsic) aspects of Nature. Largely, people cleave to one or the other of those frameworks in their thinking. The authors write, “[M]uch of the policy discourse on the need for valuation of nature’s contributions to people heavily relies on either a one-dimensional value lens (value-monism) that derives from a utilitarian economic perspective or on an environmental ethics stance of nature-human relationships, furthering the instrumental vs. intrinsic dichotomy.”

Instead, they argue, what’s needed in human thinking, and in policymaking, is “value pluralism” — a more dynamic and relational understanding of Nature’s values, i.e., one that emphasizes the value of the interactions between people and nature, and those among individuals in society. IPBES co-chair Mike Christie explains the focus on values assessment by saying that “‘valuation is an explicit and intentional process” that hinges on “how, why and by whom” the valuation is “designed and applied.’” Co-chair Brigitte Baptiste added that “recognizing and respecting the worldviews, values, and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities allows policies to be more inclusive, which also translates into better outcomes for people and nature.”

The press release proffers that “‘Living from, with, in, and as nature’ means providing resources that sustain people’s livelihoods, needs and wants, including food and material goods. . . . It also focuses on non-human life, such as the intrinsic rights of fish in a river to ‘thrive independently of human needs,’ and sees the natural world as a ‘physical, mental and spiritual part of oneself.’”

Beyond Pesticides has written about the value of Nature’s ecosystem services and threats to them, including the fragility of ecosystems to chemical assaults. We have covered the biodiversity and climate crises, and the outsize corporate and industry influence on policy at EPA and other federal agencies. We have written about a precautionary approach that would go far in addressing the environmental crises that seriously threaten not only human health, but all life on Earth. And we have researched, written about, and advocated endlessly for the huge role that the transition to organic regenerative agriculture would play in resolution of multiple of the threats humanity faces.

What every one of those arenas has in common is what this IPBES report identifies: governmental, corporate, and institutional prioritizing of short-term economic gains over the well-being and integrity of Nature and its elegant, complex, and life-sustaining systems. Drawing again from the article by Dr. Kirschenmann in his 2015 article in Pesticides and You, we offer other thoughts of his.

“This is what we have to do now. It’s not enough any longer for us simply to care about our fellow humans. We have to care for all of the life in the biotic community of which, as Aldo Leopold said, we are simply plain members and citizens. [Beyond Pesticides adds that this means all of Nature, including non-biotic elements.) We are not the dominators. We are not the culture. We are not the conquerors. . . . So, we have to find our place in [Nature], because if it is not all healthy and if it doesn’t all have the capacity for self-renewal, then none of it will include us.

“This is the new consciousness that we have to develop. Leopold recognized . . . . that was a huge challenge. . . . He understood there wasn’t much that he could do as an individual to make this happen. He finally concluded that this had to become part of a social evolution.”

This UN report is testament to the need for, and a call to enact, such evolution with all speed. Yet, this is a huge lift, and Beyond Pesticides is but one actor in a huge landscape of people and organizations clamoring for changes in “business as usual,” which are at the root of our multiple crises. Please — please — become engaged with Beyond Pesticides or with any other environmental, health, civic, and/or justice organization that recognizes the dangerous follies of our current approaches to policy making. Bringing to policy an ethic of “value pluralism” that integrates the importance of Nature and its integrity is not only critical, but also, one path forward to a functional, equitable, livable future.

Source: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/07/1122322

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2022) A study published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology finds prepubescent exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including pesticides, impairs male reproduction through the interruption of testicular homeostasis and development of reproductive Leydig cells. Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotic (i.e., chemical substances like toxic pesticides foreign to an organism or ecosystem). Many reports demonstrate that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely affect human, animal—and thus environmental—health by altering the natural hormones in the body responsible for conventional reproductive, physical, and mental development. Scientists and health officials already associate pesticide exposure with a decrease in male fertility, including reduced sperm count, quality, and abnormal sperm development.

The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages, such as childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Therefore, it is essential to understand how exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment affects future reproductive success and health. The researchers note, “Recent studies revealed that exposures to EDCs during so-called critical windows of susceptibility (prenatal, prepubertal, pubertal, and aging periods) could disrupt healthy patterns of testes development and homeostasis, which can be demonstrated as an impaired testicular function later in life. However, much more work is needed to understand better the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying EDC-induced effects in the male reproductive system during these critical periods of development.”

This study investigates how endocrine-disrupting chemicals play a role in the dysregulation of testicular gap junction intercellular communication (GJIC) in Leydig cells (the primary source of testosterone or androgens in males), resulting in reproductive toxicity. After evaluating cellular function and GJIC function through an assay, the researchers found methoxychlor, triclosan, triclocarban, lindane, and DDT immediately disrupt GJIC in Leydig cells through relocation of the protein connexin 43 (CX43) with prolonged (>24hours) exposure interrupting protein homeostasis (balance). The imbalance impairs the early stages of steroidogenesis (steroid generation) in prepubescent Leydig cells, impairing reproductive health later in life, post-puberty.

The ubiquity of pesticides in the environment and food supply is concerning as current measures restricting pesticide use and exposure do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. For instance, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide biomarker (including parent compound and breakdown products) in their body. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse human health effects (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.). Most concerning is exposure to past and current-use pesticides, as these chemicals display endocrine-disrupting effects. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds as endocrine disruptors, including various household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (i.e., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity  that can span generations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause infertility, among other health issues.

This study finds that endocrine disrupting chemicals impact protein accumulation in reproductive cells, rather than produce cytotoxic (toxic to living cells) effects. The accumulation of proteins because of EDC exposure deregulates junctional and non-junctional functions responsible for male reproductivity. Moreover, accumulation of protein CX43 in the endosomes from the junctional membrane of Leydig cells contribute to tumor formation. The study attributes the immediate dysregulation of testicular GJIC and CX43 function to EDCs that alter genomic signaling pathways and stimulates steroidogenesis disruption. Although this study specifically evaluates EDCs’ impacts on male fertility, this study is not the first to demonstrate the sex-specific effect of pesticide exposure. In 2017, scientists presented a study at the 99th meeting of the Endocrine Society, demonstrating instances of early onset puberty in boys after exposure to common pyrethroid insecticide, which exhibits endocrine disrupting properties that interfere with the proper regulation of the human body’s hormonal system. Furthermore, a 2021 study demonstrates that exposure to current-use pesticides, like organophosphates, poses a greater health risk to women. In addition to impacts on fertility, the study warns, “Testicular GJIC and connexin dysregulation, especially during critical early stages of development, could partly participate in the etiopathology of human subfertility and infertility and testicular cancer.”

Pediatricians agree that young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical periods of development. Various pesticide products act similarly or in conjunction with other chemicals. Individuals can encounter these substances simultaneously, resulting in more severe health outcomes. Therefore, advocates urge that policies enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies on pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms that pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Endocrine Disruption, Cancer, Birth/Fetal Effects, and other diseases.

Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pesticide regulation and preventive practices in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Buying, growing, and supporting organic helps to eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and your diet. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2022) A new law in France bans the use of lawn and landscape pesticides in both public and private areas frequently used by the public. The law, which came into effect at the beginning of this month, applies throughout the country and extends the scope of a previous decree that restricted pesticide use on green spaces in public areas. As it stands, France’s previous approach is set to be adopted by the entirety of the European Union under its Farm to Fork initiative goals of reducing overall pesticide use by 50% by 2030. This new law, which tracks most similarly to restrictions enacted in most Canadian provinces and by certain U.S. cities like South Portland and Portland, ME, highlights the importance of extending pesticide restrictions to most all outdoor spaces to ensure health and environmental safety.

The new restrictions apply to a laundry list of sensitive sites where pesticide use can unnecessarily harm individuals or the wider public:

• Private residential properties, including their outdoor areas
• Hotels, hostels, lodgings, camping sites and residential leisure parks
• Cemeteries
• Allotments [community gardens];
• Amusement, entertainment and recreation parks with a variety of activities and facilities;
• Areas accessible to the public in areas intended for commercial and service activities;
• Private access roads, green areas and rest areas in workplaces;
• Areas for public use in educational establishments;
• Health establishments, nursing homes and health centers, including their green spaces, forests, roads or pathways accessible or open to the public;
• Social and medical establishments, except establishments that are providing or participating in vocational training, or providing assistance through work that could potentially lead to the use of these products, including their green spaces, their forests, their roads, or their promenades accessible or open to the public;
• The homes of childcare assistants and the homes of childcare assistants who take in minors, including their green spaces;
• Aerodromes assigned primarily to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, with the exception of areas where treatment is necessary for reasons of aeronautical safety or airport security; and,
• Sports facilities.

Pesticides considered low risk and/or allowed in organic farming are not subject to the restrictions, as these represent the least-toxic yet still effective products on the market. Only a limited set of exemptions to use more toxic products are permitted under the decree, including against harmful or non-native species, and the need to combat a serious health hazard that cannot be controlled by other means. Sports fields “for which no alternative technical solution makes it possible to obtain the quality required within the framework of official competitions” are granted a limited exemption to use a list of pesticides created by French officials responsible for sports and entertainment.

These restrictions, now in force throughout the country, provide an important example for U.S. residents awash in pesticide use from all angles. Beyond Pesticides regularly receives calls from individuals indicating they were poisoned in nearly every area included in the bullet points above. In the case of highly sensitive areas like health establishments, nursing homes, and childcare facilities, the restrictions protect children and the elderly from unnecessary exposure both inside and outside the establishment.

As the EU works to address the health risks of pesticides, stop their movement into waterways, and reverse pollinator and insect decline through legally binding targets for its member states, the United States is lagging far behind. The U.S. government has been antagonistic toward EU pesticide regulations and the Farm to Fork initiative, with U.S. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack confidently understating that it is “a path very different from the one the U.S. is pursuing.”

While certain states, like Connecticut and New York, have enacted strong limitations on pesticide use around sensitive sites like schools, most of the country is left unprotected from hazards pesticides frequently used on their public parks, playing fields, and school grounds, let alone hotels, cemeteries, and their workplaces. In the United States, pesticides are sprayed in and around hospitals, and even prominent cancer facilities, with the endorsement of hospital administrators.  

While over 200 American cities and counties have enacted some level of pesticide restrictions, only a small portion of them apply to private property. Those that do are in certain states that did not pass pesticide preemption laws put forward by the American Legislative Exchange Council and the pesticide industry. In these states, such as Maine and Maryland, local governments have stepped in to protect their residents and unique local ecology by enacting restrictions on both public and private property.

France’s actions show the value of rejecting the pesticide industry’s efforts to argue a false equivalence between economic concerns and protection of health and the environment. It is possible to maintain beautiful green spaces without pesticides at costs that on par with chemical-intensive practices. But beyond that fact is the critical importance of placing people, the environment, and long-term sustainability above the motives of profit and exploitation. For more information on the benefits of organic land care practices, see Beyond Pesticides program page on Nontoxic Lawns and Landscapes.

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

Source: Connexion France

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2022) More than four out of five U.S. children and adults over the age of six have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies, according to data recently published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). With strong evidence implicating this chemical as a carcinogen, and emerging data associating it with adverse birth outcomes, the findings raise broad concerns for public health. As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to permit widespread public exposure to toxic chemicals based on obscure economic arguments over the claimed benefits of pesticides, advocates say it is time for a change that embraces health and the environment over the profits of pesticide manufacturers.

CDC’s testing data was developed as part of its National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a long-running program that began in the early 1960s and has since become a continuous program focused on American health and nutrition measurements. Data from this program are subsequently analyzed to help inform the prevalence of disease in the U.S. population and are used to develop public health policies.

A total of 2,310 urine samples retained from studies conducted in 2013-2014 were analyzed by NHANES researchers for the presence of glyphosate. Participants included both children and adults above age six. Out of these samples, 1,885 (81.6%) contain glyphosate at or above the detection limit.  

Glyphosate has been the most commonly used herbicide in the United States since 2001, with 300 million pounds or more used each year. EPA permits this widespread use based on a risk assessment that assumes the benefit of a pesticide up front, and then weights its health and environmental impacts against the economic value a pesticide provides to the crop protection industry. With EPA effectively captured by the pesticide industry and its interests, advocates say a regulatory scheme that was already biased toward the pesticide industry has become increasingly dangerous as threats and existential health and environmental crises escalate.

Despite internationally recognized scientific findings on the carcinogenic properties of glyphosate, EPA reapproved the chemical in 2020 while glossing over and downplaying its carcinogenic potential. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently declared EPA’s approval of glyphosate unlawful, specifically criticizing the agency’s cancer review. The court noted EPA’s, “disregard of tumor results;” its use of “bare assertions” that “fail[] to account coherently for the evidence;” making conclusions that do not “withstand[] scrutiny under the agency’s own framework,” and “fail[ing] to abide by” its own cancer guidelines. However, unless there is a serious shake-up at EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, the same revolving door of officials are likely to simply tweak their calculations to fit a conclusion that glyphosate should be allowed to continue to contaminate American’s food, and subsequently their bodies.

As William Ruckelshaus, the first director of EPA once said, “A risk assessment is like a captured sky: if you torture it long enough, it will tell you anything you want to know.” By falsely positioning pesticide products as a primary economic driver of the U.S. agricultural economy, without consideration of their myriad nontarget, downstream effects that add hundreds of billions of costs to U.S. health care and ignore the availability, efficacy, and profitability of alternative nonchemical practices, EPA’s deficient regulatory process has worked hand in glove with the pesticide industry in poisoning Americans’ bodies with toxic chemicals.

The good news in this mountain of bad is that industry and government watchdogs, advocates, scientists, and concerned policymakers have and continue to keep close track of this corruption. Watching industry take the reins from meaningful pesticide restrictions, advocates pushed for the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act, which embraces a natural systems approach to crop production and pest management that does not allow the use of hazardous synthetic herbicides like glyphosate. As the chemical industry has used its influence to lock up the potential for change in Congress and federal agencies, a massive grassroots outpouring has resulted in a steady stream of pesticide bans and restrictions at the local level.

These responses to pesticide industry corruption help provide an outlet to alleviate the harm imposed in the U.S. and worldwide by a broken regulatory system. Studies show that switching to an organic diet can rapidly and drastically reduce the levels of synthetic pesticides in one’s body.  A 2020 study found a one-week switch to an organic diet reduced an individual’s glyphosate body burden by 70%.

Other pesticide exposure scenarios such use on lawns and landscapes, where pesticides can remain on playing surfaces or drift onto neighboring properties, is more widely being addressed through the passage of local pesticide policies. According to Beyond Pesticides’ U.S. Map of Pesticide Reform Policies, nearly 200 communities across the U.S. have enacted some level of pesticide restrictions to date.

The pesticide industry recognizes the threat organic alternatives and local advocacy pose to its ability to maintain a tight grip on its regulatory monopoly, and continue to take offensive effort to weaken the integrity of organic certification and impose federal preemption of local pesticide policies.

Help Beyond Pesticides fight back against the pesticide industry’s poisoning of our bodies for its profit. Despite its compromised state, EPA must continue to feel pressure to ban glyphosate. Consider also signing up for Beyond Pesticides’ weekly actions and engaging in the work to keep organic strong. Go further and work to organize your local community to eliminate toxic pesticide use on lawns and landscapes, including parks, playing fields, and school yards, in favor of safer practices. Ask your mayor or county executive to convert to organic land management in your local parks, playing fields, and other public places.

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

Source: The Guardian, CDC

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2022) If there is one thing that recent Supreme Court decisions, including West Virginia et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (June 30, 2022, No. 20-1530), have shown us, it is that we cannot rely on regulators, courts, and corporations to protect health and the environment and ensure a livable future. Fortunately, at least with respect to our climate and environmental crises, solutions are up and running in many communities, and have been embraced by many institutions and companies. These efforts need our support, and there is much was can do in our communities now, as we advocate for federal and international policies that take the existential environmental crises seriously and with urgency.

Ask your mayor or county executive to convert to organic land management in city parks and playing fields, and other public places.

We learned in the 1970s that energy crises cannot be solved entirely at the supply end, but require changes in the way we do things—by conserving energy. Similarly, our environmental crises today cannot be solved totally by regulation alone, especially given the current political climate. We must advance new and creative approaches.

Organic food production and land management are examples of solutions that are up and running. A regulation like the one adopted by the European Union banning all pesticides in “public parks or gardens, playgrounds, recreation or sports grounds, public paths, as well as ecologically sensitive areas” and adopting strategies for achieving the pesticide use- and risk-reduction goals in agriculture may seem out of reach in the U.S. for now. However, we have a foundation to build on, with organic production now a more than $60 billion enterprise in this country at the same time that local communities across the nation are adopting organic land management practices and policies.

With our future in peril, we need to chart a future that embodies a respect for life that is missing in federal regulation. Organic practices not only avoid industrial agriculture’s reliance on fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels, but also help to sequester carbon in the soil. With rising costs of fossil fuels, the economic advantage of organic management increasing.

Ask your mayor or county executive to convert to organic land management in city parks and playing fields, and other public places.

Letter to mayor or county executive:

A growing body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine systems in humans, even at low levels. Children are especially sensitive to pesticide exposure because they (1) take up more pesticides (relative to their body weight) than do adults, and (2) have developing organ systems that are more vulnerable to pesticide impacts and less able to detoxify harmful chemicals. Fortunately, there are proven safe, effective, and affordable ways to maintain attractive lawns and playing fields without the use of toxic pesticides.

With the lack of protections at the federal and state level, please commit to converting care of public lands in our city to organic practices. Organic practices have been proven to be successful and cost-effective. Avoiding use of toxic pesticides is good for public health, particularly in these times when respiratory assaults can increase the threat of Covid-19. Organic practices are also climate-friendly and support biodiversity.

Beyond Pesticides provides in-depth training to assist community land managers in transitioning two public green spaces to organic landscape management through its Parks for a Sustainable Future program (bp-dc.org/sustainable-parks). Please contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] to find out how our town can transition to organic land management and make an important contribution to protecting the health of our community and solving the climate crisis and biodiversity collapse.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2022) Among the multiple, wrenching decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in a week-long tranche (June 24–30) was one that limits the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from power plants. The decision may also, and with much broader implication, call into question the established authority of federal agencies to promulgate regulations not specifically authorized by Congress, but related to their overall mission to protect health and the environment. In this respect, the current court majority of six, arguably very conservative, justices has thus dealt a serious-though-not-fatal blow to EPA’s ability to carry out efforts to thwart the existential climate crisis and other crises on the short horizon, such as biodiversity collapse. The court has left these science-based decisions and strategies to a body locked in political logjam—the U.S. Congress. As Chief Justice John Roberts opined for the majority, “A decision [on carbon emissions] of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

Beyond Pesticides and other health, environmental, and environmental and climate justice advocates, as well as Democrats across the country, are decrying the 6–3 decision, given that the climate crisis rages on and the need for ambitious greenhouse gas reductions is paramount.

The case, West Virginia et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (WV v. EPA), is actually a group of cases bound together by their common target — EPA and its proposed, but never enacted, Clean Power Plan. Plaintiffs suing EPA, in addition to West Virginia, include North Dakota, the North American Coal Corporation, and Westmoreland Mining Holdings — unsurprisingly, coal companies and states whose economies are significantly bound up with the coal industry.

The SCOTUS decision finds that EPA does not have the authority to implement, as the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force explains, “the best system of emission reduction underlying the Clean Power Plan (shifting generation from higher emitting sources to lower emitting sources, including sources technically outside the regulated industry, like solar and wind on the grid).” Many pundits have noted that WV v. EPA is, fortunately, a relatively narrow ruling; it undercuts an important tool in the agency’s kit bag, but as multiple advocates have pointed, still leaves other pathways through which EPA can address the emissions from fossil-fueled power generation plants.

A short explainer: specifically, the decision strikes down the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP), which was rationalized on the basis of the tenets of the Clean Air Act, and established guidelines for states in their efforts to limit CO₂ emissions from existing power plants. In 2016, SCOTUS blocked CPP from being enacted; this is an important point that will be discussed below.

The WV v. EPA ruling relies on an elaboration and application of the “major questions doctrine,” which the Supreme Court has previously asserted to mean that if a federal agency seeks to decide on or regulate an issue of major national importance, such action must be supported by clear statutory authorization. The Congressional Research Service website page on the doctrine does note that SCOTUS “has never used that term in a majority opinion.” As we repeatedly note, and the dissenting Justices and others point out (see below), the CPP has never been in effect, so no one is or has been, subject to or harmed by its terms. This decision was perhaps a “solution” in search of a problem; the political and “prophylactic” nature of the ruling seems obvious.

In the WV v. EPA case, according to the website JDSupra: “The Court held that Clean Air Act Section 111(d), 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), a rarely used statutory provision, was not sufficient to support a rulemaking that ‘restructure[ed] the Nation’s overall mix of electricity generation.’ Because the Court determined this result would carry consequences of economic and political significance, the Court found the rule triggered the ‘major questions’ doctrine. The Court reiterated that although Section 111(d) authorizes EPA to establish emission guidelines for existing major sources of air pollution based on BSER [best system of emission reduction], the Agency could not do so using such transformative measures.” It bears repeating that in this case, Chief Justice John Roberts opined for the majority, “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

Response from the universe of advocates and elected officials has been immediate and vigorous — though the statement by EPA Administrator Michael Regan sounds a tad pro forma for this moment: “As a public health agency, EPA’s number one responsibility is to protect people’s health, especially those who are on the front lines of environmental pollution. Make no mistake: we will never waver from that responsibility. While I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision, we are committed to using the full scope of EPA’s authorities to protect communities and reduce the pollution that is driving climate change.”

Others are charging that the decision will make the climate crisis and air pollution even worse, particularly for those already most affected — communities of color, low-income communities, and fenceline communities located near power generation plants. Assistant Director of Law and Policy at the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, Monique Harden, told the Associated Press that this ruling “denies relief to Black and other communities of color as well as poor communities disproportionately exposed to power plant pollution and vulnerable to climate change.”

The Sierra Club issued a statement: “This is a deeply disappointing and dangerous decision that eliminates EPA’s most effective tool for reducing harmful climate pollution from existing power plants. [It] gives coal executives and far-right politicians exactly what they asked for by frustrating EPA’s efforts to set strong, effective carbon pollution standards from power plants that would help protect our communities and families. . . . [T]oday’s decision accommodates the powerful instead of the people by seriously narrowing that authority. As scientists warn that we are running out of time to combat the climate crisis, no one should be making it harder for our government to use effective tools to protect our families and communities. . . . [It] is up to Congress and the Biden Administration to act quickly to pass bold climate legislation — our future depends on it.”

U.S. Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York, in a press briefing with the Green New Deal Network, pointed to the possibility that the decision could lead to destructive precedent, given the “major questions doctrine” cited by the conservative majority. He said, “This ruling could potentially undermine all kinds of regulations that are about saving lives and promoting well-being. We cannot, we must not, and we will not let this court stop us. The Biden administration must declare a climate emergency immediately and use every single power at its disposal.”

The Washington Post’s Climate 202 feature wrote, in a piece titled, “The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling was the beginning of something bigger,” that the SCOTUS decision is being celebrated by Republican attorneys general and conservative legal activists. “In particular, they celebrated the court’s embrace of the ‘major questions doctrine.’ . . . However, their celebration didn’t last long before they began plotting ways to challenge other environmental regulations on similar grounds, setting up a larger legal showdown over the federal government’s ability to address the climate crisis.” Therein may lie the even larger and looming threat of this decision.

Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts asserted, “It is our responsibility to respond at this time because we cannot allow those who are most vulnerable to pay this price. It’s up to those of us who have been given some power, given some privilege to now stand up, shoulder to shoulder with them, to engage in this fight.” Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland added, according to Roll Call, “‘As Justice Kagan points out in her dissent, the Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decision-maker on climate policy. That is not how our system of checks and balances works,’ he said, adding that the Senate should ‘act on legislation to address the existential threat posed by the climate crisis.’”

JDSupra identifies key takeaways from this SCOTUS decision, including: the “major questions doctrine”; immediate impact on the scope of the Biden Administration’s approach to regulating power sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; the critical role of Congressional action; the decarbonization underway (at a rate faster than provided for by the CPP), largely for economic reasons; and the authority of states to act on GHGs.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion in the WV v. EPA case, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. That opinion, as well as a January 2022 amicus brief (see below for both), identifies one of the strange realities of this decision: it strikes down a regulation promulgated under the Clean Power Plan (CPP) — a regulation that’s never even been enacted. That dissent begins (p. 57): “Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”

The opinion includes other pithy commentary (case citations are here omitted but are available in the decision document): “Congress charged EPA with addressing . . . [the] potentially catastrophic harms [of the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide], including through regulation of fossil fuel–fired power plants. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to regulate stationary sources of any substance that ‘causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution’ and that ‘may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases fit that description. . . . EPA thus serves as the Nation’s ‘primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions.’”

The dissent continues: “This Court has obstructed EPA’s effort from the beginning. Right after the Obama administration issued the Clean Power Plan, the Court stayed its implementation. That action was unprecedented: Never before had the Court stayed a regulation then under review in the lower courts. . . . The effect of the Court’s order, followed by the Trump administration’s repeal of the rule, was that the Clean Power Plan never went into effect. The ensuing years, though, proved the Plan’s moderation. Market forces alone caused the power industry to meet the Plan’s nationwide emissions target—through exactly the kinds of generation shifting the Plan contemplated.

“So by the time yet another President took office, the Plan had become, as a practical matter, obsolete. For that reason, the Biden administration announced that, instead of putting the Plan into effect, it would commence a new rulemaking. Yet this Court determined to pronounce on the legality of the old rule anyway. But the Court’s docket is discretionary, and because no one is now subject to the Clean Power Plan’s terms, there was no reason to reach out to decide this case. The Court today issues what is really an advisory opinion on the proper scope of the new rule EPA is considering. . . . But this Court could not wait — even to see what the new rule says — to constrain EPA’s efforts to address climate change.”

To that last point, in January this year, Senators Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Sanders, and Warren filed an amicus curiae brief in the case. The Summary of Arguments in that brief identifies the dissenting Justices’ last point, and is a fairly trenchant account of how this case came to be, and what a politically driven decision the SCOTUS majority has delivered. We reproduce it here:

“American success in the 20th and 21st centuries owes much to the administrative agencies that enabled and facilitated these accomplishments. Metrics that boomed in the 20th century, from average lifespan to economic productivity, were made possible by a slew of new regulations aimed at protecting the public welfare. As the excesses of powerful industries were reined in, however, these same regulations fostered resentment among those seeking to operate without such restraint.

“These cases are the direct product of that resentment. Almost everything about these cases— the theories, the arguments, and even many of the parties and amici curiae—is an industrial product manufactured in an effort to return to an era free from oversight by the government. The theories and arguments were incubated, grown, propagated, and distributed by a well-funded apparatus that has selfish and destructive goals. These industry interests hope to cripple the federal government’s ability to regulate them by fostering hostility toward what they pejoratively call the ‘administrative state.’ Their efforts, carried out by their front groups, proliferate through the political process, through faux intellectual ideas and grassroots campaigns, strategic appointments and policy proposals in the executive branch, and massive campaign contributions to those running for Congress.

“Most important here, there is no extant regulation to challenge, so there is no case or controversy. The Court should work to restore the public’s faith by rejecting this blatant, political policy agenda, and dismiss these cases.”

Yet here we are. Beyond general shock at the decision, there is broad and rapid and focused attention being paid to how EPA can regulate CO₂ (and other greenhouse gas emissions). The SCOTUS ruling asserts that the Clean Air Act does not give EPA broad authority to regulate emissions from plants that contribute to global warming, but does not prohibit EPA from regulating carbon emissions. Indeed, in writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said (p. 37), “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day.’” (How much that last phrase — “crisis of the day” — was meant as snark is unclear, but many have reacted to it as stunningly dismissive of the existential climate emergency.)

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) points squarely at how to progress: “A nationwide greenhouse gas pollution cap under the Clean Air Act is a central component of the progressive Climate President action plan and model executive order, spearheaded by [CBD] and supported by hundreds of climate and environmental justice groups. [CBD] and more than 1,200 groups in the People vs. Fossil Fuels coalition have called on [President] Biden to declare a national climate emergency and take swift executive action to reject new fossil fuel leases, infrastructure and exports. Under existing law, the President can also restrict international fossil fuel investment and rapidly manufacture and distribute renewable energy systems. All these powers remain intact after West Virginia v EPA.”

Climate strategist Mary Anne Hitt Tweeted a robust thread on what’s possible and perhaps likely, saying “Remember — coal (and increasingly gas) power plants can’t compete with renewable energy and SCOTUS won’t change that. This @EnergyInnovLLC report found 80% of U.S. coal plants are already more expensive to run than replacement with local renewables. Utilities keep announcing coal retirements (or are being driven into bankruptcy by hanging onto coal) — GA Power, Duke, AES, etc. None of those decisions were driven by greenhouse gas regulations. Market pressure from cheap renewables will continue. Meanwhile, states keep locking in renewable energy mandates; 1 in 3 Americans live[s] in a place committed to 100% clean energy, and in just the past year states including MD, CT, and RI have joined the list of those with strong 100% laws on the books. Finally, as director of @BeyondCoal at @SierraClub for a decade, I can assure you the thousands of tenacious advocates who have so far retired two-thirds of U.S. coal plants (357 and counting) won’t stop until this nation is powered with clean energy.”

As David Pomerantz, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, said on Twitter, “If you’re the kind of person who is concerned about climate change and dismayed by today’s court decision, tomorrow’s a great day to find an organization in your state that’s working at the legislature or Public Utility Commission to speed up the transition to clean energy.”

Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman summarizes the confluence of work in organics and the role of federal agency — EPA — action, saying: “There are parallels between federal executive (and now judicial) response to the climate crisis and our work with organics — primarily in opposition to bad and inadequate decisions by EPA (and USDA and other federal agencies). The market is driving change in the absence of responsible governmental action, but it takes an informed populace to take matters into its own hands and demand responsible corporate behavior by purchasing only from those companies that are operating sustainably.” This is more challenging on the energy front, given that energy providers have virtual hegemony over markets in much of the country. Nevertheless, local governments and households can shift to solar and wind and remove fossil fuel-based products from their purchasing, can make more-sustainable choices (i.e., organic) in the food and agricultural products they purchase.

He continues, “Obviously, the most efficient and comprehensive approach to taking on the existential public health, biodiversity, and climate crises is to have strong federal standards that protect all people and the environment. Absent that, there is important work to done in the marketplace, through local government, and at the state level.” And as noted above, there are pathways forward for EPA to regulate carbon in the face of the climate emergency. But we, the American public, must advocate vociferously for them, because the swelling forces on the political right — now enshrined in the U.S. Supreme Court majority — appear to have little interest in the protection of people and planet.

Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2022) A review article published in the International Journal on Environmental Sciences highlights how pervasive pesticide exposure and climate change threaten global species biodiversity. Now more than ever, people are changing their sentiment toward sustainability, with two-thirds of consumers stating the importance of limiting climate change impacts and 88 percent supporting greater pollution reduction. The relationship between climate change and biodiversity—a “distinct but related issue”— is often overlooked in the regulation of the pesticide industry. Climate change and biodiversity loss are interdependent, and an adverse impact on one can bolster adverse effects on the other. Biodiversity is intricate and affects all environmental ecosystems—from oceans and freshwater to forests and soils; it encompasses all life forms on earth. Without biodiversity, food production, energy production, clean water, fertile soil, sustained air quality, and climate will suffer.

The globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk. With the increasing rate of biodiversity loss, advocates say it is essential for government agencies to hold the pesticide industry accountable for the direct (i.e., excessive agrochemical use) and indirect (i.e., water pollution from run-off) impacts on ecosystems. The review notes, “The enormous use of pesticides becomes the predominant environmental contaminants. Once these pesticides are released in the environment, they are metabolized in a short time whereas others persist over a longer period and can accumulate in the soil and water and badly influence the widespread biodiversity and its buffering mechanism.”

Pesticides’ Overall Impact on the Environment and Species Biodiversity 

Pesticide residues readily contaminate all ecosystems and are prevalent in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air. Scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of adverse effects on the environment, including wildlife, biodiversity, and human health. The impacts of pesticides on wildlife biodiversity are extensive and expose animals in urban, suburban, and rural areas to unnecessary risks. Pesticides can affect animals through direct or indirect exposure, including drift, secondary poisoning, runoff, and volatility. Some animals encounter direct spraying, while others may consume plants or prey contaminated with pesticides. According to a 2016 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assessment, two commonly used pesticides (chlorpyrifos and malathion) are “likely to adversely affect” 97% of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Furthermore, a more recent EPA assessment finds the excessive use of the most popular herbicide, (weedkiller) glyphosate, threatens 93 percent of all endangered species. This EPA announcement was released only a few days following the agency’s report on atrazine (another commonly used toxic herbicide) causing harm to more than half of endangered species. However, biodiversity buffers against damage from climate change—for example, by protecting shorelines from storm damage, and providing plant coverage on soil surfaces to prevent erosion while reducing the need for toxic chemicals that deregulate ecosystem function.

Climate Change and Pesticide Implications

The climate crisis adds another level of concern, especially regarding passive pesticide and microbial exposure from snowmelt and permafrost. The Arctic has become a sink for these toxic chemicals, as studies find evidence that airborne Arctic chemical concentrations are comparable to industrialized regions in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Additional investigations find the presence of chemicals and microbes in soil and ice samples taken from Arctic regions. The Arctic is highly susceptible to global pollution, as warmer air contaminated with industrial and agricultural chemicals from manufacturing regions moves poleward. Environmental pollutants can condense into snowflakes high in the atmosphere and deposit onto the Arctic surface. Moreover, approximately 1,700 billion metric tons of carbon, including GHGs like carbon dioxide and methane, are present in permafrost, over 51 times more than the amount of carbon released from 2019 fossil fuel emissions. The remaining organic matter, frozen in permafrost, will decay after thawing, further increasing atmospheric carbon emissions.  

This review adds to the growing literature demonstrating disproportionate warming in arctic regions. Arctic thawing has implications for carbon release and landscape changes that are difficult to predict. As global warming progresses, exposure concerns will increase significantly, especially individuals more vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemical exposure. To mitigate the risks associated with chemical exposure from pesticides, advocates say the manufacturing and use of pesticides need addressing, first and foremost.

It falls to global leaders to curtail the continued manufacturing of chemical pollutants that readily contaminate polar regions. Recently, agrochemicals, includingpesticides and fertilizers, became the leading contributor to environmental sulfur emissions. If pesticide use and manufacturing are amplifying the impacts of the climate crisis, advocates argue that it is essential to effect change by enhancing pesticide policy and regulation that eliminates use. 

The review highlights the need to eliminate the hazards associated with pesticide use and exposure to mitigate the harmful health and environmental consequences. Shifting to organic farming and land management reduces emissions associated with pesticide manufacturing, use, and ecological persistence. In addition, certified organic operations are required to conserve biodiversity by maintaining or enhancing all-natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, and woodlands.”

The review concludes, “The bitter experience of the use of synthetic pesticides and presence of rich flora in our country attracts the attention of scientists to develop an effective and economic control method by exploring the biopesticides [e.g., organic]. So, it has become necessary to evolve control measures, which may be selective in action and relatively harmless to non-target organisms and human beings. Thus, pesticides of plant origin are preferred over synthetic pesticides because of nontoxic to the environment and human beings.”

Chemical contamination is ubiquitous in terrestrial and marine environments. Thus, environmental advocates say it is essential for government agencies to recognize how previous and ongoing use of chemical pollutants can impact present-day species. Likewise, collaborative, global monitoring of chemical pollutants can help leaders identify the effect on vulnerable species and the most effective unified global strategy. Animals and humans occupy the same space, so both will experience similar declines in general health, fitness, and well-being. Therefore, many advocates urge the phasing out of toxic pesticide use to protect global wildlife, especially threatened species. Advocating for local and state pesticide reform policies can protect wildlife from pesticide contamination. For more information on pesticide impacts on wildlife, visit Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife page.

Furthermore, climate crisis implications like melting glaciers present an ongoing concern over the levels of chemical concentrations in waterways from DDT, its metabolites, and other persistent organic pollutants trapped in ice. A meaningful effort to protect the nation’s and world’s waterways requires, according to experts, eliminating the use of pesticides that make their way into drinking water.

Replacing pesticides with organic, nontoxic alternatives is crucial for safeguarding public health, particularly in communities vulnerable to pesticide toxicity. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for toxic pesticides. Regenerative organic agriculture revitalizes soil health through carbon sequestration while reducing pests and generating higher profits than chemical-intensive agriculture. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure. For additional information, see the Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on organic agriculture.

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

Source: International Journal on Environmental Sciences

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2022) Norwalk, Connecticut last week passed an ambitious ordinance (see page 121) banning toxic pesticides and implementing pesticide-free management on all public spaces throughout the city. The move, championed by Common Council member Lisa Shanahan with strong support from other city leaders, as well as public health and conservation organizations, follows nearby Stamford, CT’s organic community ordinance passed last September. “It’s high time that we connected people and conscientious lawmakers—linking municipal pesticide bans to the interests of animal advocates, gardeners and conservationists, so that the hazards and risks of using pesticides both informs residents and changes public policies and practices,” said Priscilla Feral, president of the Connecticut-based animal advocacy organization Friends of Animal and founder of Pesticide Free Rowayton, organizations which both worked to gather public support for the ordinance.

Prior to the passage of the ordinance, Norwalk land managers were embracing the need to move towards safer approaches to land care, and responded to public requests to move in this direction. Pesticide Free Rowayton secured a pesticide-free lawn care program on six public parks, and city staff began phasing out glyphosate use. “Three years now we stopped using Roundup on our property,” Superintendent of Parks and Public Property (Recreation and Parks) Ken Hughes told the CT-based news site The Hour. “We never mass treated for weeds or insects.”  

The ordinance prohibits all pesticides on all Norwalk city property unless use is addressing poison ivy or specified in a Land Management Plan required to be developed by the Director of Recreation and Parks and the city’s Chief of Operations. The land management plan must embrace an organic systems approach to land care, including regular soil testing, the use of only organic fertilizers, careful plant selection, physical and biological controls, consideration of pest biology, and preventive practices that eliminate pest-conducive conditions.

If a situation arises where a city department wants to use a pesticide not specified in the land management plan, the ordinance establishes an interdepartmental pest management team to evaluate exemption requests. Allowances are approved only if there is an imminent threat to health, environment, or public safety, reasonable attempts have been made to address the problem without pesticide use, the pesticide will not impact water quality, and there is evidence the product in question has been proven effective against the pest or weed condition present. If an exemption is granted, the application must include a pest management plan to prevent re-occurrence of the condition using organic land management practices.

Local public golf courses are exempt from pesticide restrictions if they commit to following the Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States. Both public golf courses and city land managers must deliver monthly reports to the Norwalk Common Council regarding pesticide use during the preceding month.

Norwalk’s ordinance does not allow exemptions for invasive species and does not differentiate between organic or non-organic pesticides, referring all exemption requests to an interdepartmental pest management team. The team is comprised of city staff and does not include any members of the public. However, through the monthly reports transmitted to the Common Council, both lawmakers and the public can maintain a close watch of pesticide use to ensure that the spirit and intent of the ordinance is fulfilled, and exemptions do not result in the regular use of toxic pesticides.

Along with nearby Stamford, Norwalk’s ordinance is critical to safeguarding Connecticut’s unique coastal environment and protecting water quality throughout the region.

“It’s in the best interest of the city and its residents to protect the ecological integrity of the Long Island Sound, Norwalk’s River and streams, and improve and protect water quality throughout our region,” Council member Lisa Shanahan told The Hour. “These lethal chemicals blindly kill and make no distinction between pests and beneficial insects and healthy organisms.”

These sentiments were echoed by others on the Common Council, including member David Heuvelman, who called the ordinance “a first big step for the city… I personally think this is one of the most important things that we as a community can do, especially a community geographically located where we are. The water is important, we need to preserve it, we need to make sure that we are shepherding our water supplies,” he said.

To discuss the importance of passing a strong city ordinance around pesticide use, Beyond Pesticides community resource and policy director Drew Toher joined with Sarah Evans, PhD, of the Ichan School of Medicine at Mt Sinai, and Richard Harris, of the CT-based conservation group Harbor Watch in a series of presentations to city leaders. According to local Norwalk news site, Nancy on Norwalk, Common Council member Nora Niedzielski-Eichner indicated the “quite comprehensive” presentations “changed my views about how our family does pest control.”

While many advocates wanted the Council to go further and extend the pesticide ban to private property, the Common Council is prohibited from doing so due to anti-democratic provisions in Connecticut state law known as pesticide preemption. However, as Norwalk is showing, public land care practices set an important example for city residents. The passage of local policies on public lands show a strong desire for communities to reclaim the authority to regulate toxic chemicals wherever they may cause unnecessary harm.

Norwalk’s strong pesticide ordinance brings it in league with the nearly 200 other local policies recorded on Beyond Pesticides’ Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies. If you’re interested in joining communities like Norwalk and organizing your city, town, or county towards a similar goal, reach out to Beyond Pesticides by sending an email to [email protected] for one on one assistance and strategies you can use to eliminate unnecessary pesticide use where you live.

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

Source: The Hour, Nancy on Norwalk, Norwalk Common Council records

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2022)  Plastics are a huge environmental problem, yet organic production and handling continue to exacerbate the problem instead of solving it. There are opportunities for change with different mulching systems, intercropping, and packaging materials. It is time to ensure organic’s commitment to addressing the existential crises associated with a petroleum-based economy and lead the way in combatting the climate crisis by ending plastic use in agricultural production and food packaging.

Tell the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) it must lead in phasing out plastic at all stages of production and handling.

Plastic production and use aggravate the climate emergency via the production and use of plastics. Researchers have found, “The U.S. plastics industry is responsible for at least 232 million tons of CO₂ gas emissions per year. This amount is equivalent to the average emissions from 116 average-sized (500-megawatt) coal-fired power plants.”

Plastic is intentionally added to organic farms in the form of mulch, netting, tree guards, plant containers, irrigation tubing, feed bags, and many other items. The largest use, and the one that has received attention by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is plastic sheet mulch.

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), in recognition of current practices by organic farmers, allows non-PVC plastic mulch if it is removed at the end of the growing or harvest season. The fact that huge quantities of plastic are carted off to landfills every year from organic farms created a demand for plastic mulch that will degrade on site. As of 2014, organic growers are allowed to use “biodegradable biobased mulch film” (BBMF) which does not need to be removed. However, there are still no available products that meet the regulatory definition of biodegradable. Furthermore, while BBMF may be “biodegradable” in name, it is now apparent that it does not totally degrade, but leaves microplastic particles in the soil.

Microplastics cause harmful effects to humans and other organisms through physical entanglement and physical impacts of ingestion. They also act as carriers of toxic chemicals. Studies on fish have shown that microplastics and their associated toxic chemicals bioaccumulate, resulting in intestinal damage and changes in metabolism. Soil organisms and edible plants ingest microplastic particles. Earthworms can move microplastics through the soil, and microplastics can move through the food chain to human food. Microplastics can have a wide range of negative impacts on the soil, including reduction in growth and reproduction of soil microfauna. Microplastics serve as hotspots of gene exchange between different microorganisms, potentially increasing the spread of antibiotic resistant pathogens in water and sediments.

BBMFs are not removed from the field by the grower but are tilled into the soil, purposefully creating microplastics to be degraded by soil organisms. However, growers report that fragments persist in the soil, and research on the eventual fate of biodegradable mulch films is ongoing. Still, some research indicates that the BBMFs do not completely degrade and may degrade more slowly when tilled under the surface, that they contain components that may be hazardous, and particles may adsorb persistent toxicants.

The use of natural organic materials in compost and mulch is foundational to organic production, which is intended to mimic natural ecosystems. In natural systems, plants are fed by the action of soil organisms breaking down plant residues and excreting substances that are plant nutrients. Natural mulches are the organic alternative—providing a steady diet of organic matter for soil organisms.

The NOSB has not examined organic food packaging and placed on hold consideration of “Packaging materials including BPA.” BPA (bisphenol A) is the molecular building block for polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. The epoxy resins are also used as a coating for metal cans and other containers. BPA was listed as a reproductive toxicant by the state of California in 2015. The Technical Review (TR) commissioned by the National Organic Program provides further documentation of human exposure, citing studies showing that BPA leaches from the plastic linings of metal cans. BPA leaching from the linings of cans violates the prohibitions in law against the “use or reuse of any bag or container that has been in contact with any substance in such a manner as to compromise the organic integrity of any organically produced product or ingredient placed in those containers.”

Plastic packaging is a major source of environmental contamination. The National Academies of Sciences find, “Plastic containers and packaging comprise the largest fraction of the plastic waste stream (41%) and enter the waste stream most quickly after production in the year they are produced.”

In addition to plastic used in crop production and packaging, plastics enter into every aspect of organic food production. Plastic containers, tubing, and implements may be used in processing. All these uses pose potential hazards as chemicals migrate from plastic to food.

Eliminating plastic will not be easy, but in view of the numerous threats that are now recognized, it is important for organic production and handling to lead the way in making the transition. The NOSB should add the development of a strategy for eliminating plastic to the NOSB work agenda.

Tell the NOSB to get plastic out of organic.

This is a Regulations.gov action, which requires you to go to Regulations.gov and insert a comment into a form. Please copy and paste some or all of the above text, as a comment to the NOSB. The above link takes you directly to Docket # AMS-NOP-22-0042, where you can comment.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2022) The European Commission (EC) introduced on June 22 new rules that ban all pesticides in “public parks or gardens, playgrounds, recreation or sports grounds, public paths, as well as ecologically sensitive areas.” In agriculture, the policy adopts strategies for achieving the pesticide use- and risk-reduction goals of its Farm to Fork initiative. The EC — the European Union’s (EU’s) politically independent executive arm — proffered new rules that are binding on all EU Member States. Those states must, in turn, adopt their own binding targets to help meet the overall EU targets — a 50% reduction in use and risk of chemical pesticides, and a 50% reduction in use of more-hazardous pesticides, by 2030. Beyond Pesticides has covered the shortcomings of the EU’s previous approach, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy and its 2021 disparagement by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack, and his apparent turnaround in the large and recently announced USDA investment in the U.S. transition to organic agriculture (albeit without metrics or acreage goals), a transition F2F seeks to advance for the EU.

Regarding the ban of pesticides in parks, the policy says:

“Use of plant protection products may have particularly negative impacts in certain areas that are frequently used by the general public or by vulnerable groups, communities in which people live and work and ecologically sensitive areas, such as Natura 2000 sites protected in accordance with Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 92/43/EEC34. If plant protection products are used in areas used by the general public, the possibility of exposure of humans to such plant protection products is high. In order to protect human health and the environment, the use of plant protection products in sensitive areas and within 3 metres of such areas, should therefore be prohibited. Derogations from the prohibition should only be allowed under certain conditions and on a case by-case basis.” [According to the policy: ‘sensitive area’ means any of the following: (a) an area used by the general public, such as a public park or garden, recreation or sports grounds, or a public path; (b) an area used predominantly by a vulnerable group as defined in Article 3(14) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/ 2009. . .] The policy goes into effect on twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The EC says, “We need to redesign our food systems, which today account for nearly one-third of global GHG emissions, consume large amounts of natural resources, result in biodiversity loss and negative health impacts . . . and do not allow fair economic returns and livelihoods for all actors, in particular for primary producers.” F2F is one major component of the European Green Deal — a plan to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent and “transform the EU into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy, ensuring (1) no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, (2) economic growth decoupled from resource use, [and] (3) no person and no place left behind.”

F2F aims to accelerate the transition to what it calls a “sustainable food system” — one that would:

• ensure food security, nutrition, and public health, ensuring that everyone can access sufficient safe, nutritious food
• have a neutral or positive environmental impact
• help mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts
• reverse biodiversity loss
• preserve affordability of food while generating fairer economic returns, fostering competitiveness of the EU supply sector, and promoting fair trade

The new rules proposed by the EC introduce several provisions in pursuit of such a sustainable food system, including:
• legally binding pesticide-use-reduction targets

• strict enforcement of “environmentally friendly” pest control, i.e., ensuring that all farmers practice Integrated Pest Management (IPM), in which all alternative methods of pest control are considered first, before chemical pesticides can be used as a last resort; Beyond Pesticides notes that this is not the same as organic production, wherein (in the U.S.) nearly no chemical pesticides are permitted
• a ban on the use of all pesticides in sensitive areas (such as ecologically vulnerable areas, public parks and gardens, recreational/sports fields, playgrounds, and public paths)
• EU financial support for farmers (“for 5 years, Member States can use the CAP to cover the costs of the new requirements for farmers”)

The EC rationale for these new rules rests on its recent evaluation of the previous iteration of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, and the commission’s subsequent conclusion that existing rules have been both far too anemic and implemented unevenly. The EC evaluation, as well as conclusions from the European Court of Auditors (the EU’s independent financial oversight body) and the European Parliament, demonstrated insufficient progress on the reduction of the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment. (It should be noted that the F2F strategy strives for what it defines as “sustainable” use of pesticides, rather than “zero” use.)

The EC announcement added that those bodies identified “insufficient progress in promoting the use of Integrated Pest Management and alternative approaches or techniques, such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides, in part, because already now chemical pesticides can harm human health and continue to contribute to biodiversity decline in agricultural areas, contaminate the air, the water and the wider environment.”

The EC cited several catalytic factors driving these new strategies: (1) major health risks from chemical pesticide exposure; (2) detection of pesticides above their effect threshold at 13–30% of all surface water monitoring sites in lakes and rivers across the EU; and (3) the pollinator and insect decimation, particularly as Europe already faces a pollination deficit. It also noted, “In case of inaction, the outlook for all environmental indicators is bleak with further declines in biodiversity.”

The announcement included this: “Our food production systems need to reduce their negative impact on climate change and biodiversity loss. The costs of inaction hugely outweigh the costs related to the transition towards sustainable food systems. The new rules will ensure that farmers and consumers can benefit from sustainable food systems and that our long-term food security is safeguarded.”

The EC offered information on how the outcomes of the new rules, once active (likely in a couple of years), will be monitored and measured. Data on the use and risks of pesticides will be ascertained annually through data on the sale of pesticides (or PPPs, Plant Protection Products), as reported to the EC by EU Member States. The baseline from which to calculate reductions will be the average pesticide sales in 2015, 2016, and 2017. All PPPs on the market will be assigned to one of four groups, each of which is assigned a “weighted” significance in terms of the compounds’ inherent risks; higher weightings reflect higher risk. The system aims to encourage the use of PPPs containing low-risk active substances (many of which are non-chemical), and to discourage the use of PPPs containing more-hazardous substances.

The focus on high-hazard compounds is well placed. Recent research, published in Environment International, concluded: all of the current 230 active EU-approved, synthetic, open-field-use herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides are hazardous to humans and/or ecosystems; none of those 230 has a completed hazard profile; and 124 of them are “top hazard” compounds. The researchers investigated the potential ability of seven different pesticide-use reduction scenarios to achieve the 50% reduction goals, and concluded that the 50% use and risk reduction target will be achieved only if the number (“pool”) of pesticide compounds available on the EU market is significantly reduced, or their uses strongly restricted. The study co-authors asserted that “strong restrictions are needed to match the Farm to Fork pesticide reduction goals.”

Environment and public health advocates across the EU are largely in support of F2F. Back in March, when pushback emerged in some other quarters (related to food supply chain issues in light of the Russian war on Ukraine), entities such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Compassion in World Farming, Climate Justice, and the Pesticide Action Network wrote a letter to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and other EU officials, saying: “We ask you to address this immediate crisis without undermining the environmental and social progress to which you committed in the European Green Deal.”

Pushback came largely from producer associations, but also, from government officials. The NGO’s concern, as reported by Agri-Pulse, arose specifically in response to a comment by European Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski, who said, “If food security is in danger, then we need to have another look at the objectives (of Farm to Fork) and possibly correct them.” The trade association Copa-Cocega chimed in with a comment asserting that European farmers need to concentrate on producing more corn, wheat, sunflower, and other crops to make up for the gap caused by Ukraine’s current inability to export crops.

In early June, Czech Director General for European Affairs Štěpán Černý told EURACTIV, “Let’s maybe forget for a while on [the] Farm to Fork strategy […] for a couple of months, and let’s mobilise the foodstuff production as much as we can.” He added, wrongly, that “The ambition of Farm to Fork . . . is to reduce the amount of food we are producing. And I don’t think that’s the wise thing to do only this right now when you’re being threatened by hunger.”

These kinds of comments trot out tired and short-sighted (and arguably, incorrect) arguments that serve profit and/or political ends. Food supply issues during the Ukraine crisis are real and important; yet, they can be dealt with as noted by the United States Institute of Peace and CGIAR (the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), without sacrificing the critical long-term strategies of F2F. The agrochemical industry, producers who have become dependent on chemical-intensive production practices, politicians and officials who may fear the power of industry and/or trade groups, and — indirectly — consumers who are accustomed to unreasonably cheap food, may resist the “strictures” of F2F.

But such attitudes fail to see the long-term forest for the cheap and immediate trees: conventional chemical agriculture damages everything that humans care about — health, natural resources and ecosystems, pollinators, economic well-being, and climate chief among them. Organic regenerative agriculture obviates the needs for these chemical inputs, and would slash the damage they cause across the globe. F2F rarely uses the term “organic” in its frameworks and rules; nevertheless, they approximates many of the tenets of what the National Organic Standards set out here in the U.S. Further, F2F includes actions aimed to increase organic farming in the EU — to 25% of the EU agricultural land use by 2030.

On this side of the pond, USDA recently announced significantly greater funding for the transition of U.S. agricultural acres to organic production. The agency’s early June press release echoed some of F2F’s goal language; USDA asserted that this and other newly directed funding aim “to transform the food system to benefit consumers, producers and rural communities by providing more options, increasing access, and creating new, more, and better markets for small and mid-size producers.” As Beyond Pesticides wrote then, “it will be critical that this [USDA framework] result in concrete goals that set out specific metrics and timelines — particularly around the magnitude of acres shifted to organic production and the pace of the phaseout of non-organic substances and protocols.”

Whether the enactment of F2F strategies “on and in the ground” ends up comporting with top-level goals of F2F — to transition the agricultural and food sector to one that is “fair, healthy, and environmentally friendly” — is TBD (to be determined). What is clear is that the U.S. would do well to create a paradigm-shifting framework, roughly analogous to what the European Green Deal and F2F have set out, for its domestic agricultural sector. USDA’s National Organic Program is a robust toolkit already in place; what is required next is legislative and executive action to bring conventional producers into a “big organic tent” that would benefit everyone (save for the pesticide industry) and all of Nature.

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_22_3694

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2022) A study by Zhongnan University and Shandong University in China finds that the broad-spectrum fungicide maneb increases Parkinson’s disease (PD) risk and development through alterations in protein and metabolite pathways, resulting in neurotoxicity. Several studies find exposure to chemical toxicants, like pesticides, have neurotoxic effects or exacerbate preexisting chemical damage to the nervous system. Although the mechanism by which pesticides induce disease development remains unclear, this study suggests neurological damage from oxidative stress, cell dysfunction, and synapses impairment, among others, increases the incidence of PD subsequent to pesticide exposure.

Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, with at least one million Americans living with PD and about 50,000 new diagnoses annually. The disease affects 50 percent more men than women, and individuals with PD have a variety of symptoms, including loss of muscle control and trembling, anxiety and depression, constipation and urinary difficulties, dementia, and sleep disturbances. Over time, symptoms intensify, but there is no current cure for this fatal disease. While only 10 to 15 percent of PD cases are genetic, PD is quickly becoming the world’s fastest-growing brain disease. Therefore, research like this highlights the need to examine molecular mechanisms involved in altering chemical processes in the body that cause severe and even fatal health effects. The researchers note that the study reveals “the molecular mechanisms of maneb and other pesticides” that induce PD.

Researchers exposed the human cell line SH-SY5Y to environmentally relevant concentrations of maneb and evaluated mice with the common pathological feature of neurogenerative disease, α-synuclein, in the presence of asparagine endopeptidase (AEP) enzyme activation. Using an in vitro assay, researchers determined cell viability related to dose-dependent maneb exposure at environmentally relevant levels. The results show that α-synuclein mice display PD-like motor impairment behavior after maneb exposure, with proteomics and metabolomics (omics) analyses on mice brain and blood serum constituents indicating alterations in protein and metabolite pathways involved in neurotransmission. To verify the results of the omics studies, researchers used the Western blot analysis and targeted metabolomics, demonstrating maneb induces neurological disturbances related to PD pathways. These disturbances include phenylalanine and tryptophan metabolism pathways, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, dopaminergic synapse, and synaptic vesicle cycle.

Parkinson’s disease occurs when there is damage to the dopaminergic nerve cells (i.e., those activated by or sensitive to dopamine) in the brain that are responsible for dopamine production, one of the primary neurotransmitters mediating motor function. Although the cause of dopaminergic cell damage remains unknown, evidence suggests that pesticide exposure, especially chronic exposure, may be the culprit. Occupational exposure poses a unique risk, as pesticide exposure is direct via handling and application. A 2017 study finds that occupational use of pesticides (i.e., fungicides, herbicides, or insecticides) increases PD risk by 110 to 211 percent. Even more concerning is that some personal protection equipment (PPE) may not adequately protect workers from chemical exposure during application. However, nonoccupational (residential) pesticide exposure, such as proximity to pesticide-treated areas, also presents a risk for PD development. A Louisiana State University study finds that residents living adjacent to pesticide-treated pasture and forest from the agriculture and timber industry have higher rates of PD incidence. Furthermore, pesticide residue in waterways and on produce present an alternate route for residential pesticide exposure to increase the risk for PD via ingestion. Pesticide contamination in waterways is historically commonplace and widespread in U.S. rivers and streams, with over 90 percent of water samples containing at least five or more pesticides. Pesticide exposure can cause severe health problems even at low residue levels, including endocrine disruption, cancers, reproductive dysfunction, respiratory problems (e.g., asthma, bronchitis), neurological impacts (e.g., developmental effects and Parkinson’s), among others. Nevertheless, direct occupational and indirect nonoccupational exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of PD. 

This study is the first to thoroughly investigate the molecular mechanisms involved in PD symptom development from maneb exposure, indicating a reduction of neurotransmitters and disturbance of neurotransmission systems. However, prior studies indicate that a pathological (disease-causing) agent, like pesticides, may infiltrate the nervous system via the olfactory bulb, gut, or both and circulate throughout the nervous system to increase PD risk. This study adds to the large body of scientific studies strongly implicating pesticide’s involvement in Parkinson’s disease development. Pesticides themselves, mixtures of chemicals such as Agent Orange (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) or dioxins, and therapeutic hormones or pharmaceutical products can possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Moreover, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide compound in their body, primarily from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water. These toxic 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 several adverse environmental and biological health effects. With the increasing ubiquity of pesticides, current measures safeguarding against pesticide use must adequately detect and assess total chemical contaminants. Therefore, 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). Considering health officials expect Parkinson’s disease diagnoses to double over the next 20 years, it is essential to mitigate preventable exposure from disease-inducing pesticides.

Although the exact cause of PD remains unknown, studies continuously identify pesticide exposure and specific gene-pesticide interactions as significant adverse risk factors. However, only a small percentage of PD is genetic, and PD is quickly becoming “the world’s fastest-growing brain disease.” Therefore, research like this is vital for examining how various pesticides and their exposure routes present potential risk factors for developing diseases like Parkinson’s. Environmental triggers like occupational exposure to pesticides can prompt PD in individuals with or without the genetic precursor.

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. 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. However, there are several limitations in defining real-world poisoning as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. The adverse health effects of pesticides, exposure, and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for more extensive research on occupational and nonoccupational pesticide exposure, especially in agriculture. For more information on the effects of pesticide exposure on neurological health, see PIDD pages on Parkinson’s disease, dementia-like diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, and other impacts on cognitive function. 

Parkinson’s disease has no cure, but preventive practices like organics can eliminate exposure to toxic PD-inducing pesticides. Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace regenerative, organic practices and consumers to purchase organically grown food. A complement to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do. Those affected by pesticide drift can refer to Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on What to Do in a Pesticide Emergency and contact the organization for additional information. Furthermore, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parkinson’s Disease article from the Spring 2008 issue of Pesticides and You.

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

Source: Zhongnan University and Shandong University

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2022) A virus present in low levels in the United States is effective at managing populations of non-native fire ants, according to research. Although only focused on one particular fire ant, Solenopsis invicta (the red imported fire ant), the study published in the Journal of Invertebrate Pathology shows promise for gardeners, land managers, and the public looking to manage fire ants without the use of hazardous chemical insecticides. As climate change and global trade facilitate the spread of dangerous non-native species, there is a strong need for new and cutting edge approaches that target these pests without significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment.

Prior testing by scientists involved in the current study had indicated that Solenopsis invicta virus 3 (SINV3), found sparsely throughout the U.S., was able to successfully infect and kill imported red fire ants in a laboratory setting. Scientists find that the virus modifies the behavior of worker ants, impeding their ability to either acquire or distribute food to larval ants. Worker neglect caused by the virus results in high larval mortality and degraded queen health, eventually leading to colony failure.

Based on the promising laboratory data, scientists initiated a field trial in Gainesville, Florida. In an area regularly mowed with high fire ant pressure, twelve imported red fire ant colonies were infected with SINV3 using a bait. Testing ensured that the virus was not already present in the field, and a control plot was established nearby to compare efficacy.

After 77 days, fire ants in the area treated with SINV3 show a 7-fold decrease in the overall number of nests and a 60% reduction in the size of their nests. This shows that the virus can quickly replicate and establish itself in a field setting. While virus-infected ant colonies decreased, colonies in the control group increased the size of their nests by roughly 9%. Follow up showed that infected colonies did recover somewhat after the initial exposure, but nonetheless continued to grow more slowly than colonies in the control area. Researchers were still able to detect the virus in the treated areas and found that it had begun to spread to fire ants in the control region.

Testing has confirmed that the virus does not present risks to non-target species. The study notes, “The virus causes no known detrimental ecological impacts, is host specific, and sustained in the environment.”

The imported red fire ant was first found in Alabama in the 1930s, having hitched a ride from South America. It has since spread across the U.S. South, with colonies present from California across through Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. The ants often move by hitchhiking on agricultural commodities like moved soil and bales of hay. The ants in the wrong place can cause significant economic and ecological damage, and put public health at risk. Eating common crops from corn to citrus, fire ants will also attack young and newborn animals, particularly birds and lizards. They will aggressively defend their nest, responding by swarming a perceived threat and stinging its target repeatedly. Millions of individuals are stung by fire ants every year, and roughly 1% of the population is allergic to their venom. Those allergic comprise the vast majority of the roughly 80 individuals that have been killed by fire ants.

While SINV3 appears to be an effective biocontrol, it is unlikely the silver bullet that many continue to hope for. In other words, it is highly unlikely that these opportunistic species will ever be completely eradicated from their new range. However, this is not the only new biological approach being developed. A study published last year on another non-native fire ant Mymirca ruba (the European fire ant) found that a necromenic nematode known as Pristionchus entomophagus, and pathogenic the bacteria it carries on its skin, may represent an effective biocontrol against fire ants.

As researchers continue to develop new, safer approaches to fire ant management not reliant on chemical pesticides, those dealing with an existing fire ant problem are encouraged to employ an organic approach. To do so, follow Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe resource on Fire Ant Management.

As pressure builds on local land managers to employ toxic pesticides to manage opportunistic weeds and pests, join us in telling your city and county officials to embrace a safer, organic approach to invasive and non-native species.

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

Source: Journal of Invertebrate Pathology

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2022) There is a strong connection between pesticide use and cancer rates in the Western United States, finds research recently published by scientists at University of Idaho and Northern Arizona University. Two studies (here and here) published in the peer-reviewed journal GeoHealth used geospatial data and publicly available pesticide databases to uncover the relationship between chemical heavy agricultural practices and cancer in both adults and children. As the rate of chronic diseases like cancer continue to increase in the United States, and more and more studies find these diseases to be pesticide-induced, it is imperative for the public to put increased pressure on regulators and lawmakers to enact meaningful measures that eliminate pesticide use and the hazards these chemicals pose.

Of the two studies conducted by the research team, the first study modeled the connection between pesticide use and cancer incidence for adults and children in 11 western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming), while the second study focuses on childhood cancer rates in Idaho’s 44 counties. Both studies utilized databases established by public entities, including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide National Synthesis Project database, EPA Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage Estimates, National Cancer Institute (NCI) State Cancer Profiles, and the Cancer Data Registry of Idaho. Rather than focus solely on the impacts of pesticide use to farmers or agricultural workers, the studies consider the broader effects of agricultural pesticide use on the public at large.

For the first study, researchers took the top 25 most used pesticides identified by EPA estimates, and cross-referenced them with USGS data to determine the amount of each pesticide used by state and county. These data were then modeled against NCI county-level cancer incidence.

At the state level, an association is found between the total amount of all pesticides evaluated and both overall and pediatric cancer incidence. Delving deeper into specific pesticide types, a strong connection is found between the amount of fumigants applied in each state and the rate of pediatric cancers. Specifically, the fumigant pesticide metam sodium has a strong connection between its higher use and total cancer rate. These findings are even more prevalent at the county-level. A cutting edge model regarding fumigant use and cancer rate matches quite closely to currently observed cancer rates in the over 450 counties that comprise the 11 western states.

Notably, the areas where fumigant use is high are those with more vegetable and fruit production, rather than grain crops like corn and soy. Regarding the cancer connection to fumigant use, study co-author Naveen Joseph, PhD says, “We have not seen it expressed in a fumigant like this before, and it’s absolutely striking.”

The second study by this research team likewise aimed to create a model able to describe county-level childhood cancer rates. Focusing in on Idaho’s 44 counties, researchers this time used groundwater contamination, as recorded by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, as a variable and proxy for children’s environmental exposures. The same 25 pesticides as the first study were reviewed, but researchers also included other environmental toxins like heavy metals, and nitrate/nitrites. These data are consolidated into an Environmental Burden Index (EBI), and overall environmental contamination within each county is subsequently deemed as either low, medium, or high on the EBI.  

The model finds that EBI correlates closely with the pediatric cancer rate. Idaho counties with high scores on the EBI have higher rates of childhood cancer. As the study further notes, “The variables predominantly contributing to the environmental burden index were pesticides.” Like the first study, a model created by the researchers using these available data was able to accurately predict pediatric cancer incidence currently occurring in Idaho counties.  

Geospatial mapping is providing new insights into the hazards presented by pesticide use, uncovering trends in public health that are systemic, yet rarely considered. Case in point is a study published in 2020, which looks at the connection between Parkinson’s disease, agricultural pesticide use, and one’s zip code in Louisiana. That study found that Parkinson’s rates are significantly higher in zip codes with commercial forests, woodlands, and pastures where the pesticides 2,4-D, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat were often sprayed.  

As with other systemic injustices, one’s zip code and place of residence often determines one’s destiny. Uncovering this information and relating it to the public is of critical importance, but oftentimes those in disaffected communities are well aware of the dangers and threats they are exposed to daily. What is needed is action.

With pesticide use, we have enough evidence to know that we should be rapidly embracing time-tested, organic approaches to farming and land care that do not utilize toxic pesticides. Data elucidating the public health ills produced by pesticides must be accompanied by meaningful action from regulators and lawmakers at every level – local, state, and federal. For assistance in changing pesticide practices in your community, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected]

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

Source: University of Idaho press release, GeoHealth (First study, Second Study)

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2022) It is now—more than ever—up to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to recognize glyphosate (Roundup and other products) as a carcinogen and remove it from the market. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voided EPA’s “interim registration review” decision approving continued use of glyphosate, issued in early 2020 saying, “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),” and the Supreme Court refused to consider (deny certiorari) a Bayer petition to save the company from being held accountable to those diagnosed with cancer after using glyphosate herbicides, EPA’s failure to act speaks to the capture of the agency by the industry it is supposed to regulate.

Tell the EPA to ban glyphosate immediately. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA performs its job as required by law. 

The Ninth Circuit court held that EPA unlawfully concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk. Despite overwhelming evidence and high profile lawsuits against Bayer—with jury verdicts against the company in the tens of millions of dollars—EPA came to “no conclusion” on glyphosate’s connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Notably, the agency did not assess how much glyphosate gets into a user’s bloodstream after skin contact with the herbicide, a major route of exposure for the chemical. The court criticized EPA for its “disregard of tumor results;” its use of “bare assertions” that “fail[] to account coherently for the evidence;” making conclusions that do not “withstand[] scrutiny under the agency’s own framework,” and “fail[ing] to abide by” its cancer guidelines. In sum the court noted EPA’s “inconsistent reasoning” made its decision on cancer “arbitrary,” and struck it down.

Meanwhile, courts have been granting large settlements to people who contracted cancer as a result of using glyphosate. 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. However, roughly 30,000 complainants did not sign on to the settlement, leaving the queue of potential lawsuits 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.

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

That evidence shows that glyphosate must be banned immediately.

Tell the EPA to ban glyphosate immediately. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA performs its job as required by law. 

Letter to EPA Administrator and Assistant Administrator, and Office of Pesticide Programs Director:

It is now—more than ever—up to EPA to recognize glyphosate (Roundup and other products) as a carcinogen and remove it from the market. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voided EPA’s “interim registration review” decision approving continued use of glyphosate, issued in early 2020 saying, “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),” and the Supreme Court refused to consider (deny certiorari) a Bayer petition to save the company from being held accountable to those diagnosed with cancer after using glyphosate herbicides, EPA’s failure to act speaks to the capture of the agency by the industry it is supposed to regulate.

The Ninth Circuit court held that EPA unlawfully concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk. Despite overwhelming evidence and high profile lawsuits against Bayer—with jury verdicts against the company in the tens of millions of dollars—EPA came to “no conclusion” on glyphosate’s connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Notably, the agency did not assess how much glyphosate gets into a user’s bloodstream after skin contact with the herbicide, a major route of exposure for the chemical. The court criticized EPA for its “disregard of tumor results;” its use of “bare assertions” that “fail[] to account coherently for the evidence;” making conclusions that do not “withstand[] scrutiny under the agency’s own framework,” and “fail[ing] to abide by” its cancer guidelines. In sum the court noted EPA’s “inconsistent reasoning” made its decision on cancer “arbitrary,” and struck it down.

Meanwhile, courts have been granting large settlements to people who contracted cancer as a result of using glyphosate. 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. However, roughly 30,000 complainants did not sign on to the settlement, leaving the queue of potential lawsuits 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.

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

Please ban glyphosate immediately.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

Please ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performs its job as required by law.

It is now—more than ever—up to EPA to recognize glyphosate (Roundup and other products) as a carcinogen and remove it from the market. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voided EPA’s “interim registration review” decision approving continued use of glyphosate, issued in early 2020 saying, “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),” and the Supreme Court refused to consider (deny certiorari) a Bayer petition to save the company from being held accountable to those diagnosed with cancer after using glyphosate herbicides, EPA’s failure to act speaks to the capture of the agency by the industry it is supposed to regulate.

The Ninth Circuit court held that EPA unlawfully concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk. Despite overwhelming evidence and high profile lawsuits against Bayer—with jury verdicts against the company in the tens of millions of dollars—EPA came to “no conclusion” on glyphosate’s connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Notably, the agency did not assess how much glyphosate gets into a user’s bloodstream after skin contact with the herbicide, a major route of exposure for the chemical. The court criticized EPA for its “disregard of tumor results;” its use of “bare assertions” that “fail[] to account coherently for the evidence;” making conclusions that do not “withstand[] scrutiny under the agency’s own framework,” and “fail[ing] to abide by” its cancer guidelines. In sum the court noted EPA’s “inconsistent reasoning” made its decision on cancer “arbitrary,” and struck it down.

Meanwhile, courts have been granting large settlements to people who contracted cancer as a result of using glyphosate. 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. However, roughly 30,000 complainants did not sign on to the settlement, leaving the queue of potential lawsuits 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.

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

Please ensure that EPA bans glyphosate immediately.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2022) As reported by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), on June 16 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released final Biological Evaluations, for three neonicotinoid insecticides, that indicate that these pesticides are “likely to adversely affect” the vast majority of endangered or threatened species and/or their designated critical habitats. These evaluations for imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam have been a long time coming, and represent, according to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the first time EPA “has completed biological evaluations of any neonicotinoids’ harms to the nation’s most imperiled plants and animals.” These evaluations evidence what CFS, CBD, Beyond Pesticides, and others have maintained for years: that neonicotinoid compounds are very serious threats to the survival and well-being of myriad organisms and habitats.

A Biological Evaluation (BE) is an EPA analysis of potential harmful impacts of a registered pesticide on any species federally listed, per the Endangered Species Act, as endangered or threatened, or on their critical habitats. EPA was legally required to issue the determinations by the June 2022 deadline, per CFS litigation and a subsequent 2019 legal settlement. EPA was the defendant in 2017 litigation brought by CFS, with Beyond Pesticides, several beekeepers, and the Center for Environmental Health as co-plaintiffs.

The original suit charged that EPA had violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when it registered these neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides. CBD has written that EPA has, for decades, essentially not complied with its obligations under ESA “to assess pesticides’ harms to protected species. The agency was finally forced to do these evaluation under the terms of legal agreements with the Center for Food Safety and the Natural Resources Defense Council.”

Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2021, “Under the [ESA], EPA is required to consult with federal wildlife agencies and conduct a biological evaluation of the impacts a pesticide may have on endangered species and their habitats, prior to the agency formally registering the pesticide. This almost never happens. EPA regularly fails to conduct this evaluation, requiring environmental and conservation organizations to sue the agency in order to force compliance with the law. EPA has been subject to a number of legal challenges over the last decade for its failure to comply with ESA when it registered neonic pesticides.”

Neonicotinoids are a class of systemic (i.e., affecting all parts of a plant), neurotoxic insecticides used to “control” a variety of piercing and sucking pests; they make the entire plant toxic, including nectar, pollen, and fruit. The use of neonics has escalated dramatically since the mid-2000s. Largely banned in the European Union (EU), neonics are used extensively in the U.S. CBD has written that “hundreds of studies have shown they play a major role in population-level declines of bees, birds, butterflies and freshwater invertebrates. More-recent studies are showing they cause significant harm to mammals, as well.”

The compounds are deployed through various means, including spraying, soil drenches, injections into trees, and most ubiquitously, as crop seed coatings. Neonics are very persistent in soils, and are readily moved off of target sites through the air, and via water and soil dusts. As CFS has noted, “After seeds coated with neonics are planted, the chemicals spread far beyond the crop they are intended for and can contaminate nearby wildflowers, soil and water — all of which pose significant threats to bees foraging and nesting in the area. It has been known for several years that these chemicals can kill or weaken more than just the targeted pests. Non-target harm can occur to beneficial invertebrates, as well as to birds and other wildlife, through both direct and indirect effects.”

The “other wildlife” that can be affected, according to CFS’s announcement of the BEs, includes many non-insect organisms. The final documents released by EPA indicated that each of the three neonics is “likely to adversely affect” from two-thirds to more than three-fourths of the nation’s endangered species — a staggering 1,225–1,445 discrete species. CFS point out in its announcement, “This includes all [39 species of] amphibians, and the majority of already endangered fish, birds, and mammals, as well as pollinators and the plants they pollinate. Species found likely to be adversely affected include the Chinook salmon, Florida panther, Indiana bat, whooping crane, California red-legged frog, Karner blue butterfly, yellow larkspur, and many more.”

EPA’s “likely to adversely affect” determination means that the agency “reasonably expects that at least one individual animal or plant, among a variety of listed species, may be exposed to the pesticide at a sufficient level to have an adverse effect.” The BEs of the three neonic insecticides yielded the following results, respectively. Clothianidin is likely to adversely affect 67% of species and 56% of critical habitats; imidacloprid is likely to adversely affect 79% of species and 83% of critical habitats; and thiamethoxam is likely to adversely affect 77% species and 81% of critical habitats.

CBD’s Environmental Health Director, Lori Ann Burd, commented, “These deeply troubling findings leave no doubt that these dangerous pesticides are silencing the songs of frogs, the flutter of butterfly wings and the buzz of bees. Many of the species harmed by neonicotinoids are experiencing precipitous declines, and [thus], EPA’s choices may well determine whether or not they go extinct. . . . We’re in the midst of a heartbreaking extinction crisis and neonicotinoids are playing an outsized role in driving it. Now that the EPA has completed its analysis, the only question is whether it will muster the courage to stand up to Big Ag and ban these chemicals or will choose to facilitate extinction.”

Industrial agriculture groups, such as the American Soybean Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation, are voicing distress at the BEs, insisting that “the evaluations for several neonicotinoid pesticides don’t incorporate scientific and commercial data that could have provided a more realistic picture of the potential impacts of the chemistries on different species. . . . American Soybean Association President Brad Doyle says, ‘Growers have, time and again, pointed EPA to real-world data to improve their endangered species assessments, and the agency has again chosen to disregard the data.’”

EPA perhaps anticipated this reaction when it published this in its FAQ on the BEs: “Did EPA consider real world pesticide usage data in the final biological evaluations? Yes. Under EPA’s Revised Method for conducting biological evaluations, the agency considers real world data on pesticide applications, including how much, when, and where pesticides are applied. EPA evaluates these usage data to determine whether a species is likely or not to be adversely affected by a pesticide (step 2 in EPA’s biological evaluation). Before incorporating usage data, EPA evaluates the quality and relevance of the data to determine their applicability, utility, and soundness. In general, EPA considers the most recent 5 years of usage data to represent current labeled uses.”

In January 2020, EPA issued affirming interim decisions on registration of several neonics (including imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam) despite, as Beyond Pesticides wrote, “EPA’s own findings of evidence of serious threats posed by neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides to pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife, that disregard the science on the pesticides’ impacts . . . it appears that the agency is prepared to finalize these registrations late in 2022.” Then, in August 2021, EPA issued draft BEs on these three compounds, finding that they were likely to “adversely affect over 1,000 endangered species out of 1,821 listed under the law.”

As reported by The Guardian in March 2022, it was widely expected that the agency would nevertheless allow their continued use — to great hue and cry from the wildlife, health, and environmental advocacy community. That such huge proportions of species are at risk from use of these neonics — which EPA knew when it appeared poised to continue to allow their use — is not only a violation of the intent of the ESA, but also, a biological and moral outrage.

The question now is whether the release of these BEs will change EPA’s behavior on neonics. The FAQ the agency published offers this: “Could there be additional mitigation measures that EPA may need to adopt to protect threatened and endangered species from these neonicotinoid pesticides? Yes, through the registration review of the neonicotinoids, EPA is currently proposing mitigations to protect non-target species. EPA may need to adopt additional mitigations in the future to ensure that the neonicotinoids are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify their designated critical habitats.”

The release of these BEs means, for endangered species and habitats, a far-too-familiar waiting game — to see what actions EPA will actually take to protect them. To Beyond Pesticides, the agency’s language here sounds concerning — “mitigations to protect non-target species,” and “additional mitigations in the future.” Beyond Pesticides advocates that EPA ban neonicotinoid insecticides.

The EU banned use of imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam in 2013 and thiacloprid in 2019. Last year, Maine passed a law prohibiting consumer use of neonicotinoid pesticides containing any of these active ingredients — dinotefuran, clothianidin, imidacloprid, or thiamethoxam. New York and New Jersey have begun restrictions on some uses of neonics; other states, including California and Massachusetts, have made efforts to rein in the use of neonics.

Although these local efforts are laudable, they nevertheless represent a piecemeal, fractured approach, across myriad state and local authorities, to restrict use of these highly destructive pesticides. The fix lies with EPA — to get these out of agriculture, the materials stream, and the environment. Now is not too soon. Please contact EPA Administrator Michael Regan [202.564.4700 or [email protected]] and the director of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Edward Messina [202.566.1245 or [email protected]] to insist on urgency in de-registering these compounds.

Sources: Center for Food Safety press release and Center for Biological Diversity press release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2022) In the first California statewide bumble bee census in 40 years, a University of California—Riverside (UCR) study, published in Ecology and Evolution, reveals that once common bumble bee species in California are disappearing from the ecosystem. Wild pollinators like bumble bees provide pollination to billions of dollars worth of crops each year as these insects can flourish in cooler habitats and lower light levels than commercial honey bees. However, pollinators (such as bees, monarch butterflies, and bats) are a bellwether for environmental stress as individuals and as colonies. Both wild and commercial bees and other pollinators encounter multiple stressors, including pesticides, parasites, and poor nutrition, that act together to increase the risk of bee mortality. Therefore, studies like these highlight the need to establish monitoring and conservation frameworks incorporating varying habitats and species to assess fluctuations in biodiversity. The study notes, “Specifically, our study shows that greater monitoring of the diverse bumble bees of California is needed in order to better understand the drivers of biodiversity and decline in this genus, and to more effectively manage bumble bee conservation in the state.” 

Researchers compared data on bumble bee populations in California in 1980 and 2020. After collecting bumble bees from 17 sites in Southern California with six varying ecosystems, the researchers note that they could not locate more than ten bees at each site. The researchers collected 17 types of bumble bees, representing only 68 percent of bee species that inhabit the state. The Western bumble bee is an important pollinator of wild plants and crops; however, the researchers could not find any western bumble bees. The yellow-faced bumble bee represents over half of all bees collected in the study. Although this species is the most dominant in California, the researchers find the number of suitable habitats for pollinators has decreased since the last statewide survey in 1980. The UCR entomologist Hollis Woodard, who led the study, notes, “Although we found that relative to other sites the mountains are home to the most diverse bumble bee populations, even at those sites we also failed to find some species that used to be there.”

Seventy-five percent of the 115 top global food crops depend on insect pollination, with one-third of all U.S. crops depending on pollinators. However, research finds that many insect populations are declining primarily from habitat fragmentation, climate change, and extensive pesticide use. Pesticides are of great concern as these toxic chemicals are everpresent in the environment, and many are toxic to bees, including neonicotinoids, sulfoxaflor, pyrethroids, fipronil, and organophosphates. Pesticides intensify pollinators’ vulnerability to health risks (such as pathogens and parasites) with pesticide-contaminated conditions limiting colony productivity, growth, and survival. Research shows that residues from neonicotinoids (including seed treatments) and sulfoxaflor accumulate and translocate to pollen and nectar of treated plants, increasing the potential risk to pollinators. Moreover, systemic neonicotinoid insecticides put 89 percent or more of U.S. endangered species at risk. Both pyrethroids and fipronil impair bee learning, development, and behavioral function, reducing survivability and colony fitness. However, inert ingredients in these products cause similar or more severe impacts on bee populations, such as disruption in bee learning behavior through exposure to low doses of surfactants. With the global reliance on pollinator-dependent crops increasing over the past decades, a lack of pollinators threatens food security and stability for current and future generations.

This study is the first to provide a broad overview of California bumble bee populations in nearly 40 years, demonstrating a decrease in wild bumble bee diversity and abundance. Pollinators across the globe are in danger from multiple interacting stressors, from climate change to pesticide use, disease, habitat destruction, and other factors. As plants die off or adapt to fewer pollinators, pollinators play less of a role, finding less food and resulting in further stress. In the U.S., an increasing number of pollinators, including the American bumblebee and monarch butterfly, are being added or considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Most recently, the Sacramento-based California Court of Appeal ruled bumblebees and other invertebrates eligible for protection as endangered or threatened “fish” under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) after being left out of CESA protection for decades. Therefore, adequate legislation protecting species’ health can alleviate harmful effects on farmed and natural environments. The study concludes, “Key barriers to successfully implementing species-specific conservation actions include the lack of large-scale monitoring studies to identify general patterns, as well as knowledge gaps in life history and drivers of species decline. Overcoming these barriers and protecting important species, like bumble bees, is necessary to prevent cascading negative impacts on agricultural and natural ecosystems.”

Wild and managed pollinators provide many ecosystem services that contribute to the well-being of all plant and animal species globally. Thus, for Pollinator Week 2022, Beyond Pesticides suggests actions to create pollinator habitat, go organic with your community, and urge comprehensive action at the federal level to protect declining populations. With the crisis continuing, we must redouble these efforts. Concerned residents and pollinator advocates are encouraged to take these steps not only in and around their properties but at their place of work and in their community in local parks and natural areas. Ending toxic pesticide use can alleviate the harmful impacts of these chemicals on species and ecosystem health. Commit to taking meaningful action to protect pollinators, the plants, people, and entire ecosystems that rely upon them. 

Learn more about the science and resources behind pesticides’ impact on pollinators, including bee pollinator decline, and take action against the use of pesticides. Additionally, find more about what you can do to protect bees and other pollinators by checking out information on the BEE Protective Campaign, pollinator-friendly landscapes, pollinator-friendly seeds, pesticide-free zones, bee-friendly habitats, and what you, or your state representative, can do to protect our pollinators. For more information on the insect apocalypse, see the Beyond Pesticides article in our Pesticides and You newsletter, Tracking Biodiversity: Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse.

Furthermore, buying, growing, and supporting organic agriculture can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management eliminates the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. For more information on the benefits of organic, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source:  Science Daily, Ecology and Evolution

(Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2022) Bad news is piling up for Bayer (Monsanto) and its carcinogenic flagship weed killer, glyphosate (Roundup). Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a ruling that held the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2020 approval of its notorious weed killer glyphosate unlawful. Then, yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider (deny certiorari) Bayer’s “Hail Mary” petition attempt to save the company from being held accountable to those diagnosed with cancer after using Roundup (glyphosate) herbicides. In both cases, the courts are acting as a check on a company, while EPA regulators charged with stopping this behavior continue to rubber stamp the agrichemical industry’s dangerous decisions.

This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of victims of the pesticide industry. In 2004, Bates v. Dow Agrosciences (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 03-388), the court found:
“The long history of tort litigation against manufacturers of poisonous substances adds force to the basic presump­tion against pre-emption. If Congress had intended to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compen­sation, it surely would have expressed that intent more clearly. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 251 (1984). Moreover, this history emphasizes the im­portance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.”

“In rejecting Bayer’s effort to reverse jury verdicts for harming people with its cancer causing weed killer glyphosate, the Supreme Court is preventing the company from running roughshod over the environment and public health, poisoning people and flaunting health and safety laws, while EPA regulators shrug off the rule of law,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Regarding the Ninth Circuit decision, Mr. Feldman said: “EPA’s failure to act on the science, as detailed in the litigation, has real-world adverse health consequences for farmworkers, the public, and ecosystems. Because of the Appeals Court lawsuit, the agency’s obstruction of the regulatory process will not be allowed to stand, and EPA should start shifting food production to available alternative non- and less-toxic practices and materials that meet its statutory duty.” Represented by Center for Food Safety, the petitioners in the lawsuit included the Rural Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida, Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, and Beyond Pesticides. A consolidated case is led by Natural Resources Defense Council and includes Pesticide Action Network.

In the Ninth Circuit decision, the court voided EPA’s “interim registration review” decision approving continued use of glyphosate, issued in early 2020. “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),” the court wrote in its opinion.

The court held that EPA unlawfully concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk. Despite overwhelming evidence and Bayer’s high profile lawsuits, EPA came to “no conclusion” on glyphosate’s connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Notably, the agency did not assess how much glyphosate gets into a user’s bloodstream after skin contact with the herbicide, a major route of exposure for the chemical. Skin irritation was noted as one of the initial concerns for Dewayne Johnson, the school groundskeeper who won the first legal case against Bayer/Monsanto after contracting NHL.  

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

“We welcome and applaud the court on this significant decision,” said Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator at the Farmworker Association of Florida, a plaintiff in the case. “While it comes too late for many farmworkers and landscapers who suffer after glyphosate exposure, we are grateful for the court’s ruling, and hope that now EPA will act quickly to protect future workers from illness and disease resulting from this toxic pesticide.” Represented by Center for Food Safety, the petitioners in the lawsuit included the Rural Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida, Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, and Beyond Pesticides. A consolidated case is led by Natural Resources Defense Council and includes Pesticide Action Network.

The Ninth Circuit also held that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act in reapproving glyphosate. After this lawsuit was launched, EPA filed a motion confessing that the agency made errors in its review of endangered species, including specifically the ways in which glyphosate harms imperiled monarch butterfly habitat. While asking the court for a re-do to study the dangers monarchs are already being subject to, EPA nonetheless asserted that glyphosate should stay on the market.

As a result of the decision, EPA is required to redo and/or finish all remaining glyphosate determinations within four months, by October 2022. Specifically, EPA must redo its ecological toxicity assessment, cost analysis on the impacts of pesticide harms to farmers, and its endangered species analysis and mitigation.  

Advocates and court watchers reacting to the Ninth Circuit case had been concurrently waiting for the Supreme Court to issue a determination on whether it would take up Bayer’s ongoing civil court cases holding it liable to those diagnosed with cancer after using Roundup (glyphosate). That case centered on the legal theory of preemption, with Bayer arguing that the “failure to warn” lawsuits it was subject to were preempted by federal law. In other words, Bayer argued that because EPA’s registration process allowed the chemical to market, it was under no obligation to convey health dangers about its weed killer.

In response to the Supreme Court petition, the Biden administration’s Solicitor General sided with Roundup victims and in an amicus brief urged the Supreme Court not to take up the case. In reaction, Bayer tried to get tough, and employed proxy organizations to put pressure on the Biden Administration and Department of Justice to rescind the letter, expressing “grave concern” about the Solicitor General’s opinion.

As the Ninth Circuit case shows, EPA’s review of glyphosate was lackluster, incomplete and failed to adequately capture the dangers posed by the herbicide. Of Bayer’s “Five Point Plan” for addressing the catastrophe around glyphosate, a significant amount hinged on a favorable decision from the Supreme Court. Without review by the high court, Bayer will need to reengage with the over 31,000 plaintiffs it decided to ignore right after it launched its petition. According to news reports, the corporation “respectfully disagrees” with the Supreme Court decision. It also indicates it will continue to gum up federal courts with its frivolous requests.    

“While [the Supreme Court] decision brings an end to the Hardeman case, there are likely to be future cases, including Roundup cases, that present the U.S. Supreme Court with preemption questions like Hardeman and could also create a circuit split,” Bayer said in a statement posted by Progressive Farmer DTN about a $80 million jury verdict against the company in Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto Co. “The company is strongly encouraged by the widespread support from public officials, agricultural organizations and other stakeholders following the U.S. government’s legal reversal in Hardeman.”

The “widespread support” Bayer enjoys is generally associated with its business alliances and efforts to wield corporate influence over elected officials and in regulatory affairs. While the courts continue to act as a last resort for the rule of law and science-based decision making, advocates are calling for the overhauling of government agencies that ensure that they are meeting their charge to protect people and the environment, not the profits of giant corporations like Bayer/Monsanto.

Without needed reforms, EPA redoing their work, as required by the Ninth Circuit ruling, is unlikely to result in an outcome that is clearly protective. Advocates insist that with clear evidence on the dangers posed by glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup, there is no more time for games that placate industry at the expense of public health and environmental sustainability.

When challenged by the influence of concentrated money and power, Beyond Pesticides aims to bring scientific transparency, advocacy, sound policy, and meaningful legal actions to the table. But our success depends on your help in promoting these critical messages. Get active today by taking action to protect pollinators like the monarch butterfly, putting pressure on Congress to reform America’s pesticide law.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety press release, Progressive Farmer DTN, PBS News Hour

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2022) June 20-24 is Pollinator Week, during which we recognize—and take action to protect—this important ecosystem link. Pollinators––bees, butterflies, birds, bats, and other organisms––make a critical contribution to plant health, crop productivity, and the preservation of natural resources, but their existence is threatened by their pesticide-contaminated habitat. Pesticides have consistently been implicated as a key contributor to dramatic pollinator declines. Of the 100 crop varieties that provide 90% of the world’s food, 71 are pollinated by bees. Honey bees alone pollinate 95 kinds of fruits, nuts and vegetables, such as apples, avocados, almonds, and cranberries.

Take action to protect pollinators.

Providing protection for pollinators also protects the ecosystem in which they live. That protection requires eliminating harm as well as providing safe habitats where they can live and reproduce. 

Provide organic habitat on your own property and encourage your town to go organic. Since plant starts in many garden centers across the country are grown from seeds coated with bee-toxic neonicotinoid pesticides, or drenched with them, Beyond Pesticides has compiled a comprehensive directory of companies and organizations that sell organic seeds and plants to the general public. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs, as well as living plants and seedlings. In partnership with major retailers like Natural Grocers and Stonyfield Organic, the Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program provides in-depth training and demonstration sites to assist community land managers in transitioning public green spaces to organic landscape management, while aiming to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these sustainable and safe practices. Through this program, Beyond Pesticides is now assisting local leaders and municipal landscapers to convert parks and recreational areas across the country to exclusively organic practices, which eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. By introducing this critical piece of legislation, U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) continues the fight against to protect pollinators in the face of the vested economic interests of chemical companies, chemical service industry, and an unresponsive U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And as a result of pollinator heroes like yourself, they’ve already enlisted 73 cosponsors to join the effort. The bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate, so Senate sponsors are needed.

Saving America’s Pollinators Act (H.R.4079) will not only cancel specific bee-toxic pesticides, it will reshape the EPA process for permitting pesticides to be used in our communities and homes in the first place. Current law is filled with language that allows chemical lobbyists to unduly influence EPA decisions and loopholes that favor pesticide dependency instead of incentivizing alternatives like organic practices and products. 

Under SAPA, pesticides that pose risks to pollinators will undergo a higher level of review by a board of unbiased pollinator experts. If these experts, who will not have conflicts of interest with the chemical industry, determine a pesticide is too toxic, then it will be removed or never allowed on the market in the first place. 

SAPA creates a sustainable model for pollinator protection, including an annual, ongoing review on the health of pollinator populations. In the face of an EPA captured by chemical company corruption, SAPA will become an important tool to prevent ongoing chemical crimes against pollinators and the environment.

Independent laboratory testing of items that children and families typically eat, including cereal, apples, applesauce, spinach, and pinto beans, finds that Kroger’s private-label foods contain toxic pesticides—glyphosate, organophosphates, and neonicotinoids. These pesticides are linked to adverse human health impacts ranging from increased risk of cancer and infertility to harm to children’s developing brains and endocrine disruption. They are also associated with harm to bees and other pollinators.

Tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and President Biden to ban all pesticides and treated seeds that harm pollinators—from neonicotinoids, fipronil, synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphate insecticides to the herbicide glyphosate—and assist land managers, from farmers to landscapers, to transition to organic practices that prohibit the use of these deadly chemicals. Tell the Biden administration to reestablish a national strategy to work across agencies to eliminate our reliance on toxic pesticides and assist in the transition to organic land management—in the interest of protecting ecosystems against the ongoing dramatic destruction of biodiversity and the insect apocalypse.

Take action to protect pollinators.

Letter to President and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
During this Pollinator Week, it time to act to get serious about protecting pollinators and in so doing eliminate toxic pesticides that are contributing to dramatic declines in biodiversity. As The New York Times wrote in November 2018, “The Insect Apocalypse is Here.” Scientists and researchers have identified three broad contributors to the crisis: pesticide use, habitat destruction, and climate change. With your leadership, we can shift to alternative products and practices, improve biodiversity, and begin to repair the damage done by chemical-intensive land management practices.

To ensure a serious and meaningful effort to address the threat to pollinators, we need to remove from the market pesticides and treated seeds that have been shown, through independent peer-reviewed scientific review, to harm pollinators. This requires comprehensive action against neonicotinoids and related compounds, fipronil, synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphate insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate. At the same time, it is critical that you bring the resources of government to assist land managers, from farmers to landscapers, to transition to organic practices that prohibit the use of these and other deadly chemicals.

I urge you to reestablish a national strategy to work cross-agency to eliminate our reliance on toxic pesticides that harm pollinators and assist in the transition to organic land management in the interest of protecting ecosystems and dramatic destruction of biodiversity, identified by researchers as the insect apocalypse.

In a systematic review of insect declines by researchers Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, PhD and Kris A.G. Wyckhuys, PhD, pesticide use is identified as a critical component in addressing the crisis at large. “A rethinking of current agricultural practices, in particular a serious reduction in pesticide usage and its substitution with more sustainable, ecologically-based practices, is urgently needed to slow or reverse current trends, allow the recovery of declining insect populations and safeguard the vital ecosystem services they provide,” they write.

Without your leadership to elevate the response to the threat to pollinators, our future is threatened. As renowned UK ecologist and coauthor of the study “More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas,” David Goulson, PhD, has said, “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”

I look forward to learning that you are moving forward with this recommendation to save our future. Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative:

Letter for new potential cosponsors
In order to reverse the devastating declining in the U.S. pollinator populations, your support of HR 4079, Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA) is urgently needed.

While EPA updated its guidelines for pollinator risk assessments in 2014, the agency continues to either fail to conduct full assessments or dismiss concerning data it receives. EPA appears to discount threats like the insect apocalypse, evidenced by a 75% decline in insect abundance, which threatens not only global ecosystems, but also food production that depends on animal pollination. As pesticides move through the food web, birds numbers are down 29% since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962.

The problem is highlighted by EPA’s recent Interim Decision on fenbuconazole, in which the agency notes that, “For larval bees, RQs (risk quotients) exceed the LOC (level of concern) for all pollinator attractive uses including when assessed at the lowest application rate of 0.0938 lb a.i./Acre (RQ = 1.1).” Yet in the same document, the agency declares that “…the benefits of fenbuconazole (e.g., efficacy in management of fungal pathogens) outweigh any remaining risk and that continuing to register fenbuconazole provides significant benefits, including its ability to increase crop yields and help with resistance management.” While the agency added additional restrictive language on spray drift, it implemented no new precautionary measures for pollinators. With the only indications that this chemical is dangerous to pollinators deep in EPA’s dense review documents the public rarely if ever reads, the agency continues to fail pollinators, farmers, and the public.  

The toxic pesticides addressed by this legislation are acute and chronic poisons for pollinator populations. Studies show these chemicals can be taken up by flowering plants and exuded in the pollen, nectar, and dew droplets honey bees and other pollinators feed on. Exposure then impairs pollinator reproduction, navigation, and foraging, suppresses immune system functioning, and weakens the ability to respond to parasites, pathogens, and other stressors.

There is widespread consensus in the scientific community that systemic insecticides are responsible for pollinator declines and need to be restricted. The European Union and Canada have already taken action to address these pesticides – it is time for the United States to take a stand.

SAPA not only cancels the more dangerous pollinator toxic pesticides, it also puts in place lasting protections for pollinator populations. Pesticides that pose risks to pollinators would undergo another level of review by a board of unbiased pollinator experts. If these experts determine a pesticide is too toxic, the pesticide would be removed from market or not permitted for sale in the first place. In the face of ongoing EPA inaction, we need SAPA passed today, before it is too late, and we lose the one in three bites of food that pollinators enable us to produce.

Please support pollinators by cosponsoring HR 4079, Saving America’s Pollinators Act.

Thank you.

Letter to Current Cosponsors
Thank you for being a pollinator hero and co-sponsoring HR 4079, Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA).

While EPA updated its guidelines for pollinator risk assessments in 2014, the agency continues to either fail to conduct full assessments or dismiss concerning data it receives. EPA appears to discount threats like the insect apocalypse, evidenced by a 75% decline in insect abundance, which threatens not only global ecosystems, but also food production that depends on animal pollination. As pesticides move through the food web, birds numbers are down 29% since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962.

The problem is highlighted by EPA’s recent Interim Decision on fenbuconazole, in which the agency notes that, “For larval bees, RQs (risk quotients) exceed the LOC (level of concern) for all pollinator attractive uses including when assessed at the lowest application rate of 0.0938 lb a.i./Acre (RQ = 1.1).” Yet in the same document, the agency declares that “…the benefits of fenbuconazole (e.g., efficacy in management of fungal pathogens) outweigh any remaining risk and that continuing to register fenbuconazole provides significant benefits, including its ability to increase crop yields and help with resistance management.” While the agency added additional restrictive language on spray drift, it implemented no new precautionary measures for pollinators. With the only indications that this chemical is dangerous to pollinators deep in EPA’s dense review documents the public rarely if ever reads, the agency continues to fail pollinators, farmers, and the public.  

The toxic pesticides addressed by this legislation are acute and chronic poisons for pollinator populations. Studies show these chemicals can be taken up by flowering plants and exuded in the pollen, nectar, and dew droplets honey bees and other pollinators feed on. Exposure then impairs pollinator reproduction, navigation, and foraging, suppresses immune system functioning, and weakens the ability to respond to parasites, pathogens, and other stressors.

There is widespread consensus in the scientific community that systemic insecticides are responsible for pollinator declines and need to be restricted. The European Union and Canada have already taken action to address these pesticides – it is time for the United States to take a stand.

SAPA not only cancels the more dangerous pollinator toxic pesticides, it also puts in place lasting protections for pollinator populations. Pesticides that pose risks to pollinators would undergo another level of review by a board of pollinator experts. If these experts determine a pesticide is too toxic, the pesticide would be removed from market or not permitted for sale in the first place. In the face of ongoing EPA inaction, we need SAPA passed today, before it is too late, and we lose the one in three bites of food that pollinators enable us to produce.

Thank you for hearing this call and acting to protect pollinators.

Letter to U.S. Senators:
In order to reverse the devastating declining in the U.S. pollinator populations, your support of HR 4079, Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA) is urgently needed. Although SAPA has 79 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, it has not yet been introduced in the Senate. Please be the supporter that pollinators need by introducing SAPA in the Senate.

While EPA updated its guidelines for pollinator risk assessments in 2014, the agency continues to either fail to conduct full assessments or dismiss concerning data it receives. EPA appears to discount threats like the insect apocalypse, evidenced by a 75% decline in insect abundance, which threatens not only global ecosystems, but also food production that depends on animal pollination. As pesticides move through the food web, birds numbers are down 29% since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962.

The problem is highlighted by EPA’s recent Interim Decision on fenbuconazole, in which the agency notes that, “For larval bees, RQs (risk quotients) exceed the LOC (level of concern) for all pollinator attractive uses including when assessed at the lowest application rate of 0.0938 lb a.i./Acre (RQ = 1.1).” Yet in the same document, the agency declares that “…the benefits of fenbuconazole (e.g., efficacy in management of fungal pathogens) outweigh any remaining risk and that continuing to register fenbuconazole provides significant benefits, including its ability to increase crop yields and help with resistance management.” While the agency added additional restrictive language on spray drift, it implemented no new precautionary measures for pollinators. With the only indications that this chemical is dangerous to pollinators deep in EPA’s dense review documents the public rarely if ever reads, the agency continues to fail pollinators, farmers, and the public.  

The toxic pesticides addressed by this legislation are acute and chronic poisons for pollinator populations. Studies show these chemicals can be taken up by flowering plants and exuded in the pollen, nectar, and dew droplets honey bees and other pollinators feed on. Exposure then impairs pollinator reproduction, navigation, and foraging, suppresses immune system functioning, and weakens the ability to respond to parasites, pathogens, and other stressors.

There is widespread consensus in the scientific community that systemic insecticides are responsible for pollinator declines and need to be restricted. The European Union and Canada have already taken action to address these pesticides – it is time for the United States to take a stand.

SAPA not only cancels the more dangerous pollinator toxic pesticides, it also puts in place lasting protections for pollinator populations. Pesticides that pose risks to pollinators would undergo another level of review by a board of unbiased pollinator experts. If these experts determine a pesticide is too toxic, the pesticide would be removed from market or not permitted for sale in the first place. In the face of ongoing EPA inaction, we need SAPA passed today, before it is too late, and we lose the one in three bites of food that pollinators enable us to produce.

Please be the supporter that pollinators need by introducing SAPA in the Senate.

Thank you.