(Beyond Pesticides, February 18, 2022) A new analysis conducted by Safer States, and reported on by Environmental Health News (EHN), concludes that in 2022, at least 32 states will consider 210 potential laws to ban or restrict one category of so-called “legacy” chemicals — the PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) family of compounds. “Legacy” or “forever” chemicals are those whose historical use, including many decades ago in some instances, has led to their toxic persistence in the environment and in organisms. In recent years, scientists, health and environment advocates, and policy makers have begun to recognize these as very serious contaminants, and to call attention to their ubiquity and impacts. Beyond Pesticides has identified multiple instances of such “legacies” (including those related to the production of pesticides and particularly, the infamous DDT), and will here discuss both PFAS, and concerns about such legacy chemicals as they may impact food producers.

The term “legacy” often connotes the ongoing influence or impact — generally salutary — of an individual’s activity, or a set of principles or activity inherited from one’s forebears. It is an apt description, minus the “salutary” part, for legacy chemicals — toxic “gifts that keep on giving” via persistent contamination of environments and bodies (human and other). In recent years, PFAS chemicals are increasingly being found in soil samples, in foods, in various kinds of water bodies and waterways, and in many drinking water sources. The environmental persistence of these compounds stems from the fact that they do not break down readily in the environment; hence, the “forever” moniker. Indeed, they accumulate in the human body (and no doubt in the bodies of other organisms, though that is less well studied) and are showing up many decades later in natural resources.

The highly toxic, fluorinated PFAS family of chemicals includes more than 9,000 compounds and two high-profile subcategories: PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) and PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). PFAS compounds are associated, in humans, with occurrences of cancer (testicular, kidney, liver, and pancreatic), thyroid disease, high cholesterol, reproductive problems (pregnancy-induced hypertension, low birth weights, and decreased fertility), immune compromise, asthma, ulcerative colitis, developmental delays, and disruption of the endocrine system, which can have myriad systemic impacts.

PFAS are found in many industrial (aerospace, automotive, construction, electronics, and military) and consumer products, including personal care products and cosmetics, cleaning products, carpeting, cookware, stain- and water-resistant products (clothing, textiles, and furniture), firefighting foam, and food packaging, among others. Despite Congressional attempts to ban these compounds in consumer goods, their inclusion in food packaging and processing equipment, electronics, some cookware, cosmetics, and other goods continues to be legal federally. (See more on states’ responses, below.)

Historically, some of these compounds ended up as part of waste that was dumped after industrial and military uses. Perhaps not all misbehavior is historical: The Guardian has reported that the U.S. military very recently (2016–2020) incinerated more than 20 million pounds of PFAS foam next to environmental justice communities. This occurred despite the lack of any evidence that incineration destroys the PFAS compounds; indeed, burning it discharges these toxic chemicals “into the air and onto nearby communities, farms, and waterways.” These legacy industrial and consumer chemicals are currently released into the environment via such products and the waste stream. Human exposure to them happens primarily through personal use of PFAS-contaminated products, through consumption of contaminated water or food, or via occupational exposures.

Estimates put the number of people in the U.S. exposed to these chemicals via drinking water between 110 and 200 million. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) offers a PFAS map of the U.S. that shows just how pervasive the problem is. Areas with widespread PFAS contamination of drinking water include large swaths of the Northeast (especially Massachusetts, Rhode Island, southeast New Hampshire, eastern Pennsylvania, Long Island, New Jersey, and Delaware), as well as significant portions of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, North and South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Colorado, and California. Beyond those, the map represents military (and other) sites of PFAS contamination unrelated to drinking water.

There has been precious little activity at the federal level to deal with PFAS (and some other legacy chemicals.) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in 2019 that a “Comprehensive Nationwide PFAS Action Plan” would be forthcoming. Since 1998, EWG notes, “despite mounting evidence of PFAS’ toxicity and contamination, EPA has inexcusably dragged its feet. The [agency] has failed to set a legal limit for any PFAS in tap water, and its non-enforceable health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS is 70 times higher than what independent studies show is needed. In 2019, EPA announced a toothless ‘action plan’ that would do nothing to reduce ongoing PFAS releases or clean up legacy PFAS pollution.”

One small example of such negligence: at the very end of the Trump administration, the agency issued confirmation that high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers used to store and transport pesticides are commonly treated with fluorine compounds to reduce risk of changes in chemical composition of the pesticides. Such treatment meant that the pesticide containers likely leached PFAS compounds into the pesticides, representing a potential and significant source of PFAS exposure throughout the country’s conventional agriculture sector.

Another is the 2020 discovery that an EPA registered mosquito pesticide, Anvil 10+10, contained PFAS compounds — thus exposing the public broadly when- and wherever it was deployed. Beyond Pesticides Community Resource and Policy Director Drew Toher commented, “This is an issue that cuts to the core of what’s wrong with our federal system for regulating pesticides. The finding makes it imperative that EPA review and disclose full pesticide formulations before allowing the public to be exposed to unknown hazards.”

With the advent of the Biden administration, there has been more effort to address the problem. In the Fall of 2021, EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan announced an EPA PFAS Strategic Roadmap that purports to lay out a whole-of-agency approach to addressing PFAS. The EPA website notes, “The roadmap sets timelines by which EPA plans to take specific actions and commits to bolder new policies to safeguard public health, protect the environment, and hold polluters accountable. The actions described in the PFAS Roadmap each represent important and meaningful steps to safeguard communities from PFAS contamination. Cumulatively, these actions will build upon one another and lead to more enduring and protective solutions.”

For states and localities, who are on the front lines of PFAS contamination, this is welcome news and significantly tardy. Absent much protective action on forever chemicals at the federal level, including on persistent pesticides, states have been stepping up, particularly in the past five years or so, to deal with a problem that permeates many aspects of people’s lives.                                                                                                

The Safer States analysis sets out these particulars:

• At least 19 states will consider regulation of PFAS, such as restricting use when such use is avoidable, requiring disclosure of PFAS when present in consumer goods, or restricting use in specific categories (e.g., cosmetics, textiles, and food packaging). AK, CA, CO, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, MI, MN, NH, NC, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, WA, WI
• At least 17 states will consider policies on PFAS cleanup, management, and accountability, such as designating the chemicals as hazardous, restricting their disposal, or allocating resources toward cleanup. AK, CA, FL, IL, IN, MA, ME, MD, MI, MN, NH, NC, OK, RI, VT, WA, and WI
• At least 19 states will consider legislation related to contamination of drinking water, groundwater, or soil with PFAS. AK, AZ, CT, FL, IA, IN, KY, ME, MN, NC, NH, NY, OH, RI, SC, VA, VT, WV, WI
• At least three states will consider banning PFAS in products labeled as recyclable. HI, MD, NJ
• At least 6 states will consider policies to strengthen existing safe-chemical policies for cosmetics or children’s products. CA, MA, MI, NY, VT, and WA

According to EHN, Safer States National Director Sarah Doll commented: “State legislatures recognize the severity of the toxic PFAS crisis we’re facing and they’re taking action. . . . [They] continue to lead the way in addressing these serious problems with urgency and innovative solutions.” Michigan State Senator Winnie Brinks issued a statement saying, “In Michigan, PFAS and other ‘forever chemicals’ have impacted my community for decades. We’ve made significant strides in assessing the scope of the problem statewide and filtering PFAS out of drinking water.”

Not only is the public exposed to such chemicals; those who work in manufactories that create products that include PFAS, or workers who use such products regularly, have higher exposures. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families noted in 2021, “Firefighting foams without PFAS are already used successfully around the world, but outdated federal guidelines have kept foams containing PFAS in use for training and firefighting at U.S. commercial and military airports.” Across multiple states, firefighters have begun to bring lawsuits against manufacturers of the foams, charging that the companies knowingly made and sold products with these forever chemicals that put the workers’ health at risk. Others who may be at greater-than-average exposure risk include pregnant or lactating people, and young children.

PFAS compounds are not the only ones that exhibit extreme persistence in the environment and accumulation in bodies. Some legacy pesticides, and notoriously, DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and its breakdown metabolite DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) are incredibly persistent in the environment. The insecticide DDT was banned in 1972, yet its impacts continue. Its primary metabolite, DDE, shows up in produce grown in soils that were treated — even decades ago.

Beyond Pesticides recently wrote about the Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary (conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture), which showed once again that residues of a number of legacy pesticides — including DDT and DDE — continue to be present in foods. (DDT and DDE were particularly present in collards, broccoli, carrots, radishes, and winter squash.) Beyond Pesticides has written about the ongoing impacts of legacy DDT/DDE exposure here, here, and here. It has reported on the impacts of POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants), such as legacy and banned pesticides, on animals. Legacy impacts also show up, for example, as contamination of former fruit orchards that were treated with lead arsenate pesticides as much as 70 years ago.

Certainly, pesticides are found broadly in soils, as reported here and here. But the ongoing detection of PFAS in various environments and soils is now threatening the ability of growers, including organic growers, to produce food that doesn’t harbor these compounds. This contamination often occurs via the spreading of biosolids fertilizer (aka “biosludge”). This is how that happens: PFAS compounds are discharged in wastewater and solid waste (from consumer and other products), and move the problem “downstream,” such that these chemicals inhabit biosolids fertilizers. These products are then sold and spread on agricultural land, contaminating local ground and surface waters, as well as animals that graze on such land and plants that are grown in the contaminated soils.

Environmental Health News reported in 2019 on this growing problem in Pennsylvania; PFAS showed up in the Maine dairy and livestock sector in 2016. The issue, as reported by ECORI News, has migrated to the general consumer sector, as wastewater treatment operations are barely treating biosolids, and then repackaging the contaminated (with PFAS, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and more) material as home fertilizer and compost.

A prime and very recent example of this biosolids problem in agriculture is that of a diversified crop operation, Songbird Farm in Unity, Maine. Farmers Adam Nordell and Johanna Davis, growers of Certified Organic grains and vegetables, recently learned that their fields are victims to such legacy PFAS contamination. They write in their website statement about the matter: “We were just blindsided to learn that our home farm and primary lease field were licensed for the spreading of bio-solids in the early 1990s, (24 years before we purchased our farm and moved to Unity). Bio-solids have been in the news recently for their correlation with PFAS chemical contamination. We hired a private soil scientist to sample and test our well water, and soil and produce. All three tests came back positive [for PFAS]. Our well water read at 400 times the state’s recommended thresh-hold. The results are preliminary and need to be cross-checked, but we feel it is critical that we stop our sales and have requested that our retail outlets pull our products from their shelves for now. This is not a product recall. This is a precautionary product pause while we gather more info.”

This family’s livelihood, and their investment of dollars and sweat and heart, are all on the line. Part of the farmers’ statement to their consumers contains this telling paragraph: “I can’t tell you how heart wrenching this is for us learn and now to communicate. In a world where we can all buy conventional produce and out of state organic vegetables and grains at a cheaper price any day of the week, the one currency we have as local organic growers is our transparency and the trust of our customers. It’s hard for us to visualize right now what the future of our farm business might look like. But if there is a future for Songbird Farm, we think transparency is the way to get there.” They note that although Maine has no guidelines on acceptable levels of PFAS in vegetables, the state’s Center for Disease Control & Prevention has already begun work on establishing specific produce guidelines.

This situation exemplifies how “live” this PFAS issue is, and how behind the eight ball governments often are in contending with these emerging contaminants. The negligence and/or slow pace of EPA, FDA (the U.S. Food and Drug Administration), and Congress in addressing the PFAS problem has spurred many states to step in and up to do so themselves as this tranche of legislation reported on by Safer States illustrates.

These most-recent PFAS discoveries, and state legislative efforts to deal with them, underscore not only the federal failures, but also, the urgency and gravity of realigning federal and state agencies so that precaution becomes the guiding watchword. Legacy/forever chemical contamination is a dramatic demonstration of how the historical, non-precautionary ethic in the U.S. can cause egregious harm — even years and decades hence. Government regulation should, at the very least, stop making the problem worse through continued permitting of the use of PFAS compounds and toxic pesticides. See more at BeyondPesticides.org.

Source: https://www.ehn.org/pfas-regulations-2656548458/states-step-up-on-pfas

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 17, 2022) Reusable plastic sports bottles can leach hundreds of different chemical substances into water, including a range of plasticizers, endocrine disruptors and surprisingly, an insect repellent. Researchers at University of Copenhagen, Denmark recently published their findings in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, calling for caution in the use of these products. “We were taken aback by the large amount of chemical substances we found in water after 24 hours in the bottles. There were hundreds of substances in the water – including substances never before found in plastic, as well as substances that are potentially harmful to health. After a dishwasher cycle, there were several thousand,” says Jan H. Christensen, PhD, Professor of Environmental Analytical Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences.

Scientists used three types of reusable plastic sports bottles, split between newly purchased and bottles that had been in regular use before the experiment. Glass bottles were used as a control. First a migration experiment was conducted. Newly purchased bottles were rinsed with tap water (which was then disposed), and then refilled with tap water and stored for 24 hours. A second experiment placed all the bottles in the dishwasher and ran the dishwasher for 60 minutes, employing a typical dishwasher tablet, reaching temperatures of roughly 150 degrees Fahrenheit. One day after dishwashing, researchers filled the bottles with tap water and stored them for 24 hours. Lastly, researchers flushed all the bottles with tap water and shook them up, as might occur in a quick household rinse. After flushing, the bottles were filled with tap water and stored for a day.

Samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry in attempts to identify the materials leaching into water after the aforementioned experiments. In total, scientists found over 400 materials associated with plastics and greater than 3500 dishwashing compounds. For newly purchased bottles 350 unique chemical compounds were identified. Of these 150 were removed after use in a dishwasher, and 80 more were removed after a flushing, but a total of 31% of compounds remained after dishwashing and additional water flushing. For used bottles, analysis after dishwashing detected 3,436 chemical compounds. Of these roughly 2,780 were removed after flushing with water. Roughly 13% of dishwashing chemicals remained after flushing with water, while with glass bottles less than 1% remained.

“We were taken aback by the large amount of chemical substances we found in water after 24 hours in the bottles. There were hundreds of substances in the water – including substances never before found in plastic, as well as substances that are potentially harmful to health. After a dishwasher cycle, there were several thousand,” says Jan H. Christensen, Professor of Environmental Analytical Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences.

Scientists detected surfactants (from the dishwasher), plastic oligomers (used to soften plastics), slip agents (fatty acids used to reduce friction), antioxidants/stabilizers (to avoid product oxidization), photoinitiators (inks to provide a glossy cover), plasticizers (to increase flexibility), a range of unknown aromatic compounds, and the mosquito repellent DEET. DEET was confirmed to be present in every plastic bottle tested. Scientists indicate that DEET’s presence is likely a result another chemical with a similar chemical structure to DEET. In particular, the plasticizer material laurolactam is implicated. Either the plasticizer was produced with impurities that mimic DEET, or it was transformed into DEET  in the dishwasher through a chemical reaction with other materials in the plastic bottles.

The scientists opine that the identification of DEET may in fact be the source of ubiquitous DEET detection in the environment. A phenomenon that has long been ascribed to its use as a repellent, the widespread presence of DEET in the natural world by chemical happenstance may be yet another side-effect of a world where chemical pollution has exceeded the safe limits for humanity.

“The study exemplifies how little knowledge there is about the chemicals emitted from the products that our food and drink come in contact with. And, it is a general problem that measurement regulations during production are very lenient. Fortunately, both in Denmark and internationally, we are looking into how to better regulate this area,” says Dr. Christensen.

In the United States, there is little evidence of government regulators embracing such a precautionary approach. To correct course, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other government regulators must embrace an approach that incorporates cutting-edge science into product approvals. Take Action today to urge the agency to adopt this approach.

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

Source: University of Copenhagen press release, Journal of Hazardous Materials

Image source: University of Copenhagen press release

(Beyond Pesticides, February 16, 2022) Pesticide exposure disturbs the gut microbiome of social bees, leading to a range of alterations that could affect fitness in the wild, finds a major literature review recently published by researchers at the University of Ottawa, Canada. With research on bee gut microbiomes is still in its infancy, the review provides a centralized overview of data collected to date, and highlights areas for further research to fill in remaining knowledge gaps. “Social bees have gut microbiotas that contribute to their health, just like we (humans) do,” said Michelle Hotchkiss, a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa. “Further research on the interactions between pesticides, bee gut microbiotas, and bee hosts will help us better understand how pesticides affect bee health and performance.”

To conduct their review, scientists collected research relating to bee gut over the last 50 years. “The earliest studies we found were published in the 1970s and the most recent ones in 2020,” said Dr. Hotchkiss. “We summarized what methods were used to collect data, including which bee hosts and pesticides were examined. To summarize how the abundances of core microbes changed after pesticide exposure, we looked at studies that used molecular methods to characterize changes in microbial abundances,” she added.

“Importantly, we determined which microbes are most commonly affected by pesticide exposure and how they are affected. For example, does abundance increase or decrease after exposure? To what extent?” said Dr. Hotchkiss.

Studies showed that pesticide use can disturb and shift the abundance of certain microbes in the bee gut microbiome, but rarely are these microbes completely eliminated. In general, researchers found declines in Bifidobacteriales and Lactobacillus bacteria to be the most common shifts observed.

Pesticides induced disturbances primarily in one of two ways – either directly harming microbes, and indirectly harming the host (bee) health and subsequently shifting the microbiome. Researchers cite glyphosate as an example of a pesticide that directly harms the growth of certain gut microbes. Indirectly, researchers cited a range of pesticides with the ability to impact the bee immune system. Further, studies highlighted show pesticides changing the physical and chemical conditions of bee guts, making their gut environment less suitable to certain microbes. These two forms of disturbances can also occur at the same time, resulting in a deleterious positive feedback cycle for host bees.

The literature review also found that, regarding the impacts of exposure, the duration of pesticide exposure was more important than the amount of pesticide to which a bee was exposed. Longer exposure times result in more significant disturbances, but likely vary by pesticide mode of action.

The impacts of pesticide-induced disturbances can be extensive, and have the potential to cause adverse effects throughout a bee’s entire life. While the review was able to capture a range of impacts, the work also highlighted how little data is available on these effects. Most studies are focused on the effects of insecticides, while research on herbicides and fungicides are few. And apart from one, the current data available do no delve far into how microbial shifts impact bee performance. For example, this 2016 study reveals a range of alterations to the honey bee microbiome after exposure to different pesticides, but can only speculate on the functional impact. However, researchers note this 2018 study, focused on the impacts of glyphosate on bee gut microbiota, did track and find performance declines correlated to herbicide-induced alterations to the bee microbiome.

The researchers conclude, as all scientists are wont to do, with a call for further investigation on the topic. “Social bees have gut microbiotas that contribute to their health, just like we (humans) do. Further research on the interactions between pesticides, bee gut microbiotas, and bee hosts will help us better understand how pesticides affect bee health and performance.”

The emerging data make it clear that for both humans and pollinators, chemical impacts on the microbiome should be taken into account by pesticide regulators. Currently, no studies are required to be performed on the impact of pesticide exposure on the gut biome by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Help us tell EPA to embrace cutting edge science in its pesticide reviews by taking action today.

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

Source: uOttawa press release, FEMS Microbiology Reviews

(Beyond Pesticides, February 15, 2022) A synthetic weed killer linked to cancer, endocrine (hormone) disruption, reproductive harm and birth defects can be found in the bodies of 1 in 3 Americans, according to research published in Environmental Health by scientists at George Washington University. The chemical in question is not glyphosate (though current data indicate similar results are likely) but 2,4-D, an herbicide that is increasingly used when weeds growing near genetically engineered  (GE) crops have developed resistance to the repeated use of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. “Our study suggests human exposures to 2,4-D have gone up significantly and they are predicted to rise even more in the future,” Marlaina Freisthler, a PhD student and researcher at the George Washington University, said. “These findings raise concerns with regard to whether this heavily used weed-killer might cause health problems, especially for young children who are very sensitive to chemical exposures.”

Researchers conducted their analysis based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which includes urinary concentrations of 2,4-D from 14,395 participants spanning 2001 to 2014. Between those years, the use of 2,4-D increased rapidly from its relative low point at the beginning of the century. “Roundup Ready” crops, introduced in the late 1990s, allowed farmers to broadcast spray both weeds and a genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crop with a Roundup (glyphosate) weed killer without killing the crop. Lacking any wisdom or forethought, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deregulated the growing of these GE crops and permitted pesticide companies to create proprietary pesticides to go along with their engineered seeds. Vertical integration allowed an increasingly smaller number of agrichemical companies to dominate the market. According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, over roughly 90% of corn, soy, and cotton produced in the United States is now GE. Unabated use of glyphosate-based herbicides has resulted in widespread damage, putting farmers, farmworkers, and the general public at increased risk of disease, and imperiling the environment.

Glyphosate’s success in its role as an all-in-one “silver bullet” weed killer has been predictably short-lived. Over the course of the 21^st century, glyphosate has delivered diminishing returns in its ability to control GE crop weeds. As a result, chemical farmers are rapidly moving back to older chemistries like 2,4-D in order to stem the crisis of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

As 2,4-D increasingly supplemented glyphosate use, its use in the environment rose in lock-step with the body burden examined by scientists. In 2001, at the beginning of the study, 17.1% of those tested had 2,4-D present in their urine. By 2012, 39.6% of tested individuals had detectable urinary levels of 2,4-D. On average 32.5% of American residents tested had 2,4-D in their urine.

The results are particularly concerning for children, pregnant mothers, and agricultural workers. Those working with 2,4-D on farm had over 2x the chance of having high levels of 2,4-D contamination. Disturbingly, these high risks were similar to those seen for women and children. Women aged 20-44 were 2x more likely to be contaminated with 2,4-D than men of the same age. And children between the ages of 6-11 years were over 2x more likely to have high levels of 2,4-D than individuals aged 20-59.

“Further study must determine how rising exposure to 2,4-D affects human health–especially when exposure occurs early in life,” Melissa Perry, ScD, MHS, a professor of environmental and occupational health and senior author of the paper, said.

Current research describes a range of unacceptable hazards from 2,4-D exposure. The chemical is considered a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with concerns particularly pronounced for soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 2,4-D is also associated with neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and harm to the reproductive system. Research by EPA finds that babies born in counties where high rates of chlorophenoxy class herbicides like 2,4-D are applied to farm fields are significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits, and extra digits. Studies have further implicated 2,4-D as playing a role in the development of ALS, loss of smell, and antibiotic resistance in human pathogenic bacteria.

As Dr. Perry notes, these concerns are exacerbated by the multitude of other chemical exposures that can occur in the environment. “In addition to exposure to this pesticide, children and other vulnerable groups are also increasingly exposed to other pesticides and these chemicals may act synergistically to produce health problems.”

Despite only beginning to understand how expanded uses of toxic pesticides like 2,4-D are harming the American public, applied amounts are only expected to grow. In 2014, EPA greenlit the approval of Enlist Duo, a successor to glyphosate’s toxic legacy on GE farm fields. Enlist Duo contains a combination of both glyphosate and 2,4-D, and was developed to be applied to crops genetically engineered to tolerate repeated spraying of Enlist Duo. Beyond Pesticides and other organizations sued EPA for approving the product without adequate consideration for its impact on endangered species, including monarch butterflies. Although EPA prevailed, US 9^th Circuit Court Judge Paul Watford chastised the agency for its “scientifically unsound” approach that was criticized by the National Academies of Sciences as “not scientifically defensible.” In spite of these significant risks, EPA in mid-January 2022 renewed Enlist Duo for seven years, indicating that the changes made to the product’s label will somehow avert risks to endangered species, without any evidence of this happening under real-world conditions.  

The cropping systems 2,4-D use supports are anachronistic and, if America is ever to make agriculture and land care sustainable, must be consigned to the dustbin of history. Organic agriculture, and its application to organic land care, has provided proof of concept that chemical pesticides are not necessary to grow healthy food or maintain beautiful landscapes. Although this approach may cost a bit more at the onset, it simultaneously eliminates the spillover harms caused by conventional chemical management. In other words, the minor cost increase with organic stops the development chronic health conditions caused by pesticide use, the creation of dead zones caused by synthetic fertilizers, and the broadscale poisoning of endangered species and their ecosystems caused by GE cropping systems. Instead of growing food with chemicals linked to declines in children’s IQ, eating organic is associated with higher scores for children on cognitive tests.

The supply problems of the pandemic are further exposing the house of cards that is U.S. chemical farming. Recent data show that since 2019, prices for conventional products have risen nearly 14%, while the cost of organic products a mere 1.6%. Those worried about their body burden of synthetic pesticide contamination are strongly encouraged to move to an organic diet. Most 2,4-D is eliminated from the body through urine within the first week of exposure – highlighting the frequency through which 1/3 Americans are being exposed to this chemical, per the Environmental Health study. Subsequent research shows that it takes roughly the same time eating an organic diet to significantly reduce the levels of synthetic pesticides in one’s body.

For more information on the danger 2,4-D and GE cropping systems, see Beyond Pesticides herbicide analysis, and webpage on herbicide tolerant crops. Learn more about why organic is the right choice for the future of farming and landscaping on our Why Organic and Non-Toxic Lawns and Landscapes webpages.  

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

Source: George Washington University press release, Environmental Health

(Beyond Pesticides, February 14, 2022) When your food scraps are sent to the landfill, their anaerobic decomposition releases methane, a greenhouse gas with 84 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over its first 20 years in the atmosphere. By composting those scraps instead, you not only reduce methane emissions, but also support organic practices that eliminate other greenhouse gases, like nitrogen fertilizer.

California’s SB 1383, signed into law in 2016, now requires individuals and businesses to separate food waste from trash. While individuals and businesses can compost their own food waste, local agencies also facilitate the process by providing separate bins for organic materials, including food waste, lawn and garden trimmings, and paper. The law also provides a means for collecting and distributing surplus edible food.

Tell your Governor and state legislators to follow the lead of California in fighting climate change with composting. If you live in California, thank your legislators and Governor for passing SB 1383.

Methane comprises 16% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but due to its greater warming potential, it affects climate change at least as much as carbon dioxide (CO₂). Agriculture, energy production, and landfills are among the greatest sources of methane emissions. Directing food waste from landfills to compost can reduce two of these sources. In addition, the use of synthetic fertilizers is a particular and noxious contributor to the rising planetary temperature, largely through these products’ emissions of nitrous oxide, or NO_x — another potent greenhouse gas that also pollutes the air and feeds the development of ozone. NO_x is roughly 300 times as potent in trapping heat as CO₂. Nitrous oxide levels have increased, compared to pre-industrial levels, by 20% from all sources.

Directing food waste to compost can support organic gardening, farming, and land management, thus reducing dependence on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. As states follow the lead of California in mandating separation of compostable waste, they should also mandate the use of organic land management by public agencies on parks, playing fields, and other public lands.

You don’t need to wait for a law. Start composting now.

Tell your Governor and state legislators to follow the lead of California in fighting climate change with composting. If you live in California, thank your legislators and Governor for passing SB 1383.

 Letter to Governor and state legislators outside of California:

When our food scraps are sent to the landfill, their anaerobic decomposition releases methane, a greenhouse gas with 84 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over its first 20 years in the atmosphere. By composting those scraps instead, we not only reduce methane emissions, but also support organic practices that eliminate other greenhouse gases, like nitrogen fertilizer.

California’s SB 1383, signed into law in 2016, now requires individuals and businesses to separate food waste from trash. While individuals and businesses can compost their own food waste, local agencies also facilitate the process by providing separate bins for organic materials, including food waste, lawn and garden trimmings, and paper. The law also provides a means for collecting and distributing surplus edible food.

Methane comprises 16% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but due to its greater warming potential, it affects climate change at least as much as carbon dioxide (CO₂). Agriculture, energy production, and landfills are among the greatest sources of methane emissions. Directing food waste from landfills to compost can reduce two of these sources. In addition, the use of synthetic fertilizers is a particular and noxious contributor to the rising planetary temperature, largely through these products’ emissions of nitrous oxide, or NO_x — another potent greenhouse gas that also pollutes the air and feeds the development of ozone. NO_x is roughly 300 times as potent in trapping heat as CO₂. Nitrous oxide levels have increased, compared to pre-industrial levels, by 20% from all sources.

Directing food waste to compost can support organic gardening, farming, and land management, thus reducing dependence on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Please draft and pass legislation following the lead of California in mandating separation of compostable waste and also mandate the use of organic land management by public agencies on parks, playing fields, and other public lands.

Please increase the impact of this legislation by using your leadership to require the management of our state parks with organic land management practices. Organic practices not only counter climate change, but they also protect us from the hazards of pesticides.

Thank you.

Letter to Governor and state legislators of California:

I wish to thank you for passing and implementing the 2016 SB 1383, which now requires individuals and businesses to separate food waste from trash.

When our food scraps are sent to the landfill, their anaerobic decomposition releases methane, a greenhouse gas with 84 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over its first 20 years in the atmosphere. By composting those scraps instead, we not only reduce methane emissions, but also support organic practices that eliminate other greenhouse gases, like nitrogen fertilizer.

Please increase the impact of SB 1383 by using your leadership to require the management of our state parks with organic land management practices. Organic practices not only counter climate change, but they also protect us from the hazards of pesticides.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 11, 2022) A team of researchers has proffered a potential, biotechnical, way forward in the quest to reduce the scourge of malaria, which affects many people across the world. Their work uses the relatively new “Crispr” technique to address, and reverse, the growing problem of mosquito resistance to the pesticides that currently dominate control strategies for the insects that spread the disease. This innovation nevertheless raises concern about both the introduction of new, genetically altered organisms into the environment without sufficient information on the implications, and continued, intensive pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides recognizes, as do the researchers, that malaria-borne mosquitoes pose a serious public health problem; however, it advocates for alternatives to chemical approaches to managing the spread of the disease, and asserts that successful management strategies will contend with the underlying conditions that exacerbate that spread. In 2020, Executive Director Jay Feldman said, “We should focus on the deplorable living conditions, and inequitable distribution of wealth and resources worldwide that give rise to squalor, inhumane living conditions, and the poor state of development that, together, breed insect-borne diseases like malaria.”    

Malaria, which is spread by female Anopheles mosquitoes infected with a Plasmodium parasite, causes illness in more than 200 million people annually, and is lethal to more than 400,000, many of whom are children. (There are five types of Plasmodium that cause malaria.) Roughly half of the global population, across more than 100 countries and territories, is at risk of contracting the disease. Those areas at greatest risk include large swaths of Africa and South Asia, parts of Central and South America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Oceania. 

Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2020, “In such regions, primary control strategies for these mosquito vectors during the past couple of decades have been the insecticidal treatment of bed nets (known as ITNs), and indoor residual spraying (IRS) of insecticides on walls, floors, ceilings, and eaves prior to the intensive malaria transmission season.” However, Anopheles mosquitoes are increasingly developing resistance to at least two of the four insecticides most commonly used — pyrethroid insecticides and DDT — meaning that such controls are becoming far less effective. (Over the past two decades, deltamethrin and λ-cyhalothrin (synthetic pyrethroids), and DDT have been used for IRS, but other classes of insecticides, such as carbamates and organophosphates, are increasingly being added to the IRS “arsenal.”)

It is important to note the toxicity and persistence of DDT. It has been linked to cancer in humans and is acutely toxic to fish and marine invertebrates. Intensive global use of DDT (which was banned in the U.S. in 1972 in recognition of its extreme harms) has resulted in rapid development of resistance in some regions (as has the overuse of synthetic pyrethroids and DDT alternatives). The stability and persistence of DDT, and its decades-long use, now manifest in its presence everywhere, from the open oceans to Himalayan glaciers — even in Arctic polar bear populations Antarctic penguin colonies.

A 2020 Daily News Blog article and another in 2021 detail the rise of resistance to mosquito pesticides and the need to shift to alternative management strategies. Research in Kenya back in 2015 pointed to rapidly developing resistance in Anopheles gambiae to pyrethroids and DDT. A June 2020 research study revealed a dramatic increase in resistance to these insecticides across sub-Saharan Africa, where malaria is spread by A. gambiae. This widespread resistance means that the tools on which antimalarial public health measures have heavily relied are working less and less well. This subject study was conducted by a team out of the University of California San Diego and the Tata Institute for Genetics and Society in India; the study paper was published on January 12 in Nature Communications.

The Crispr gene editing used in this research allows the identification and alteration of a specific bit of DNA inside a cell. The team used Drosophila melanogaster (the common fruit fly) rather than mosquitoes in its lab experiments because of the greater base knowledge and protocols related to Drosophila (as compared with Anopheles). The research experiment replaced an insecticide-resistant gene mutation (kdr) that confers resistance to pyrethroids and DDT, the insecticides commonly used against Anopheles, with the normal form of the gene — thus restoring, temporarily, the efficacy of the insecticides.

The technique used is known as a “gene drive” — a type of biotechnology that “overrules the laws of heredity to spread a trait through a population more quickly than . . . would happen naturally, forcing that gene into a population’s offspring. In this case, the change essentially reboots the gene pool to what it was before the insects evolved resistance to a particular pesticide.” The gene drive used by the team uses a “guide RNA” molecule that tells the Crispr system to delete the unwanted gene variant — in this case, the one that causes resistance to these insecticides — and to replace it with the normal, or “native” gene variant (which does not exhibit pesticide resistance).

Thus, the Drosophila’s vulnerability to the chemicals’ lethality is restored, the normal variant gets copied, and all offspring inherit it. The authors write, “This successful proof-of-principle opens up numerous possibilities including targeted reversion of insecticide-resistant populations to a native susceptible state or replacement of malaria transmitting mosquitoes with those bearing naturally occurring, parasite-resistant alleles.”

The researchers began with a population of fruit flies in which 83% had the pesticide-resistant gene variant and 17% had the normal/native version. With the Crispr intervention, that ratio was reversed to 17% with the resistant allele and 83% with the normal version — in 10 generations. How to account for that 17% that continue to resist the pesticides? As Wired magazine coverage of the study notes, “Lab tests of gene drives have shown that it’s possible to spread a desired genetic trait through several generations. But studies have also found that resistance to gene drives can emerge because some mosquitoes don’t inherit the desired trait. In the wild, resistance is almost certain to occur, meaning that gene drives would probably still leave behind some mosquitoes that could bite humans and transmit disease.”

The authors posit that, because both fruit flies and Anopheles have two-week life cycles, it would take a few months to “re-jigger” the genetics of a population of Anopheles so as to restore vulnerability to pesticides. But the scientists agree that a single use of a gene drive on a population of Anopheles is not a long-term solution, because even if a local population of mosquitoes could be eliminated, insects “can travel halfway around the world, pop up in a new place, and establish a new population. A gene drive . . . might need to be applied seasonally, especially if multiple resistant genes are present within a population or new ones arise.”

Senior study author Ethan Bier, PhD commented, “This technology . . . offers a solution to the conundrum we’re facing now, which is that there hasn’t been a new category of insecticides developed for over 30 years. If you can go on using the ones you’ve got by re-sensitizing the mosquitoes to those, I think that would be an enormous benefit.” The team proffers the idea that employing this technology could both effectively control the spread of malaria and ultimately allow reductions in the amounts of insecticide used to manage local insect populations. Underscoring Beyond Pesticides’ point about resistance (see below), Dr. Bier added, “This is no silver bullet. You never win when you try to play the evolutionary game with insects.” His team is now working on translating the fruit fly gene drive into lab mosquitoes.

Other researchers are pursuing solutions that do not involve use of pesticides. In the summer of 2021, a research group out of the Polo GGB lab in Italy announced success in using the Crispr technique to introduce a mutation into female Anopheles that prevents the insects from biting, and therefore, from spreading the Plasmodium parasite that causes malaria. Another strategy is to genetically engineer mosquitoes to kill the malaria parasite they host. Yet another focuses on eradicating mosquitoes themselves via making mosquitoes infertile. “By using a gene drive to render males or females infertile,” Wired writes, “you could conceivably crash an entire population of mosquitoes.”

Beyond those, after three decades of research, the pursuit of a vaccine is finally yielding some benefit. Last October, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended limited use of the world’s first malaria vaccine for use in children living in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions with moderate to high transmission rates of Plasmodium falciparum, the deadliest of the parasites that cause malaria. The recommendation opens the door to approval of a broader rollout of the vaccine program.

Co-authors of a 2011 study that addressed the use of DDT in malaria prevention captured the conundrum of pesticide-oriented solutions to malarial spread: “Overall, community health is significantly improved through all available malaria control measures, which include IRS with DDT. Is DDT ‘good’? Yes, because it has saved many lives. Is DDT safe as used in IRS? Recent publications have increasingly raised concerns about the health implications of DDT. Therefore, an unqualified statement that DDT used in IRS is safe is untenable. Are inhabitants and applicators exposed? Yes, and to high levels. Should DDT be used? The fact that DDT is ‘good’ because it saves lives, and ‘not safe’ because it has health and environmental consequences, raises ethical issues.” (There is no current and legitimate science that would defend DDT use as “safe.”)

The central issue, as Beyond Pesticides sees it, is that developing genetic engineering techniques to enable continued use of toxic pesticides is effort misplaced. Deployed, such strategies would not only cause collateral health and environmental harms from the continued use of pesticides, but also, could have unanticipated organismic and/or ecosystem impacts. As a professor of health law and ethics at Boston University, George Annas, JD, MPH (who authored a code of ethics for gene drive research), has said, “A lot of people think we shouldn’t use insecticides at all. The idea of using heavy-duty genetic editing so that we can continue using insecticides isn’t going to appeal to everyone. . .[C]onvincing the public to release genetically modified mosquitoes just to keep using insecticides, which come with a host of negative health and environmental effects, could be a hard sell.”

Mr. Annas is not the first ethicist to raise concern about unintended consequences of releasing gene drive technology into the wild, including a resurgence of resistance. According to Wired, he would like to see researchers work on some way to stop, or recall, a gene drive if an unsavory outcome develops. He said, “I’m not saying we’re going to develop a super mosquito, but that’s not out of the realm of possibility. A gene drive might make things worse and you certainly don’t want to do that.”

Beyond those concerns, as Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly identified, the pursuit of chemical fixes — whether for crop pests or for containing disease vectors — is ultimately a fool’s errand. In 2020, we wrote: “Resistance to pesticides is nearly inevitable. Development of resistance is an entirely normal, adaptive phenomenon: organisms evolve, ‘exploiting’ beneficial genetic mutations that give them survival advantage. For nearly a century, human response to this has been primarily a chemical ‘chasing’ of such evolutionary changes — developing a compound that kills the offending organism (whether pest or weed or bacterium or fungus) for a while. Organisms nearly inevitably change to become resistant to that particular chemical assault, whereupon people — the chemical industry, researchers, applicators, farmers, public health workers, clinicians, et al. — have typically moved on to the next chemical ‘solution.’”

In 2017, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) concurred, noting, “This highlights the problem of relying on insecticide-based strategies for vector control… Ultimately, disease vectors and parasites develop resistance to the insecticide and it becomes almost ineffective in the long run.” The sustainable solutions to containing the spread of malaria lie not in the use of more and different chemicals, but in nontoxic approaches that respect nature and ecological balance. More sustainable (and effective) approaches would include habitat modification, improved sanitation, and use of natural controls, such as larviciding with Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis).

Beyond Pesticides has chronicled that the most successful mosquito management programs combine multiple strategies and focus, as well, on community education — but also, require significant government commitment and political will. In 1991, Vietnam reduced malaria deaths by 97% and malaria cases by 59% when it switched from malaria eradication attempts using DDT to a DDT-free malaria control program. A program in Kenya uses livestock as bait, introduces biological controls, and distributes mosquito nets in affected areas. Management strategies to combat malaria cannot be successful if they are entirely chemical because such approaches ignore the underlying conditions that exacerbate disease spread.

Even if malaria is not a local concern in the U.S., most people are concerned about the diseases mosquitoes can transmit, including West Nile virus, Eastern Equine Encephalitis, and Zika fever. Learn more about mosquito management at Beyond Pesticides’ resources on Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases, and Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy for Decision Makers and Communities.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/could-crispr-flip-the-switch-on-insects-resistance-to-pesticides/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 10, 2022) A National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)-funded study finds that patterns of pesticide exposure among farmers have geographical and temporal significance. Specific use of and exposure to organophosphate and carbamate chemicals decrease enzyme activity within the body, resulting in greater health anomalies among farmers, especially during agricultural seasons. The use of xenobiotic (foreign chemical compounds) substances like pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture are increasing. Thus, those working with and around these toxicants must have protection. Considering that agricultural workers often experience pesticide exposure at higher rates due to occupation, long-term research must identify potential health concerns surrounding common pesticides. The study author, Dana Barr, Ph.D., states, “The majority of farmers in this study reported that they had at least one health symptom associated with pesticide intoxication. This investigation can be used to promote safer use of pesticides among farmers and mitigate exposure among residents living near a rice field. The findings will be critical for establishing and launching several preventive programs in the future.”

Researchers evaluated the health effects of pesticide exposure among a cohort of farmers in Thailand during inactive and active rice farming periods. Using geographic information system (GIS) mapping, researchers compared acetyl- and butyryl-cholinesterase (AChE and BuChE) activities (a family of enzymes responsible for neurotransmission) among farmers across regions within the Ratchasima Province of Thailand. Scientists also collected data on the location of rice paddy fields. The results demonstrate that farmers exhibit higher adverse health symptoms from pesticide exposure during active farming periods. The main pesticides of concern are organophosphates and carbamates, due to the effects on enzyme function, as both AChE and BuChE activity decrease during active farming. Moreover, GIS mapping data shows enzyme inhibition within and adjacent to farms, indicating spatial and temporal changes in health.

The agricultural industry has a long-standing history of synthetic chemical use, which disproportionally affects farmworkers’ health. The journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine indicates that farmworkers and persons exposed to high levels of pesticides have an increased risk of developing brain tumors and over 45 different cancers. Farmworkers are at the highest risk of pesticide-induced diseases, and their average life expectancy bears this out. According to the National Farm Worker Ministry, farmworkers have an average life span of 49 years, a 29 year difference from the general U.S. population. Moreover, a recent study finds increased COPD for other pesticide-intensive occupations like landscapers (e.g., gardeners/landscapers). Although pesticide exposure through the skin or inhalation is most prevalent among individuals working around these toxic chemicals, pesticide exposure is ubiquitous and not only confined to a field. The general population can encounter toxic chemicals through residues in food and water or through chemical drift. Over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts—from chemicals in plastics to cosmetic/personal care products—are commonly found in water bodies, food commodities, and human blood/urine samples. These toxicants can alter hormone metabolism, producing endocrine-disrupting effects that put the health of animals, humans, and the environment at risk. Synthetic chemicals in pesticides can accumulate in bodies, causing an amalgamation of health effects. These effects can range from heightened risks of various cancers (i.e., prostate, hepatic, liver, etc.) and endocrine disruption to mental health problems (i.e., depression), respiratory illnesses (asthma), and many other pesticide-induced diseases. Therefore, understanding how pesticide exposure influences disease risk is essential in protecting the future of human, animal, and ecological health.

This study adds to the growing body of research demonstrating occupational exposure to pesticides contributes to higher disease prevalence among individuals working with and around these toxic compounds. Like this study, other researchers demonstrate that exposure to organophosphate insecticides, like chlorpyrifos, has endocrine disruption properties that induce neurotoxicity via acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition in the nervous tissue. Inhibition of AChE can cause a buildup of acetylcholine (a chemical neurotransmitter responsible for brain and muscle function). This chemical buildup can lead to acute impacts, such as uncontrolled, rapid twitching muscles, paralyzed breathing, convulsions, and, in extreme cases, death. However, the inhibition of AChE is non-specific, making the dispersal of pesticides with this biological activity a severe threat to wildlife and public health.

Although hesitation to eliminate pesticides surrounds crop yields, studies as recent as 2022 show a ban on even the most extensively used pesticides have no adverse impacts on yield. Although this study takes place in Thailand, the results apply to conventional farmers across the globe. Adverse health effects related to pesticide exposure can occur regardless of geographical location and agricultural practices. For instance, cancer incidents are consistent among women and men agricultural workers, regardless of location, suggesting an underlying common risk factor (i.e., pesticides). Although farmers in the study use personal protective equipment (PPE), the equipment does not always protect against dermal exposure and inhalation after application (i.e., residues on clothing, shoes, hair, etc.). Moreover, current legislation fails to encompass the full impacts of pesticides on farmworkers, especially underrepresented individuals who disproportionately experience more severe health issues.

The study concludes, “[F]armers should be made aware of the safety practices of pesticide handling and application and the proper use of PPE through effective education and training programs. Importantly, the government should consider changing the current policy to allow effective restrictions of pesticide importation, production, and application. In addition, GIS can assist the assessment of agricultural pesticide exposure in the general population and can enable the location verification and pattern visualization of the OP and carbamate poisoning cases. Our work can be used to assist the establishment of a pesticide application free zone to minimize pesticide exposures in the residential areas.”

It is essential to know and understand the effects pesticides have on human health, especially if pesticides increase the risk of developing chronic diseases, particularly among vulnerable individuals. GIS-based pesticide exposure data can help public health officials make more targeted decisions regarding human health concerns. Moreover, GIS can incorporate numerous sources involving location, chemical, and time-period specific data. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on pesticide exposure harms, see PIDD pages on cancer, 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 pesticide metabolites in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and the agricultural sector can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. Furthermore, learn more about farmworker protection by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice page.

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

Source: Environmental Factor-NIEHS, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, February 9, 2022) Insecticide use during pregnancy significantly increases the occurrence of Otitis Media (OM) in infants, according to research published in Scientific Reports from a team of Japanese researchers late last month. Otitis Media, an infection of the space behind the ear drum, is a common disease among children. While most infections go away on their own, some children experience pain, fever, and in some cases complications that result in hearing loss. This research underscores the myriad of dangers and diseases that pesticide use can precipitate, which are not considered under risk assessments conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Scientists collected their initial data from the ongoing Japan Environment and Children’s Study, a national birth cohort study that evaluates environmental factors affecting children’s health in Japan. Data recorded include factors such as maternal age, birth weight, and gestation weeks, and mothers provided answers to a range of questionnaires, including one relating to exposure to insecticides during pregnancy. Study authors utilized a range of other covariates to control for further risk factors, such as family history of OM, living with other siblings, nursery attendance, parental smoking habits, and others.

The study determined that OM during an infant’s first year of life is most closely associated with insecticide use more than one time per week between conception and the first trimester of pregnancy. Insecticide use in the second and third trimester is not associated with OM. Researchers speculate that insecticide use causes OM due to weakened immune function in exposed individuals.

This is the first study to show a connection between ear infections in young children and pesticide exposure during pregnancy. Prior research, however, has provided some indication that pesticides can harm the ears and affect hearing. A 2020 study published in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health found that farmworkers exposed to a combination of pesticides and noise from agricultural machinery were at increased risk of hearing loss.

Roughly 1 in 5 children experience several episodes of OM in short spans during early life. The cost of these treatments can add up significantly, accounting for several billion dollars in health care costs. Additionally, “[p]reventing OM decreases the burden that is placed on parents who have to visit clinics and take time off work,” the authors indicate.

Results highlight the hidden risks that individuals tacitly accept when applying a substance intended to kill life. Chemicals like the increasingly common synthetic pyrethroid class of insecticides can remain on hard surfaces for over a year, providing continual, chronic exposure. These exposures can weaken immune system functioning and make individuals more susceptible to infection and other diseases.

Pregnant mothers, fetuses, and young children are at greatest risk from household pesticide use, as evidenced by a large and growing body of research. Exposure during and after pregnancy has been associated with increased risk of cancers, including infant leukemia and childhood brain tumors. Pregnant mothers exposed to pesticides are more likely to have preterm births and low birth weight, children with motor development problems, as well as children who go on to develop ADHD. These impacts are perhaps unsurprising given studies that show over 100 different chemicals detectable in pregnant women, including new or unknown compounds.

In general, this research does not distinguish between specific types of pesticides – at most breaking down exposures into basic pesticide types (e.g., herbicide, insecticide, fungicide). Thus, these tests are generally not reviewed by EPA during pesticide evaluations, and the agency rarely considers these cryptic chronic diseases that pesticide exposure can bring about. Under a precautionary approach, pesticides with evidence of chronic damage to pregnant women or young children would be denied registration for use. But EPA’s approach to tackling these problems has relied on simply reducing recommended application rates through “safety factors.” Moreover, the agency often doesn’t even follow this lackluster approach when the pesticide industry becomes involved.  

Pregnant women and households with young children are strongly encouraged to avoid all use or exposure to any pesticide products. Eating healthy, organic food is another factor that can reduce exposure and improve children’s well-being. New and expecting families can find more resources to keep your home child-safe on the Materials for New Parents webpage. For more information on the range of diseases associated with pesticide use, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Scientific Reports

Image Source: Luca Prasso, Flikr

(Beyond Pesticides, February 8, 2022) After nearly a century of use, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is officially cancelling the highly toxic wood preservative pentachlorophenol (penta). As one of the most dangerous pesticides ever produced, penta poses unacceptable risks to workers and surrounding communities, which often became superfund sites once manufacturing plants closed. According to the agency, “During the registration review process, EPA found that given the emergence of viable alternatives, the risks pentachlorophenol poses to workers’ health outweigh the benefits of its use.” Health and environmental advocates are pleased with the agency’s long overdue action on penta but remain incredulous that EPA has provided a generous phase-out for the utility and wood preservative industry, allowing use to continue for up to 5 years. Beyond Pesticides has been working to ban pentachlorophenol, creosote, and copper chromated arsenate since its founding in 1981. (See history of Beyond Pesticides’ work and litigation.)

EPA’s statement on alternatives and workers’ health is a telling example for the public regarding the way in which the agency consistently places economic decisions above American’s safety. EPA has long known about the dangers penta poses to health, particularly the health of workers in penta production or treatment plants. In 2008, the agency determined that these occupational handlers had a 1 in 1,000 risk of developing cancer. Rather than cancel the chemical at that time to protect worker health, the agency opted to attempt additional mitigation measures, requiring further personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and changes to treatment procedures. With no real-world evidence that this would make a difference, the agency expected these changes to drop the cancer risk to workers. However, in its most recent draft risk assessment, EPA found that this drastically high cancer risk remained the same. (EPA considers cancer risks between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 1,000,000 to be “acceptable.”)

A close read of EPA’s statement makes it clear: workers were expendable until the wood preservative industry had economically viable alternative chemistries it could use. In fact, EPA’s cancellation decision still leaves workers at risk.  According to EPA’s decision document, the agency “considered requiring additional interim risk mitigation measures during the period prior to the cancellation,” but decided against doing so because they, “may take several years to adopt and require significant financial resources in order to implement.” Instead, EPA opted to provide the wood preservative industry five more years to transition to other materials.

The agency will require registrants to voluntarily cancel their penta products by February 29, 2024. EPA will then provide another 3 years for registrants to utilize their left-over stocks of penta, placing a hard end date on February 29, 2027. In a response to Beyond Pesticides comments, the agency does indicate it will require mandatory cancellation should current registrants not follow through voluntarily.

EPA’s rationale for their 5-year phase-out is not to protect health or the environment. Simply, it is what the industry told the agency it wanted. “The Agency does not, however, support a phase-out period of less than 5 years due to the potential disruption in the utility pole market,” the final decision reads. When Beyond Pesticides asked pointedly in comments to speed up the cancellation period, the agency indicated that 5 years was an acceptable compromise because some commenters requested a phase out period longer than five years.

It is worth noting that the agency has fully registered pesticides for time limits shorter than 5 years, and has the authority to immediately cancel hazardous chemicals – particularly those like penta, which has an immense body of data on its harm that could withstand industry legal challenges. In this context, EPA’s approach to protection has been more focused on the wood preservative industry than on the environment, worker, or resident health. At every turn, once risks were identified, EPA took steps to keep penta on the market, and protect industry interests over human health.   

In the late 1970s, an initial range of significant risks were identified, and penta underwent an EPA Special Review. The agency identified a range of chronic harms from penta exposure, including contaminants such as hexachlorobenzene, furans, and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, one of the most toxic substances known to humankind. But industry pressure resulted in a soft-pedal whereby EPA focused on “risk reduction measures” rather than elimination. Products were restricted from residential use, but significant use remained for railways and utility lines. And rather than require improved production processes that eliminated dioxin contamination, the agency negotiated with industry to allow it to phase down contamination levels over several years. (Despite decades of time to improve production processes, current EPA documents show hexachlorobenzene and dioxin remain at hazardous levels of contamination in penta treated wood [19.3ppm and .55ppm average in 2013]).

Beyond Pesticides then sued EPA in the early 2000s urging cancellation of the chemical, but the suit was ultimately struck down over administrative issues. In one notable instance, penta review documents from EPA calculated a 2.2 in 10,000 cancer risk to children playing around treated poles. This rate was 200 times above EPA’s acceptable cancer threshold for children. But rather than protect children, EPA simply removed the exposure scenario for children and echoed a claim by the Penta Council, an industry group, that “play activities with or around pole structures would not normally occur.”

Likewise, when the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants took up penta for consideration of an international ban, EPA and the U.S. government engaged in the process, and opposed listing penta despite not being a signatory to the Stockholm Convention. Ultimately, however, the US failed to convince other nations that the risks were worth the supposed benefits of penta use.

To finally ban penta in the United States, it took grassroots advocates, intrepid reporters, and courageous lawmakers to eliminate the wood preservative’s last economic opportunity. After the Stockholm Conventional listed penta, it set a clock ticking on production plants throughout the world. The last plant in Mexico was set to be shuttered, leaving the United States as the only possible location left where this internationally banned material could be produced. As a result, Gulbrandsen Chemicals, a multinational company with ties to India, attempted to supply the U.S. market by proposing a penta plant in the majority low-income African American community of Orangeburg, South Carolina. Residents and local lawmakers fought back. A series of high-profile investigative reports, community advocacy, and political action ultimately upset the plans laid by this corporation, and Gulbrandsen Chemicals withdrew its proposal.

EPA cited this fact under “other considerations,” it used to justify announcing the cancellation. In comments, Beyond Pesticides urged the agency to base its decisions not on the “uncertain future of pentachlorophenol production” and instead on the statutory requirements for FIFRA registration that the chemical poses an unreasonable risk. For EPA’s part, it denies that it based cancellation on the uncertain future of penta production – that point was simply noted to provide context, according to the agency. EPA reiterated that it based its decision off of its risk/benefit calculation, as well as international support to ban penta. Opining for wood preservative manufacturers, “EPA expects that industry’s decision to cease production of pentachlorophenol is a reflection, not a cause, of the same factors,” the agency’s final decision reads.

Despite its failure to take immediate action, the agency did say, “[E]PA is requiring cancellation of pentachlorophenol based on the Agency’s determination that the benefits of pentachlorophenol—in particular in light of the emergence of newer, safer alternatives. . .”

To truly show it is evaluating hazardous wood preservatives based on the letter of the law, rather than the reflections of industry, EPA should take immediate action on other wood preservatives that have viable alternatives. Chief among the remaining is creosote, which was recently featured as part of EPA Administrator Regan’s Journey to Justice tour, where he heard from residents of Houston, TX’s Greater Fifth Ward, which is still dealing with legacy contamination from a creosote railroad tie treatment plant.

Like penta, creosote production has resulted in immense suffering for workers and residents in fence line communities near these industrial sites. Like penta, there are a range of viable alternatives to its use, including alternative chemistries, as well as non-toxic products like steel, concrete, and fiberglass. And like penta, there is a small group of individuals profiting generously while people and the environment continue to be harmed. While EPA should be applauded for finally cancelling penta, its phase out period is far too generous. If the agency wants advocates to see it is serious about protecting health and the environment, this action can only be the first step as part of broader, long-overdue efforts to clean up the wood preservative market.

Beyond Pesticides has extensive documentation on the history of penta production and regulation. For more information see the following articles:

• Poison Poles (1997)
• Pole Pollution (1999)
• Beyond Pesticides comments to EPA on Wood Preservatives (2008)
• Beyond Poison Poles: Elected officials say no to toxic utility poles in their communities (2014)
• United Nations Committee Recommends Global Elimination of Toxic Wood Preservative (2014)
• EPA Seeks to Block a Worldwide Ban of a Highly Toxic Wood Preservative (2014)
• International Treaty Bans Pentachlorophenol, U.S. Continues Use on Utility Poles and Railroad Ties (2015)
• Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Over Dioxin Contamination from Poison Poles in Central California (2018)
• As the World Bans Highly Toxic Wood Preservative, Pentachlorophenol, a Low-Income U.S. Community May Be Home to the Last Production Plant (2020)
• Environmental Racism Strikes South Carolina Community with Siting of a Pentachlorophenol Wood Preservative Plant (2021)
• EPA Proposes Cancellation of Highly Toxic Wood Preservative Pentachlorophenol

See Beyond Pesticides Wood Preservatives webpage. 

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

Source: EPA Final Registration Review Decision for Pentachlorophenol (via Regulations.gov)

(Beyond Pesticides, February 7, 2022) Recent research on quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) shows the critical need for a reassessment of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria for determining appropriate disinfectant products where coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19), is a concern. EPA maintains a list of disinfectants—List N—that it expects to kill all strains and variants of SARS-CoV-2. However, in creating List N, EPA fails to consider dangers posed by some of the chemicals. QACs, in particular, can cause serious acute and chronic health problems.

>>Tell EPA to reassess its criteria for List N and delist quaternary ammonia compounds. Tell Congress to make sure EPA does its job. 

Early in the pandemic, emphasis was placed on disinfecting surfaces, under the mistaken assumption that transmission of the virus was primarily through contact with contaminated surfaces, or fomites. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is now known that, “The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory droplets carrying infectious virus. It is possible for people to be infected through contact with contaminated surfaces or objects (fomites), but the risk is generally considered to be low.”

 A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds that concentrations of QACs in the human body have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising health and safety concerns. QACs include a variety of chemicals in personal care, pharmaceutical, and medical products used as disinfectants, sanitizers, antimicrobials. However, over the past 70 years, large-scale production and use of these compounds led to accumulation in the environment, including surface water, sediment, and soil. Previously, researchers thought most QACs lack the potential to bioaccumulate, but emerging evidence demonstrates that specific QACs bioaccumulate in blood and other body tissues and can cause a range of toxic effects. Therefore, studies like this highlight the significance of monitoring chemical exposure for adverse health effects. The researchers note, “Further efforts are needed to explore the relationship between the use of QAC-containing products and the levels of QACs in human blood or of their metabolites in urine. Considering the increased use of some QACs as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, our findings warrant further exposure and epidemiological research focused on QACs.” The results show 15 out of the 18 QACs are detectable in blood samples, with QAC concentrations significantly higher during the pandemic than prior to it. The main routes of exposure include diet, inhalation, ingestion, or the skin.

While EPA has certified several disinfectants as effective against COVID-19 (List N), many of these chemicals are hazardous. Quaternary ammonium compounds are among some of the most harmful disinfectants, as their “long-lasting” properties have adverse impacts on human health, which has extensive documentation in the scientific literature. Effects include mutations, lower fertility, and increased antibiotic resistance. QAC disinfectants’ overuse in U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) detainment centers caused nose bleeds and other adverse health effects. Furthermore, teachers are seeking less harmful disinfectants to use in the classroom, especially as many are experiencing adverse impacts of disinfectant use (e.g., chemical skin burns, respiratory issues). Since EPA has listed so many disinfectant products containing QACs, they remain ubiquitous in the environment as use continues.

EPA is currently promoting false reasoning that a chemical that kills a pathogen necessarily protects health. Although disinfectants like QACs, kill viruses, bacteria, and other microbes via cell wall and protein destruction, they can also negatively affect the immune system, thus reducing resistance to disease. People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system, are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern.

While Beyond Pesticides identifies “Disinfectants to Avoid,” including those with OACs, many safer disinfectants are, at the same time, listed by EPA as effective against the virus, including citric acid, ethanol, isopropanol, L-lactic acid, hydrogen peroxide, sodium bisulfate, dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, and thymol. Products containing these chemicals are present on Beyond Pesticides’ list of “Disinfectants to Look for.” Avoid pressure to use toxic disinfectants, despite the availability of safer products. In fact, while [CDC] is recommending 70% alcohol for surface disinfection, [EPA’s] Office of Pesticide Programs promotes the use of unnecessarily toxic substances.

QACs are harmful to the respiratory system and have a long list of adverse effects from cancer and genetic mutations to lower fertility and increase antibiotic resistance. Most recently, the QAC antimicrobial cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) has raised concerns. The compound is present in mouthwashes, lozenges, toothpaste, and nasal sprays and is thus commonly encountered orally. A recent study finds CPC has associations with adverse respiratory effects (e.g., lung inflammation). Moreover, acute oral inhalation can be fatal. Since COVID-19 is a systemic (general) disease that overwhelmingly impacts the respiratory system, exposure to CPC presents a heightened risk of co-occurring symptoms. Damage to the respiratory system can also trigger the development of extra-respiratory systemic manifestations like rheumatoid arthritis, and cardiovascular disease. Check out our downloadable infographic The Dirty Side of Disinfectants & Sanitizers.

EPA must assess all risks associated with pesticide use, including the mode of action. EPA’s failure to respond to current science is a significant shortcoming of its risk assessment process, especially regarding disease implications. In contrast to EPA, Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent health studies related to pesticide exposure through the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on harms associated with pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on asthma/respiratory effects and other diseases.

>>Tell EPA to reassess its criteria for List N and delist quaternary ammonia compounds. Tell Congress to make sure EPA does its job.  

Letter to EPA Administrator and Assistant Administrator Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Recent research on quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) shows the need for a reassessment of EPA’s criteria for determining appropriate disinfectants where SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, is a concern. In creating List N of disinfectants to kill SARS-CoV-2, EPA fails to consider dangers posed by some of the chemicals. QACs, for example, can cause serious acute and chronic health problems.

Early in the pandemic, emphasis was placed on disinfecting surfaces, under the mistaken assumption that transmission of the virus was primarily through contact with contaminated surfaces, or fomites. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is now known that, “The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory droplets carrying infectious virus. It is possible for people to be infected through contact with contaminated surfaces or objects (fomites), but the risk is generally considered to be low.” This means that elimination of fomites can no longer be used as the basis for allowing high risks of disinfectant chemicals.

 A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds increased concentrations of QACs in the human body during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising health and safety concerns. QACs include a variety of chemicals in personal care, pharmaceutical, and medical products used as disinfectants, sanitizers, antimicrobials. Production and use of these compounds have led to their accumulation in the environment. Emerging evidence demonstrates that specific QACs bioaccumulate in blood and other body tissues, causing a range of toxic effects. The researchers note, “Considering the increased use of some QACs as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, our findings warrant further exposure and epidemiological research focused on QACs.” Results show 15 out of the 18 QACs are detectable in blood samples, with QAC concentrations significantly higher during the pandemic than prior to it. Routes of exposure include diet, inhalation, ingestion, and the skin.

Many disinfectants on List N are hazardous. QACs are among the most harmful, with effects including mutations, lower fertility, increased antibiotic resistance, and harm to the respiratory system. The antimicrobial QAC cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), present in mouthwashes, lozenges, toothpaste, and nasal sprays, has been associated with adverse respiratory effects (e.g., lung inflammation). Acute oral inhalation can be fatal. Since COVID-19 is a systemic disease that overwhelmingly impacts the respiratory system, exposure to CPC presents a heightened risk of co-occurring symptoms. Damage to the respiratory system can also trigger the development of systemic disease, including rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease.

Outside of the lab, QAC overuse in U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) detainment centers caused nose bleeds and other adverse health effects. Teachers experiencing adverse impacts of disinfectant use (e.g., chemical skin burns, respiratory issues) are seeking less harmful disinfectants to use in the classroom. EPA’s listing of so many disinfectant products containing QACs contributes to their ubiquitous presence in the environment.

 Although disinfectants like QACs kill pathogens, they can also negatively affect the immune system, thus reducing resistance to disease. People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system, are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern.

EPA must assess all risks associated with disinfectant use and must reevaluate its assessment of their benefits. QACs do not belong on List N. EPA’s failure to respond to current science is a significant shortcoming of its risk assessment process, especially regarding disease implications.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representatives:

Recent research on quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) shows the need for a reassessment of EPA’s criteria for determining appropriate disinfectants where SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, is a concern. In creating List N of disinfectants to kill SARS-CoV-2, EPA fails to consider dangers posed by some of the chemicals. QACs, for example, can cause serious acute and chronic health problems.

Early in the pandemic, emphasis was placed on disinfecting surfaces, under the mistaken assumption that transmission of the virus was primarily through contact with contaminated surfaces, or fomites. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is now known that “The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory droplets carrying infectious virus. It is possible for people to be infected through contact with contaminated surfaces or objects (fomites), but the risk is generally considered to be low.” This means that elimination of fomites can no longer be used as as the basis for allowing high risks of disinfectant chemicals.

 A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds increased concentrations of QACs in the human body during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising health and safety concerns. QACs include a variety of chemicals in personal care, pharmaceutical, and medical products used as disinfectants, sanitizers, antimicrobials. Production and use of these compounds have led to their accumulation in the environment. Emerging evidence demonstrates that specific QACs bioaccumulate in blood and other body tissues, causing a range of toxic effects. The researchers note, “Considering the increased use of some QACs as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, our findings warrant further exposure and epidemiological research focused on QACs.” Results show 15 out of the 18 QACs are detectable in blood samples, with QAC concentrations significantly higher during the pandemic than prior to it. Routes of exposure include diet, inhalation, ingestion, and the skin.

Many disinfectants on List N are hazardous. QACs are among the most harmful, with effects including mutations, lower fertility, increased antibiotic resistance, and harm to the respiratory system. The antimicrobial QAC cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), present in mouthwashes, lozenges, toothpaste, and nasal sprays, has been associated with adverse respiratory effects (e.g., lung inflammation). Acute oral inhalation can be fatal. Since COVID-19 is a systemic disease that overwhelmingly impacts the respiratory system, exposure to CPC presents a heightened risk of co-occurring symptoms. Damage to the respiratory system can also trigger the development of systemic disease, including rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease.

Outside of the lab, QAC overuse in U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) detainment centers caused nose bleeds and other adverse health effects. Teachers experiencing adverse impacts of disinfectant use (e.g., chemical skin burns, respiratory issues) are seeking less harmful disinfectants to use in the classroom. EPA’s listing of so many disinfectant products containing QACs contributes to their ubiquitous presence in the environment.

 Although disinfectants like QACs kill pathogens, they can also negatively affect the immune system, thus reducing resistance to disease. People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system, are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern.

Please ensure that EPA assesses all risks associated with disinfectant use and must reevaluate its assessment of their benefits. QACs do not belong on List N. EPA’s failure to respond to current science is a significant shortcoming of its risk assessment process, especially regarding disease implications.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 4, 2022) In January, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued its 30th Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary report (which evaluates each year the presence of pesticide residues on produce) and misleads the public on the safety of food and agricultural practices. This 2020 report concludes that more than 99% of the produce samples tested showed residues below established U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benchmark levels. At first blush, this sounds very reassuring, but Beyond Pesticides maintains that there is (always) more to the “safety” story, not least of which are serious deficiencies in EPA’s establishment of those “tolerances.” Those flaws include a lack of risk assessment for vulnerable sub-populations, such as farmworkers, people with compromised health, children, and perhaps, cultural/ethnic and regional sub-groups of the general population, and a failure to fully assess serious health outcomes such as disruption of the endocrine system (which contributes to numerous serious diseases). For everyone, Beyond Pesticides recommends choosing organic produce whenever possible — the vast majority of which does not contain synthetic pesticide residues.

The PDP report asserts that “the data . . . illustrate that residues found in agricultural products sampled are at levels that do not pose risk to consumers’ health and are safe according to EPA and FDA.” Blue Book Services/Produce reporting uses the cheery headline (borrowed from the Alliance for Food and Farming), “USDA PDP report results help ensure consumer confidence in produce.” The agribusiness media and lobbying outfit CropLife America, which represents manufacturers of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals (according to SourceWatch) is touting the report with the reassuring headline, “USDA Pesticide Data Program Report Confirms Food Safety.”

Annually, USDA (through AMS, its Agricultural Marketing Service) and EPA identify produce items to be evaluated (note that not every item is assessed every year). As Blue Book describes, “AMS partners with cooperating state agencies to collect and analyze pesticide residue levels on the selected food commodities. . . . EPA relies on PDP data to conduct dietary risk assessments and to ensure that any pesticide residues in foods remain at or below levels that EPA has set.” The report notes that, “PDP is a voluntary program and is not designed for enforcement of tolerances. However, PDP informs [USDA] and EPA of presumptive tolerance violations if detected residues exceed the EPA tolerance or if residues are detected that have no EPA tolerance established.”

The 2020 PDP analysis evaluated 9,600 samples of fresh and processed vegetables and fruits, including “apple juice, bananas, blueberries (fresh and frozen), broccoli, cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, collard greens, eggplant, green beans, kiwi fruit, orange juice, radishes, summer squash, sweet bell peppers, tangerines, tomato paste and winter squash.” The sources of those produce items were 59.5% domestic (U.S.), 34.9% imported, 4.9% of “mixed national origin,” and 0.7% of unknown origin.

The complete PDP database for 2020 (and for previous years) is available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/pdp. The current analyses yielded these top-level results:

• more than 99% of tested samples tested had pesticide residues below the established EPA tolerances; 30% had no detectable residue
• .49% (47 samples) showed residues exceeding established tolerances; of these, 74.5% (35) were domestic, 23.4% (11) were imported, and 2.1% (1) was of unknown origin
• residues with no established tolerance were found in 3.2% (303) of the 9,600 samples; of these, 65.7% (199) were domestic, 33% (100) were imported, and 1.3% (4) were of unknown origin

Organic produce was included in the PDP sampling. In 2020, 7.4% (706) of the tested samples were organic; nearly all organic samples were “zero detects,” but very small numbers of organic items sampled had detectable residues. This contamination can happen in a number of ways, including pesticide drift from conventional to organic fields, migration through soil or water, or infrequently, misrepresentation of treated produce as “organic.”

It is noteworthy that the PDP tests for pesticide residue, but also tests for what it calls “environmental contaminants” — pesticides that are “no longer used in the U.S., but due to their persistence in the environment, particularly in soil . . . can be still taken up by plants.” Such toxicants include aldrin, chlordane, DDT, DDD and DDE (metabolites of DDT), dieldrin (a metabolite of Aldrin), heptachlor, lindane, and others. Residue results for environmental contaminants can be found in Appendix C of the PDP report.

Among the examples of such “legacy” contamination documented in the report are these:

• Use of DDT has been banned in the U.S. since 1972, yet its residues (and those of its metabolite, DDE) continue to show up in food plants — in this report, particularly on collards, broccoli, carrots, radishes, and winter squash.
• Chlordane was found in apple juice, and in summer and winter squash.
• Dieldrin showed up on cantaloupe and on many winter squash samples.

In addition, particularly toxic chemical pesticides were found on a variety of samples, including atrazine (collard greens); bifenthrin (collard greens, tomato paste, eggplant); carbaryl (eggplant, apple juice); thiamethoxam (broccoli, cauliflower); cyfluthrin (bell peppers, collards); malathion (blueberries, eggplant); and chlorothalonil (green beans, bell peppers, summer and winter squash).

Many of the chemical residues found on produce items are fungicides; other dominant categories include organophosphate insecticides, synthetic pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids. All of these categories of chemicals have multiple members associated with noxious health and/or environmental impacts. Though this report focuses on food, it is critical to be mindful of the intersectional nature of many pesticides — which is to say that they cause harm to health, ecosystems, wildlife, and the environment and natural resources broadly. See, for example, the harm caused by methoxyfenozide to endangered species — in this case, the Karner Blue butterfly. Public concern over how food is grown thus extends far more broadly than the matter of what produce we put on our dinner plates.

There are some other notable observations from and “themes” discernible in the PDP report. For example, myriad residues were found in apple juice, which is consumed primarily by children. According to the PDP database, residues of at least 15 pesticides were found in apple juice samples; many of those are fungicides, which are associated with a variety of health problems, including asthma and other respiratory issues, neurological problems, and others. Neonicotinoids are well represented among the chemical residues found; these are destructive to pollinators and other insects, ecosystems, and human health — the last happening often via contamination of drinking water sources. As Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2020, health impacts can include neurotoxicity, reproductive anomalies, hepatic and renal damage, and potentially, a catalytic role in hormone-dependent cancer.

An additional striking result: boscalid residues show up frequently in the report; this may be concerning, given its association with kidney damage and the current elevated rates of kidney disease in the U.S. population. Another, identified by Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman, is that bell peppers seem to be particularly laden with residues. One sample of sweet bell peppers contained residues of 18 pesticides. None of the residues exceeded the established tolerances. Multiple residue detections can result from several factors: application of more than one pesticide on a crop during a growing season; unintentional pesticide spray drifting onto a field; planting of crops in fields previously treated with the pesticide; and/or transfer of residues of post-harvest fungicides or growth regulators applied to other commodities but stored in the same facilities.

Collard greens stand out as particularly contaminated, at various frequencies and levels, by residues of a large number of pesticides. Beyond Pesticides lists them here to demonstrate — for a single food item — the extent of pesticide use. The list from the 2020 PDP: acephate, acetamiprid, atrazine, azoxystrobin, bensulide, bifenthrin, boscalid, bromacil, buprofezin, carbaryl, chlorantraniliprole, chlorothalonil, chlorpropham, chlorpyrifos (only recently banned for use on food crops), clothianidin, cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin, cymoxanil, cypermethrin, cyprodinil, diazinon, dieldrin (banned since 1987), difenoconazole, dimethoate, dimethomorph, dinotefuran, diuron, esfenvalerate, famoxadone, fenamidone, flonicamid, flubendiamide, fludioxonil, fluopicolide, fluopyram, flutriafol, imidacloprid, indoxacarb, linuron, mandipropamid, metalaxyl, methamidophos, methidathion, methomyl, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, oxamyl, permethrin, pronamide, pyraclostrobin, spinetoram, spinosad, spirotetramat, tebuconazole, tetrahydrophthalimide (a metabolite of captan), thiamethoxam, trifloxystrobin, trifloxysulfuron, and trifluralin, and several others.   

This chronicle of chemicals points to one of the multiple flaws in EPA’s approach to assessing risks of pesticide contamination of the food supply (and of pesticides more broadly). As mentioned above, the agency does not consider variations in cultural/ethnic or regional consumption habits. For example, the prevalence of collard greens in U.S. Southern and African-American cuisine might mean disproportionate levels of exposure (to some or many of that list of pesticides above), and therefore, disproportionate risk than might be the case for the general population. Rather than evaluate such regional or ethnic group risks, EPA “normalizes” risk across the general U.S. population; this practice has the potential to “dilute” the apparent level of risk to some sub-groups.

In addition, EPA neglects to do adequate risk assessment, which underlies the establishment of “tolerances” for food, for other vulnerable sub-populations, such as farmworkers, people with compromised health, and children. EPA also fails to evaluate exposures to multiple pesticides, or to pesticide admixtures for their potential synergistic health impacts.

To these shortcomings Beyond Pesticides would add the agency’s failure, as noted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and reported in this August 2021 Daily News Blog article, to make progress in protecting the population from potentially damaging endocrine disruption impacts of exposures to synthetic chemical pesticides (and other chemicals of concern). Many, many pesticides act as disruptors of the human (and other animal) endocrine systems. The GAO summarized its report: “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.”

Absent adequate protection of the food supply by USDA and EPA, which would necessarily employ a far more precautionary approach to the use of pesticides broadly, and a more nuanced approach to the establishment of food tolerances, there are steps consumers can take to reduce the impacts of pesticide exposure through diet. Chief among those is to purchase and consume the bulk of household provisions, as much as possible, as organic. Beyond Pesticides offers guidance via its Eating with a Conscience and Buying Organic Products (on a budget!) web pages, and for would-be (and even experienced) backyard or community garden growers of food, Grow Your Own Organic Food.

Source: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2020PDPAnnualSummary.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 3, 2022) A study published in the journal Thorax finds lifetime occupational (work-related) exposure to pesticides increases incidents of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Although research often attributes COPD risk to genetics or cigarette smoking, the increasing rate of COPD incidents indicates an external cause of disease development. Although an exact etiology (cause) of the increase in respiratory disease cases remains unknown, the connection between chronic respiratory diseases and exposure to pesticides continues to strengthen. Several circumstances, including smoking patterns, poverty, occupation, and diet, can influence disease prognosis. However, studies show that relative exposure to chemicals like pesticides can occur within each circumstance, making chemical exposure ubiquitous. Additionally, pesticide drift is an omnipresent issue impacting communities surrounding farming operations, and dust may harm humans, plants, and aquatic systems. Therefore, this review highlights the significance of evaluating the association between pesticide exposure and disease development, especially for diseases generally attributed to genetics or vices. Researchers in the study note, “[W]e found that cumulative exposure to pesticides is associated with an increased risk of COPD, with positive exposure-response trends. The unique large sample and the confirmation of our results in sensitivity analyses, in particular in never-smokers, support the validity of these findings and deserve further investigation.”

The respiratory system is essential to human survival, regulating gas exchange (oxygen-carbon dioxide) in the body to balance acid and base tissue cells for normal function. However, damage to the respiratory system can cause many issues—from asthma and bronchitis to oxidative stress that triggers the development of extra-respiratory manifestations like rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease. Many researchers, including those in this study, suggest an increase in environmental pollutants like pesticides may be responsible for the influx of respiratory diseases.

Using the UK Biobank, researchers collected data on age, sex, lifetime smoking history, current employment, and doctor-diagnosed asthma through a baseline questionnaire. The researchers employed the ALOHA(+)job-exposure matrix (JEM) that used an assessment by industrial hygienist experts to evaluate the occupational hazards for COPD in community-based studies. After completing the baseline questionnaire, participants underwent lung function testing. Researchers mainly relied on data from participants who never smoked or had asthma. Overall, the study confirms that pesticide exposure plays a role in COPD risk, especially for occupations with high cumulative exposure, including agriculture, fishing, gardening, and ground/park keeping. The association between pesticides and COPD is stronger among individuals who never smoked and who have no history of asthma.

The connection between pesticides and associated respiratory risks is nothing new. Although this study does not specify which pesticides increase respiratory risk, previous research demonstrates acetylcholinesterase inhibiting (AChE) pesticides (i.e., organophosphates and carbamates) can have the most influence on disease development. These chemicals bind to receptor sites for the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which is essential in nerve impulse transmission. The inactivation of AChE through binding prevents the clearing of acetylcholine. The buildup of acetylcholine can lead to acute impacts, such as uncontrolled, rapid twitching of some muscles, paralyzed breathing, convulsions, and, in extreme cases, death. The compromise of neural transmission can have broad systemic impacts on the function of multiple body systems. Even exposure to fumigants, such as methyl bromide, can cause respiratory manifestations (e.g., dyspnea, cough, respiratory irritation, and pulmonary lesions) in conjunction with local or systemic systems like fatigue, headache, dizziness, vomiting, abdominal pain, seizures, and impairment of the function of other organs. However, individuals can still encounter pesticides outside of the work environment via pesticide drift or contamination. Communities adjacent to chemical-intensive farms or pesticide manufacturing plants experience higher levels of pesticide exposure than neighborhoods that are not. Furthermore, children living in homes near greenhouses that use these insecticides have abnormal nervous system function, including adverse pulmonary effects like asthma. Similar to asthma, COPD has the potential to cause disparities in morbidity and mortality that disproportionately impact low-income populations, people of color, and children living in inner cities. 

This study adds to the growing body of research demonstrating workplace or occupational exposure to pesticides increases COPD risk. Participants’ risk of COPD increased by 13 percent when accounting for cumulative exposure, with extensive, high concentrations of pesticide exposure resulting in a 32 percent increase in disease risk. Besides COPD, other common respiratory manifestations associated with occupational pesticide exposure are dyspnea and coughing, with coughing significantly higher among agricultural workers than nonagricultural. Although individuals working in the agricultural sector have a higher risk of COPD, this study is one of the first to demonstrate increased COPD for other pesticide-intensive occupations like landscapers (i.e., gardeners/groundsmen).

In the U.S., over 14 million individuals have COPD, with the disease being the sixth leading cause of death. The increasing rate of respiratory illnesses since the 1980s demonstrates a need for better environmental policies and protocols on contaminants like pesticides. Considering respiratory diseases represent a major health issue for agricultural workers—who often experience pesticides exposure at higher rates due to occupation—it is essential to understand the association between pesticide exposure and respiratory illness, or the study of causes and effects of respiratory diseases. With reports finding associations between air pollution and higher death rates related to the outbreak of COVID-19, global leaders must eliminate toxic pesticide use to mitigate further respiratory distress on human health. Considering COVID-19 is a systemic (general) disease that overwhelmingly impacts the respiratory system of many patients, exposure to pesticides presents a heightened risk of co-occurring symptoms.

It is vital to understand how exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developing acute and chronic respiratory problems, especially if current policies fail to decrease the persistence of toxic chemicals in the environment. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on pesticide exposure harms, see PIDD pages on asthma/respiratory effects, cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases. Additionally, learn how to protect yourself from COVID-19 safely by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disinfectants and Sanitizers for more information. 

Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Regenerative organic agriculture revitalizes soil health through organic carbon sequestration while reducing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Thorax, Health Day

(Beyond Pesticides, February 2, 2022) Over the last 40 years, dragonfly species have declined in the United States due to an interplay between increasing pesticide use and rising temperatures from climate change, according to a recent study published in Ecological Applications by researchers at the University of Ottawa. The study highlights the need to evaluate and address insect declines on a macroecological scale, as human activities over the last several decades have become key drivers of Earth system processes in the Anthropocene era. At this macroecological level, the authors call for analysis of multiple interacting stressors, including land use change, pesticide applications, precipitation, and temperature.

To conduct their macro-scale analysis, researchers used a dataset consisting of over 200,000 observation records for dragonflies in the U.S since 1980. Then, U.S. land was subdivided into 100 x 100 km (62 x 62 mile) quadrants, and observation records plotted and refined to ensure that at least 15 species were observed in each quadrant used. Datasets were also obtained on land use changes (via HYDE dataset), pesticide applications (via U.S. Geological Survey), and changes in precipitation and temperature (via Climatic Research Unit).

Review of the data found that out of 104 dragonfly species, each species experienced an average of 30% quadrant loss compared to previously occupied quadrants within the last 40 years. Researchers indicate this is likely an underestimate. During this same time, pesticide applications increased an average of roughly 38 kg (83 lbs) per quadrant. However these data were highly variable, with some regions seeing an increase of ~28,722 kg (63,000 lbs) per quadrant. Land use converted to cropland decreased an average of .7 km (.4 miles) within the study period. Precipitation increased by an average of .28 mm, and average temperature increased by .32°C (.58 °F) per quadrant.

Using this information, researchers constructed a series of models to test for potential interactions between the variables and dragonfly diversity and declines. Within the four factors analyzed, pesticides and temperature represented “the most informative interaction,” according to the study. Modeling also revealed the way dragonflies have shifted their range in response to rising temperatures. It is noted, “Overall, odonates had shifted their northern range limits by 158 km [98 miles] since 1980 in the USA.”

While precipitation and land use can negatively affect dragonflies, the modeling was mixed. Precipitation can cause volatilization of pesticides and other pollutants, but in models, increased precipitation improved dragonfly persistence. Because rain is expected to increase, but only in certain areas, researchers indicate that some populations may experience hardship while others increase range due to more rainfall. Land use was found to create minor negative impacts, but due to the way pesticides were separated from these effects in the modeling, the lower impact of these changes on aquatic environments, and the extent of land use change already ‘baked in’ prior to the dataset used, did not have an outsized impact.

The interaction between pesticide use and temperature results in a range of risks to dragonflies. Increasing temperatures alone mean that dragonflies will emerge from metamorphosis earlier and earlier, resulting in increased chance of death. As the authors note, “…species nearer the edge of their physiological capacities may have reduced capacities to tolerate additional environmental changes, such as pesticides.” Pesticides and temperature changes also put dragonflies in larval stage at significant risk. “Increasing temperatures combined with exposure to pollutants can alter the metabolic transformation of pesticide residues, especially among aquatic species,” the study indicates. Thus, pesticides and their breakdown products can become increasingly toxic in warming waters, putting even highly tolerant species at risk.

Previous research reinforces this finding, though at a much smaller scale. A study published in 2020 from Griffith University found that coral reef fish were significantly harmed when exposed to varying levels of water temperature increases alongside varying rates of the insecticide chlorpyrifos.

The authors conclude that “[c]limate change interacts with recent, rapid rises in pesticide applications to increase dragonfly and damselfly extinction risks, a clear demonstration that multistressor frameworks are vital for identifying risks related to global change.” Researchers reinforce the importance of a broadscale, multistressor approach to adequately identify future risks to species in a changing climate. The data indicate that dragonflies are under significant stress, but their ability to quickly disburse, and move northward into new habitats provides them with an opportunity to avoid extinction.

The work also underlines that while human activities occur locally, the combined impacts of these activities have existential consequences on entire orders of species. Although the lack of broad-scale federal action on either pesticides or climate change is distressing, certain states, like California have begun to look at pesticide use in the context of agriculture and other macroecological factors through the development of a Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy.

Take action today by calling on state leaders to address the multitude of stressors brought by climate change by urging them to adopt a similar Climate Smart Strategy for your state.

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

Source: Ecological Applications, The Fulcrum

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2022) A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds that concentrations of quaternary ammonium compounds (QUATs or QACs) in the human body have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising health and safety concerns. QACs include a variety of chemicals in personal care, pharmaceutical, and medical products used as disinfectants, sanitizers, antimicrobials. However, over the past 70 years, large-scale production and use of these compounds led to accumulation in the environment, including surface water, sediment, and soil. Previously, researchers thought most QACs lack the potential to bioaccumulate,  as the chemicals are highly water-soluble, while dermal and oral absorption rates are low. However, emerging evidence demonstrates that specific QACs bioaccumulate in blood and other body tissues and can cause a range of toxic effects. Therefore, studies like this highlight the significance of monitoring chemical exposure for adverse health effects. The researchers note, “Further efforts are needed to explore the relationship between the use of QAC-containing products and the levels of QACs in human blood or of their metabolites in urine. Considering the increased use of some QACs as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, our findings warrant further exposure and epidemiological research focused on QACs.”

Amidst the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), the global demand for disinfectants and sanitizers has increased substantially as a means of preventing illness in residential and non-residential settings. Initially, public health officials considered disinfecting highly trafficked areas as the most effective way to combat COVID-19. This notion has led to dangerous disinfectant practices in many countries where trucks, drones, or robots disperse massive amounts of disinfectants into public areas. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported a sharp increase in calls to Poison Control Centers regarding illnesses resulting from the use or misuse of toxic disinfectants during the pandemic. The World Health Organization (WHO) and other infectious disease specialists condemn indiscriminate and vast amounts of disinfectant spraying in public areas, deeming it ineffective and a health hazard on contact or when combined with other disinfectants.

The researchers performed an in vitro—in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) model to determine the bioaccumulation potential of 18 QACs in blood samples from the liver, before (2019) and during (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. The model determines the clearance rate in vivo (in the body), in which a slower clearance rate means higher bioaccumulation potential. The results show 15 out of the 18 QACs are detectable in blood samples, with QAC concentrations significantly higher during the pandemic than prior to it. The main routes of exposure include diet, inhalation, ingestion, or the skin.

More than a third of U.S. residents participate in high-risk COVID-19 practices, misusing toxic disinfectant cleaners and disinfectants to prevent infection. Quaternary ammonium compounds are among some of the most harmful disinfectants, as their “long-lasting” properties have adverse impacts on human health, which has extensive documentation in the scientific literature. Effects include mutations, lower fertility, and increased antibiotic resistance. QAC disinfectants’ overuse in U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) detainment centers caused nose bleeds and other adverse health effects. Furthermore, Beyond Pesticides receives questions from concerned teachers asking for less harmful disinfectants to use in the classroom, especially as many are experiencing adverse impacts of disinfectant use (e.g., chemical skin burns, respiratory issues). Since QACs are in most disinfectant products, it remains ubiquitous in the environment as misuse continues.

Although disinfectants, like QACs, kill viruses, bacteria, and other microbes via cell wall and protein destruction, they can also negatively affect the immune system, thus reducing resistance to disease. People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system, are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern.

QACs are harmful to the respiratory system and have a long list of adverse effects from cancer and genetic mutations to lower fertility and increase antibiotic resistance. Most recently, the QAC antimicrobial cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) has raised concerns. The compound is present in mouthwashes, lozenges, toothpaste, and nasal sprays and is thus commonly encountered orally. A recent study finds CPCs have associations with adverse respiratory effects (e.g., lung inflammation). Moreover, acute oral inhalation can be fatal. Although CPC also has uses as an “inert” or undisclosed ingredient in pesticide products, recent findings demonstrate CPC has more biological potential. The respiratory system is essential to human survival, regulating gas exchange (oxygen-carbon dioxide) in the body to balance acid and base tissue cells for normal function. Considering COVID-19 is a systemic (general) disease that overwhelmingly impacts the respiratory system of many patients, exposure to CPCs present a heightened risk of co-occurring symptoms. Damage to the respiratory system can also trigger the development of extra-respiratory systemic manifestations like rheumatoid arthritis, and cardiovascular disease.

While EPA has certified several disinfectants as effective against COVID-19 (List N), many of these chemicals are hazardous. These chemicals include QACs and other toxic compounds documented on Beyond Pesticides’ list of “Disinfectants to Avoid.” Although disinfection can kill pathogens, one must consider guidelines associated with proper selection and use of products. Conveniently, several safer disinfectants on EPA’s list are effective against the virus, including citric acid, ethanol, isopropanol, L-lactic acid, hydrogen peroxide, sodium bisulfate, dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, and thymol. These chemicals are present on Beyond Pesticides’ “good” list of “Disinfectants to Look for” as natural-based substances tend to be safer while still effective at eliminating the virus on surfaces. Beyond Pesticides has said, “It is important during public health emergencies involving infectious diseases to scrutinize practices and products very carefully so that hazards presented by the crisis are not elevated because of the unnecessary threat introduced with toxic chemical use… There is tremendous pressure to use toxic disinfectants, despite the availability of safer products. In fact, while [CDC] is recommending 70% alcohol for surface disinfection, [EPA’s] Office of Pesticide Programs is advising the use of unnecessarily toxic substances, and reducing standards that govern their allowance on the market.”

This study is the first to comprehensively assess the bioaccumulation of QACs in blood via biomonitoring, demonstrating a difference in chemical concentrations before and during the pandemic. The study notes that frequent detection of QACs in blood reveals widespread exposure among the general population. The major QAC groups include benzylalkyldimethylammonium compounds (BACs), dialkyldimethylammonium compounds (DDACs), and alkyltrimethylammonium compounds (ATMACs). The results show that, of the three groups, ATMACs are most abundant in blood samples. The authors conclude, “[T]he higher QAC concentrations in blood collected during the pandemic suggest increased exposure during this period, possibly due to the increased disinfection of the indoor and outdoor environment.”

As the U.S. COVID-19 cases continue to rise, there is an urgent need to evaluate the effect pesticide exposure and uses have on health. Although some practices and products can prevent coronavirus infections, the continued use of toxic pesticides in the surrounding environment increases disease risk factors. When managing viral and bacterial infections, advocates say that we must not exacerbate the risk to animals and humans, while avoiding or controlling the threat. In the case of COVID-19, there exists measures of protection—both practices and products—that can prevent infection without using toxic products that increase risk factors. 

Advocates maintain that individuals and government officials alike should assess all risks associated with pesticide use, including the mode of action. However, EPA’s failure to respond to current science is a significant shortcoming of its risk assessment process, especially regarding disease implications. Individuals and government officials should observe all chemical ingredients on the disinfectant and sanitizer product labels and look at the use instructions to ensure that the method of use is safe for you. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent health studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on harms associated with pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on asthma/respiratory effects and other diseases. Additionally, learn how to protect yourself from COVID-19 safely by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disinfectants and Sanitizers for more information. 

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

Source: Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, January 31, 2022) Public concern is now heightened as Florida manatees are facing extremely severe threats—so severe that wildlife officials have resorted to feeding them cabbage and lettuce in an attempt to keep their rapidly dwindling populations alive. Protecting manatees will require a multi-faceted approach, including upgrading their status to endangered and protecting their watery habitat from toxic threats.

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to upgrade the Florida manatee to endangered and require protection from chemical pollution. Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators to support H.R. 4946. Tell Florida’s Governor DeSantis to protect manatees.

Florida manatees, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), can live as long as 60 years old, weigh up to 1,200 lbs, and have no natural predators. The biggest threat to these peaceful marine mammals is human activity. Humans harm manatees directly through boat strikes and encounters with fishing equipment, canal locks, and other flood control structures, but the largest threat comes from chemical pollutants.

In 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating that over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, a bipartisan group of Florida Congressional Representatives, Rep Vern Buchanan and Rep Darren Soto, have introduced legislation (H.R. 4946) that would reclassify the sea cows as endangered.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate (Roundup) herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other natural causes of mortality—including  red tide, and cold stress in the winter months, as manatees are unable to survive in waters below 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways from lawns and landscapes, parks, golf courses, and farm fields. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and highly manicured landscapes. The algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can either directly kill off more aquatic vegetation, or feed algae blooms as it breaks down. According to recent reporting, in just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. The Florida Governor’s plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce use of toxics and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical that lawmakers and the public take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to reduce the need to store tons of fertilizer in precarious lagoons, and spray these and other harmful chemicals broad areas of land throughout the state. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to upgrade the Florida manatee to endangered and require protection from chemical pollution. Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators to support H.R. 4946. Tell Florida’s Governor DeSantis to protect manatees.

Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

In 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, it is clear that optimism over the status of the species was premature.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate (Roundup) herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other natural causes of mortality—including  red tide, and cold stress in the winter months, as manatees are unable to survive in waters below 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and treated landscapes. The algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can either directly kill off more aquatic vegetation, or feed algae blooms as it breaks down. In just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. The Florida Governor’s plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce demand and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical to take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to eliminate threats from harmful chemicals. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Thank you for considering this request.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators (except Buchanan and Soto):

Florida manatees are facing severe threats—so severe that wildlife officials have resorted to feeding them cabbage and lettuce in attempts to keep their rapidly dwindling populations alive. Protecting manatees will require a multi-faceted approach, including upgrading their status to endangered and protecting their watery habitat from toxic threats. I am writing to ask you to support HR 4946 to re-classify manatees as endangered.

Florida manatees, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), can live as long as 60 years old, weigh up to 1,200 lbs, and have no natural predators. The biggest threat to these peaceful marine mammals is human activity. Humans harm manatees directly through boat strikes and encounters with fishing equipment, canal locks, and other flood control structures, but the largest threat comes from chemical pollutants.

In 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, a bipartisan group of Florida Congressmembers, Rep Vern Buchanan and Rep Darren Soto, have introduced legislation (H.R. 4946) that would re-classify the sea cows as endangered.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other causes of mortality—including red tide and cold stress in the winter months. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and treated landscapes. Algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can both directly kill off more aquatic vegetation and feed algae blooms as it breaks down. In just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. The Florida Governor’s plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce demand and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical that lawmakers and the public take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to reduce the need to store tons of fertilizer in precarious lagoons, and spray these and other harmful chemicals broad areas of land throughout the state. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Please support H.R. 4946.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representatives Buchanan and Soto:

I am writing to thank you for introducing H.R. 4946 to re-classify manatees as endangered. Florida manatees are facing severe threats—so severe that wildlife officials have resorted to feeding them cabbage and lettuce in attempts to keep their rapidly dwindling populations alive. Protecting manatees will require a multi-faceted approach, including upgrading their status to endangered and protecting their watery habitat from toxic threats.

Florida manatees, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), can live as long as 60 years old, weigh up to 1,200 lbs, and have no natural predators. The biggest threat to these peaceful marine mammals is human activity. Humans harm manatees directly through boat strikes and encounters with fishing equipment, canal locks, and other flood control structures, but the largest threat comes from chemical pollutants.

In 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, it is clear that optimism over the status of the species was premature.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other causes of mortality—including  red tide and cold stress in the winter months. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and treated landscapes. Algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can both directly kill off more aquatic vegetation and feed algae blooms as it breaks down. In just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. The Florida Governor’s plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce demand and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical that lawmakers and the public take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to reduce the need to store tons of fertilizer in precarious lagoons, and spray these and other harmful chemicals broad areas of land throughout the state. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Thank you for your support of the Florida manatee.

Letter to Florida Governor DeSantis:

I am writing to ask you to take action to protect the Florida manatee by using your leadership to require the management of state parks with organic land management practices.

In 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, it is clear that optimism over the status of the species was premature.

Massive red tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees depend. Starvation resulting from the loss of seagrass beds has been a major cause of death of more than 1,000 manatees last year, prompting wildlife officials to feed them cabbage and lettuce as a last resort to keep them alive.

Exposure to contaminants like glyphosate herbicides, which persistently pollute Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other natural causes of mortality—including  red tide, and cold stress in the winter months, as manatees are unable to survive in waters below 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Because manatees are the only marine mammals that drink freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing use of glyphosate and other herbicides on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of red tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and treated landscapes. The algae blooms cause a cascade of impacts. Floating on the surface, algae block sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can either directly kill off more aquatic vegetation, or feed algae blooms as it breaks down. In just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. Your plan to target wastewater treatment is an important component of the solution, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but more must be done to reduce demand and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

It is critical to take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife and take meaningful action to eliminate threats from harmful chemicals. Organic land management and organic agriculture are critical to the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Thank you for acting to protect the Florida manatee.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2022) Do city dwellers, who typically have smaller-sized greenspaces on their lots, have any role to play in supporting pollinators? Absolutely, according to a recent study of Bristol, England residential gardens. The researchers find that the amount of “floral resource” — the abundance of actual blooms, which translates roughly to amount of nectar production — varies widely across gardens and yards, and that small urban gardens and greenspaces are actually some of the most pollinator-friendly resources. The study notes that that several factors influence how well these resources provide food for pollinators, most important among which are pollinator-friendly management practices. Beyond Pesticides notes that there are multiple resources in the U.S. on making gardens and greenspaces “friendly” and useful to pollinators, including its own BEE Protective guidance on garden and landscape management, and that employing organic management practices is critical.

The researchers hope to “develop evidence-based management recommendations to support pollinator conservation in towns and cities.” Their paper, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, reports that the size of the Bristol gardens they studied actually had minimal relationship to the amount of nectar produced by the plants in them. There are factors beyond size that determine the utility of urban gardens to pollinators, including specific gardening practices, the diversity of plantings, the match between local pollinators and the morphology of blossoms, and the timing (“temporal availability”) of various species’ efflorescence (floral blooming).

The study evaluated nectar quantities and timing, species variety (636 taxa), and number of “floral units” (more than 2 million) across the 59 surveyed gardens and yards, whose sizes ranged from 31.3m² to 407.7 m². According to the paper, “Garden nectar production peaked in mid-summer, but individual gardens differed markedly in both the magnitude of their nectar supply and its temporal pattern.”

In evaluating which kinds of flowers are available when — in terms of both levels of nectar sugar available and flower morphology, which dictates what kinds of pollinators can access the nectar — the authors make recommendations about plants residents can install to make nectar sugar as reliably available to multiple pollinators across the season as possible. (See section 4.3 of the study paper.)

A note on that morphology point: organisms and native flowering plants in a given ecosystem have tended to co-evolve, and thus, be well adapted to their symbiotic relationship — a concept called “niche complementarity.” Introduction of non-native species can interrupt this “harmonic balance” because not all flowering plants work for all pollinators. For example, hummingbirds tend to favor the color red, and — with their long beaks and tongues — blooms that have long, narrow shapes (such as honeysuckle, penstemon, trumpet flower, and bee balm, among others). Honeybees, on the other hand, cannot see the color red, and do not have such extensive “gear” with which to retrieve nectar from those kinds of flowers. Instead, they prefer flowers of other colors (especially yellow), and those with a more-open structure that provides a bit of a “landing pad.” Coneflowers, black-eyed Susans, poppies, lilacs, and sunflowers are among their favorites.

The researchers note some limitations to their study. First, although they observed no significant difference in nectar sugar production between urban greenspaces in Bristol and in three other cities in the United Kingdom (UK), analogous data for non-UK cities are unavailable, so the validity of the study for other regions is unknown. Also, the data for the study are from 2019; whether the authors’ observations and conclusions (based on those data) are valid for any other given year is not clear.

One of the study’s authors, Nicholas Tew, remarked, “Most of the nectar produced in gardens is by a shrub in the corner or a border around the edge of the garden. There are some very flower-rich small gardens and some very flower-poor big gardens.” He also noted that the biggest nectar producers were shrubs, many of which grow fairly compactly and when in bloom, provide very dense flower clusters, and — perhaps surprisingly — that “the diversity you get in urban areas is remarkably high, much higher than most natural habitats, even nature reserves.”

This diversity can, according to the authors, support a greater level of pollinator diversity than surrounding rural areas are able to do. By way of explanation, Mr. Tew asserts that the variety of plant species across urban gardens is greater than what would be found in a natural habitat, and adds that the crazy quilt of small gardens across a city “create[s] much richer nectar resources” than would a small number of larger planted parcels. The researchers assert that, across the UK, gardens and yards provide an estimated 85% of nectar in urban areas.

The paper concludes: “Urban residential gardens differ markedly in the magnitude and temporal pattern of nectar supply, but bigger gardens are not necessarily better for feeding pollinators. Instead, the management decisions made by individuals are particularly important, with gardeners able to control habitat quality if not quantity. By visiting multiple gardens which differ independently in plant species composition, pollinators have the potential to access a diverse and continuous supply of nectar in urban landscapes.”

In the context of the pollinator (and general biodiversity) crises, this study offers encouragement to everyone, and to urbanites in particular, to do whatever is possible to provide food sources for pollinators, who are under significant duress from a variety of factors, including pesticide use, land management practices, intensity of land uses and increasing fragmentation of habitat, and to some extent, the climate crisis.

Nearly everyone can create one or more oases of food and habitat for pollinators, whether through a giant wildflower meadow or a few potted plants on a fire escape. The Pollinator Partnership lays out the benefits to pollinators of urban “patches” of plants, including weeds: “Green space within cities surrounds us and provides pollinators with the pollen and nectar they need. City parks, home gardens, planted medians, manicured municipal spaces, rooftop gardens, and even weedy remnants are pollinator habitat within urban areas.”

Help with creating such oases can be found across multiple resources, including:

• Gardening for Biodiversity, Pollinator-Friendly Seeds and Nursery Directory, and a Resources and Educational Materials webpage, all from Beyond Pesticides
• Planting for Pollinators, from The Nature Conservancy
• Enhancing Urban and Suburban Landscapes to Protect Pollinators, from Oregon State University
• Pollinator-Friendly Native Plant Lists, from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

Additionally, see Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective Habitat Guide. Though an older resource, it nevertheless has great information on specific resource-rich species to support pollinators organized by bloom time.

Spring is coming, so now is a great time to make plans for whatever green space you may have available. Any gardener would concur: there is little so hopeful as planting and then watching Nature do her thing. Consider installing and caring for a few (or a whole bunch of) flowering plants that will help support stressed pollinators. Then grab some lemonade and enjoy the flower-and-pollinator show!

Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/19/small-gardens-vital-as-big-ones- conserving-bees-bristol-university- study?utm_term=61e8ec53ac83a81938ee24ff2deb4078&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=es p&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email and https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.14094

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 27, 2022) Wildlife officials in Florida have resorted to supplementing starving manatees with cabbage and lettuce in an attempt to keep their rapidly dwindling populations alive. Massive Red Tides exacerbated by runoff from urban and agricultural pollution have directly killed off dozens of manatees over the last several years, but the indirect effects of these harmful algae blooms have been most catastrophic, resulting in significant loss of the seagrass beds upon which manatees rely. While Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has announced plans to spend $481 million on water quality improvement projects, conservationists note that the funds are primarily directed toward point source wastewater treatment, and more is needed to address nonpoint source herbicide and fertilizer runoff from agricultural, and urban and suburban yards.

Florida manatees, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee, can live as long as 60 years old, weigh up to 1,200 lbs, and have no natural predators within their range. The biggest threat to these peaceful marine mammals is human activity and environmental stressors. Unfortunately, the former is well-known to exacerbate the latter. Humans harm manatees primarily through boat strikes, but the animals can also die from eating or becoming entangled in fishing equipment, or become stuck in canal locks or other flood control structures.

There is evidence from the peer-reviewed literature that human-induced stressors like the use of glyphosate (Roundup) herbicides, which are a “pseudo persistent” (resulting from continuous runoff or exposure) pollutant in Florida waterways, can increase manatee susceptibility to other natural causes of mortality. This includes the effects of red tide and cold stress in the winter months, as manatees are unable to survive in waters below 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Because manatees are the only marine mammal that drinks freshwater, they are more likely to drink from highly contaminated runoff flowing directly into local waterways, such as home lawns, city parks, and golf courses. Research finds that 55.8% of manatees have glyphosate in their bodies.

Ongoing glyphosate and other herbicide use on farms, turfgrass, and directly in waterways to manage species identified as “invasive” is particularly concerning in the context of the current crisis. Incidents of Red Tide and other harmful algae blooms are exacerbated by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial farms and highly manicured landscapes. These algae blooms cause a trophic cascade. Floating on the surface, algae blocks sunlight to seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. As seagrass is lost, manatees and other animals that rely on it for food and habitat also suffer. In this context, glyphosate, a phosphorous-based herbicide, can either directly kill off more aquatic vegetation, or feed algae blooms as it breaks down. According to recent reporting, in just one region, Sarasota Bay, 18% of seagrass was lost between 2018 and 2020. The Florida Governor’s plan to target wastewater treatment is an important part of the puzzle, particularly in light of major incidents like the Piney Point spill, but advocates say that more must be done to reduce demand and clean up diffuse sources of pollution as well.

In 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service moved Florida manatees from fully endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. However, with recent reports indicating over 1,000 manatees died in just the last year alone, a bipartisan group of Florida Congressional delegation, Rep Vern Buchanan and Rep Darren Soto, has introduced legislation that would reclassify the sea cows as endangered.

In the meantime, feeding programs appear to be at least partially successful, attracting a large number of manatees to a site, which may be expanded in the future. But this is a last resort scenario.

It is critical that lawmakers and the public take a holistic look at the problems facing manatees and other marine wildlife, and take meaningful action to reduce the need to store tons of fertilizer in precarious lagoons, and spray these and other harmful chemicals on expansive areas of land throughout the state. Organic land management and organic agriculture must be a large part of the solution. By eliminating toxic pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use, and focusing on maintaining or improving soil health, organic practices can stop nonpoint source runoff from making its way into local water bodies.

Residents in Florida and around the country are encouraged to contact their local and state lawmakers and urge them to move towards safer, natural practices that do not rely on toxic pesticides or fertilizers.

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

Sources: Washington Post, FL Gov press release, Herald-Tribune, FOX13 News, Save the Manatee

(Beyond Pesticides, January 26, 2022) Officials in New Jersey and New York are taking action to protect their states’ declining pollinator populations by restricting  outdoor uses of neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides. In New York, the state Department of Environmental Conservation announced it would make these pesticides “restricted use,” and only available to state certified applicators. In New Jersey, A2070/S1016, sponsored by state Senator Bob Smith and Assemblyman Clinton Calabrese, was signed by Governor Phil Murphy last week after years of advocacy from national, state, and local pollinator and environmental groups. “The law relies on the most up-to-date science to ban the largest uses of neonics in the state,” said Lucas Roads, staff attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is great news for not just pollinators that are poisoned by neonics, but for all the farmers who depend on insect pollination and for all New Jerseyans that value thriving ecosystems.”

A2070/S1016 provides for a targeted phase-out of outdoor uses of bee-toxic neonicotinoids, chemicals implicated not only in the decline of pollinators, but also the collapse of entire ecosystems. Beginning 12 months after passage, the bill requires state agencies classify neonicotinoids as “restricted use.” Under this designation, only certified pesticide applicators would be allowed the apply these products, effectively eliminating consumer uses. Then, in late 2023, the bill prohibits all outdoor non-agricultural neonicotinoid uses. Exemptions are limited to vet care, wood preservation, outdoor applications within one foot of a building, and invasive species. The state agriculture commissioner may also grant a time-limited exemption for use only if an applicator can show that a “valid environmental emergency exists” and that no other less harmful pesticide is available for the given emergency.

New Jersey and Maine have now passed the strongest state pollinator protection laws in the country. While now in addition to New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, and Massachusetts have generally removed consumer neonic uses from the market, the NJ and ME bills represent another step forward by eliminating most outdoor non-agricultural uses. These changes will have major implications for pollinator and ecosystem health, reducing an even greater proportion of dangerous pesticide use. A report published by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection found that out of 250 surface water samples collected, at least one neonicotinoid was detected in over half of those tested. With even minute exposures to neonic products likely to kill off wild pollinators, any future uses that can be eliminated are a net positive for wildlife.

Although progress protecting pollinators in the U.S. has been slow in comparison to actions taken in the European Union, which has banned all outdoor neonicotinoid uses, including those in agriculture, the pesticide industry has focused considerable resources on halting U.S. policies. A 2020 report, “The Playbook for Poisoning the Earth,” published in the Intercept by reporter Lee Fang details a massive public deception campaign by the pesticide industry, aimed directly at stopping state and federal action protecting pollinators from these highly hazardous insecticides. As part of this playbook, the pesticide industry has worked to cast itself not as progenitor, but as the solution to pollinators’ plight. This approach has focused on spinning the science around neonics, diverting attention to pre-existing problems in beekeeping, like disease and mites, that are in fact exacerbated by neonic use, and using industry connected farmers, beekeepers, scientists and other influencers in attempts to confuse lawmakers and the public on the true cause of pollinator declines.

As far back as 2014, Beyond Pesticides asserted that this ongoing pollinator crisis is No Longer a Big Mystery. But meaningful action has been diffuse, and only seven states to date have enacted restrictions on neonicotinoid use. At the federal level, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) merely required non-committal “managed pollinator protection plans” from individual states (MP3s). These plans essentially handed off the baton to state pesticide lobby groups to address how to protect pollinators; unsurprisingly, pesticide use was not a major component of most of these plans. In fact, in 2019 the agency was cited for its failure to provide basic oversight for these state MP3s, with the EPA Office of Inspector General noting that the agency had no way to evaluate the impact of MP3s, that the agency focused too much on acute risks to pollinators, and an insufficient amount on chronic impacts. EPA’s inaction and inability to stand up to the pesticide industry means that pollinators and ecosystems continue to suffer throughout most of the U.S.

State action is urgently needed to fill in the gaps left by EPA inaction, and New Jersey and Maine represent a new high bar for neonicotinoid restrictions. But in the long term, it is critical to stop all neonicotinoid use in the U.S. and prevent the next round of pollinator toxic chemicals from becoming widespread. The Saving America’s Pollinators Act would accomplish this goal, side-stepping industry-influenced EPA and allowing a board of pollinator experts to make decisions around pesticide registrations. Ask your elected representative in Congress to support pollinators by cosponsoring Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA). If they are already a cosponsor, use this occasion to thank them for their leadership on this critical issue.

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

Source: NRDC press release, New York DEC press release, A2070/S1016

(Beyond Pesticides, January 25, 2022) Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill identifies how triclosan (TCS), an antimicrobial agent used in many household products, impacts the microbial communities in the gut, causing inflammation. According to the study published in Nature Communications, triclosan worsens the effects of ulcerative colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), through the retention of harmful bacteria. Ample evidence demonstrates environmental contaminants, including pesticides like triclosan, negatively affect microbes in the human mouth and gut. Although studies show how triclosan exposure affects human health, more research is now questioning how exposure to these toxic chemical influences gut health. Therefore, studies like these highlight the importance of evaluating how chemical contaminant deregulates normal bodily function through microbiome changes. Furthermore, the study has significant implications for considerations that should be, but are not currently, a part of pesticide review and registration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The researchers note, “Together, our results define a mechanism by which intestinal microbes contribute to the metabolic activation and gut toxicity of TCS, and highlight the importance of considering the contributions of the gut microbiota in evaluating the toxic potential of environmental chemicals.”

Instances of intestinal bowel disease (IBD)—involving the chronic inflammation of intestinal tissues—incidences and prevalence are readily increasing. As many as 3 million U.S. adults suffer from some form of IBD, with the year 1999 representing a 50 percent increase in disease cases. Disease symptoms include stomach pain, diarrhea, rectal bleeding, and an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. IBD has no cure, and current treatments can have severe side effects. Although the study notes environmental chemical exposure has links to IBD prevalence, the researchers aim to uncover the mechanisms driving gut microbe disruption.

University researchers sought to identify the molecular mechanisms involved in triclosan’s toxic effects on the gut. The scientists employed in vitro (artificial environmental), ex vivo (outside the organism), and in vivo (inside the organism) analyses on microbial communities in the gut of mice. Specifically, researchers investigated specific bacterial enzymes involved in triggering triclosan toxicity through metabolization. The study results find that microbial β-glucuronidase (GUS) enzymes are responsible for metabolically activating triclosan within the colon, driving gut toxicity. Conversely, inhibition of this bacterial enzyme decreases the gut inflammatory effects of triclosan, thus showcasing the impact specific microbes play in chemical toxicity.

Gut microbiota plays a crucial role in lifelong digestion, immune, and central nervous system regulation, as well as other bodily functions. Through the gut biome, pesticide exposure can enhance or exacerbate the adverse effects of additional environmental toxicants on the body. Since the gut microbiome shapes metabolism, it can mediate some toxic effects of environmental chemicals. However, with prolonged exposure to various environmental contaminants, critical chemical-induced changes may occur in the gut microbes, influencing adverse health outcomes. Over 300 chemical contaminants and their byproducts are common in human blood and urine samples. Most chemical contamination affecting the gut comes from a diet reliant on conventional, pesticide-laden, highly processed foods. In a 2020 study, researchers associated developmental defects, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, obesity, thyroid disorders, and improper immune operation with changes to the gut after exposure to environmental contaminants. Despite the growing body of work linking gut bacteria to overall health, pesticide regulators generally overlook the concept. Therefore, regulators must consider the emerging science on the dangers of pesticides beyond the mortality of humans, animals, and plants to include overall health and fitness.

A bioinformatics tool developed by researchers from the University of Turku in Finland indicates that “54% of species in the core human gut microbiome are sensitive to glyphosate.” (See Daily News.) Published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, the researchers’ paper states, “The widespread use of glyphosate may have a strong effect on gut microbiomes as well as on human health.” Bats foraging in chemical-intensive banana plantations have much less gut diversity than bats foraging in organic banana fields and natural forestland, finds research published this month in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. (See Daily News.)

Triclosan is an antimicrobial agent in products regulated by EPA and FDA. However, cumulative exposure to triclosan registered by both agencies poses unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Many studies identify the various health and environmental effects of triclosan as the chemical absorbs through organs, from the skin to the gastrointestinal tract, and are environmentally persistent. Several independent, peer-reviewed research studies have identified triclosan as an endocrine-disrupting chemical. On top of its endocrine-disrupting effects, recent work shows that triclosan is a possible human carcinogen. Similar to this study, a 2016 peer-reviewed study published in the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology found that triclosan promotes cancer cell development in mice through pathways shared with humans. Furthermore, like many antimicrobial and antibacterial products, triclosan use increases the persistence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a severe public health concern for disease risk. Despite these findings, EPA’s evaluation of triclosan fails to address one of the most concerning aspects of its chemical activity concerning human and environmental health. 

While people who use triclosan products daily have higher concentrations in their bodies, consumers who do not use triclosan can still encounter the chemical through food, water, and dust. Although FDA banned triclosan from soap products in 2016, other personal care products still contain the chemical. These products include toothpaste, mouthwash, hand sanitizers, cosmetics, and antibacterial/antimicrobial clothing. However, EPA and FDA evaluate different use of triclosan, with EPA responsible for assessing the chemical in various consumer products, marketed as “microban.” Therefore, individuals may encounter multiple sources of triclosan, especially on consumer products, such as toothbrush bristles, that tend to accumulate the chemical.  

To improve and sustain gut microbiome health, the use of toxic pesticides are problematic. Although EPA denied a petition by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch to remove remaining triclosan uses in 2015, this study adds to growing evidence demonstrating the danger of this chemical. The data suggests that adequate public health protection requires EPA and FDA to work  together to eliminate health risks from ongoing exposure to triclosan. Beyond Pesticides holds that safer alternatives are available, and organic practices can protect public health and the environment. In addition to positive impacts on the human microbiome, organically grown food (i.e., milk, meat, strawberries, tomatoes, and a range of other foods) contain a much more diverse bacterial community than their conventional counterparts. Moreover, emphasis on converting to regenerative-organic systems and using least-toxic pest control to mitigate harmful exposure to pesticides, restore soil health, and reduce carbon emissions, should be the main focus. Learn more about soil and gut microbiota and its importance via Beyond Pesticide’s journal Pesticides and You. Additionally, learn more about the effects of pesticides on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, which supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For a complete history of the regulation of triclosan, see Beyond Pesticides’ triclosan timeline and webpage on triclosan.

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

Source: Nature Communications, Science Daily

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2022) The advisory board of health experts who counseled President Biden during his transition have now called for an entirely new domestic pandemic strategy geared to the “new normal” of living with the virus indefinitely. While this new strategy addresses important issues like “reimagining public health” and disparities in vulnerability to COVID, it misses out on an important one—reducing vulnerability to disease by eliminating exposure to toxic chemicals, especially those that threaten the immune, nervous, and respiratory systems.

Tell the President, EPA, and Congress to address the ongoing threat of Covid-19 by eliminating toxic pesticide use that elevates overall, and disproportionately for people of color, the public’s vulnerability to the virus.

The strategic initiative is organized by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, an oncologist, medical ethicist, and University of Pennsylvania professor who advised former President Barack Obama. The group published a collection of opinion articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). In those articles, the group advises President Biden to give up on an eradication goal, accept that COVID-19 is here to stay—that is, that it is becoming endemic—and adopt a goal of living with it. These articles explore what that means.

The introductory article by Dr. Emanuel et al. says, “As the US moves from crisis to control, this national strategy needs to be updated. Policy makers need to specify the goals and strategies for the ‘new normal’ of life with COVID-19 and communicate them clearly to the public.” There are many unknowns concerning a future with COV-19, the authors say, including “[t]he precise duration of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from vaccination or prior infection; . . . whether SARS-CoV-2 will become a seasonal infection; whether antiviral therapies will prevent long COVID; or whether even more transmissible, immune-evading, or virulent variants will arise after Omicron.”

In spite of the uncertainties, the authors believe, “The goal for the ‘new normal’ with COVID-19 does not include eradication or elimination, e.g., the ‘zero COVID’ strategy. Neither COVID-19 vaccination nor infection appear to confer lifelong immunity. Current vaccines do not offer sterilizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infectious diseases cannot be eradicated when there is limited long-term immunity following infection or vaccination or nonhuman reservoirs of infection. The majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and the SARS-CoV-2 incubation period is short, preventing the use of targeted strategies like ‘ring vaccination.’ Even ‘fully’ vaccinated individuals are at risk for breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consequently, a ‘new normal with COVID’ in January 2022 is not living without COVID-19.”

The authors address the problems of developing a pandemic preparedness program encompassing a comprehensive approach to all respiratory viruses; a comprehensive, digital, real-time, integrated data infrastructure for public health; and advances in vaccines and therapeutics. It must also address “stark racial and ethnic disparities” and differences in vulnerability.

However, these medical professionals need to look beyond the world of medicine to the world where disparities and differences in vulnerabilities are created. We know that exposure to toxic chemicals like pesticides creates greater vulnerability to disease. The manufacture, use, and disposal of pesticides disproportionately affects farmworker and fenceline communities, where those “stark racial and ethnic disparities” must be addressed. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “The COVID-19 pandemic has brought social and racial injustice and inequity to the forefront of public health. It has highlighted that health equity is still not a reality as COVID-19 has unequally affected many racial and ethnic minority groups, putting them more at risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19.” The use of toxic pesticides is not necessary. Beyond health professionals, agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be included in a pandemic preparedness program to eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides that increases vulnerability to disease.

Tell the President, EPA, and Congress to address the ongoing threat of Covid-19 by eliminating toxic pesticide use that elevates overall, and disproportionately for people of color, the public’s vulnerability to the virus.

Letter to President Biden

The advisory board of health experts who counseled you during your transition have now called for an entirely new domestic pandemic strategy geared to the “new normal” of living with the virus indefinitely. While this new strategy addresses important issues like “reimagining public health” and disparities in vulnerability to COVID, it misses out on an important one—reducing vulnerability to disease by eliminating exposure to toxic chemicals, especially those that threaten the immune, nervous, and respiratory systems. We must address the ongoing threat of Covid-19 by eliminating toxic pesticide use that elevates overall, and disproportionately for people of color, vulnerability to the virus.

The strategic initiative is organized by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, an oncologist, medical ethicist, and University of Pennsylvania professor who advised former President Barack Obama. In a collection of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association, they advise you to give up on an eradication goal, accept that COVID-19 is here to stay—that is, that it is becoming endemic—and adopt a goal of living with it.

Dr. Emanuel et al. says, “As the US moves from crisis to control, this national strategy needs to be updated. Policy makers need to specify the goals and strategies for the ‘new normal’ of life with COVID-19 and communicate them clearly to the public.” There are many unknowns concerning a future with COV-19, but the authors believe, “The goal for the ‘new normal’ with COVID-19 does not include eradication or elimination, e.g., the ‘zero COVID’ strategy. Neither COVID-19 vaccination nor infection appear to confer lifelong immunity. Current vaccines do not offer sterilizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infectious diseases cannot be eradicated when there is limited long-term immunity following infection or vaccination or nonhuman reservoirs of infection. The majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and the SARS-CoV-2 incubation period is short, preventing the use of targeted strategies like ‘ring vaccination.’ Even ‘fully’ vaccinated individuals are at risk for breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consequently, a ‘new normal with COVID’ in January 2022 is not living without COVID-19.”

The authors address the problems of developing a pandemic preparedness program encompassing a comprehensive approach to all respiratory viruses; a comprehensive, digital, real-time, integrated data infrastructure for public health; and advances in vaccines and therapeutics. It must also address “stark racial and ethnic disparities” and differences in vulnerability.

However, there is more to disease prevention than medical advances. Exposure to toxic chemicals like pesticides creates greater vulnerability to disease. The manufacture, use, and disposal of pesticides disproportionately affects farmworker and fenceline communities, where those “stark racial and ethnic disparities” must be addressed. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “The COVID-19 pandemic has brought social and racial injustice and inequity to the forefront of public health. It has highlighted that health equity is still not a reality as COVID-19 has unequally affected many racial and ethnic minority groups, putting them more at risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19.” The use of toxic pesticides is not necessary. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be included in a pandemic preparedness program to eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides that increases vulnerability to disease.

Please instruct EPA to cancel unnecessary pesticide registrations as part of a plan to limit the ongoing threat of Covid-19 to people generally and to people of color who disproportionately have higher rates of the virus.

Letter to EPA Administrator and Office of Pesticide Programs

The advisory board of health experts who counseled President Biden during his transition have now called for an entirely new domestic pandemic strategy geared to the “new normal” of living with the virus indefinitely. While this new strategy addresses important issues like “reimagining public health” and disparities in vulnerability to COVID, it misses out on an important one—reducing vulnerability to disease by eliminating exposure to toxic chemicals, especially those that threaten the immune, nervous, and respiratory systems. We must address the ongoing threat of Covid-19 by eliminating toxic pesticide use that elevates overall, and disproportionately for people of color, the public’s vulnerability to the virus.

The strategic initiative is organized by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, an oncologist, medical ethicist, and University of Pennsylvania professor who advised former President Barack Obama. In a collection of opinion articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), they advise giving up on an eradication goal, accepting that COVID-19 is here to stay—that is, that it is becoming endemic—and adopting a goal of living with it.

Dr. Emanuel et al. says, “As the US moves from crisis to control, this national strategy needs to be updated. Policy makers need to specify the goals and strategies for the ‘new normal’ of life with COVID-19 and communicate them clearly to the public.” There are many unknowns concerning a future with COV-19, but the authors believe, “The goal for the ‘new normal’ with COVID-19 does not include eradication or elimination, e.g., the ‘zero COVID’ strategy. Neither COVID-19 vaccination nor infection appear to confer lifelong immunity. Current vaccines do not offer sterilizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infectious diseases cannot be eradicated when there is limited long-term immunity following infection or vaccination or nonhuman reservoirs of infection. The majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and the SARS-CoV-2 incubation period is short, preventing the use of targeted strategies like ‘ring vaccination.’ Even ‘fully’ vaccinated individuals are at risk for breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consequently, a ‘new normal with COVID’ in January 2022 is not living without COVID-19.”

The authors address the problems of developing a pandemic preparedness program encompassing a comprehensive approach to all respiratory viruses; a comprehensive, digital, real-time, integrated data infrastructure for public health; and advances in vaccines and therapeutics. It must also address “stark racial and ethnic disparities” and differences in vulnerability.

However, there is more to disease prevention than medical advances. Exposure to toxic chemicals like pesticides creates greater vulnerability to disease. The manufacture, use, and disposal of pesticides disproportionately affects farmworker and fenceline communities, where those “stark racial and ethnic disparities” must be addressed. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “The COVID-19 pandemic has brought social and racial injustice and inequity to the forefront of public health. It has highlighted that health equity is still not a reality as COVID-19 has unequally affected many racial and ethnic minority groups, putting them more at risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19.” The use of toxic pesticides is not necessary. Agencies like EPA must be included in a pandemic preparedness program to eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides that increases vulnerability to disease.

Please eliminate the use of toxic pesticides as part of a plan to limit the ongoing threat of Covid-19 to people generally and to people of color who disproportionately have higher rates of the virus.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

The advisory board of health experts who counseled President Biden during his transition have now called for an entirely new domestic pandemic strategy geared to the “new normal” of living with the virus indefinitely. While this new strategy addresses important issues like “reimagining public health” and disparities in vulnerability to COVID, it misses out on an important one—reducing vulnerability to disease by eliminating exposure to toxic chemicals, especially those that threaten the immune, nervous, and respiratory systems. We must address the ongoing threat of Covid-19 by eliminating toxic pesticide use that elevates overall, and disproportionately for people of color, the public’s vulnerability to the virus.

The strategic initiative is organized by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, an oncologist, medical ethicist, and University of Pennsylvania professor who advised former President Barack Obama. In a collection of opinion articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), they advise giving up on an eradication goal, accepting that COVID-19 is here to stay—that is, that it is becoming endemic—and adopting a goal of living with it.

Dr. Emanuel et al. says, “As the US moves from crisis to control, this national strategy needs to be updated. Policy makers need to specify the goals and strategies for the ‘new normal’ of life with COVID-19 and communicate them clearly to the public.” There are many unknowns concerning a future with COV-19, but authors believe, “The goal for the ‘new normal’ with COVID-19 does not include eradication or elimination, e.g., the ‘zero COVID’ strategy. Neither COVID-19 vaccination nor infection appear to confer lifelong immunity. Current vaccines do not offer sterilizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infectious diseases cannot be eradicated when there is limited long-term immunity following infection or vaccination or nonhuman reservoirs of infection. The majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and the SARS-CoV-2 incubation period is short, preventing the use of targeted strategies like ‘ring vaccination.’ Even ‘fully’ vaccinated individuals are at risk for breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consequently, a ‘new normal with COVID’ in January 2022 is not living without COVID-19.”

The authors address the problems of developing a pandemic preparedness program encompassing a comprehensive approach to all respiratory viruses; a comprehensive, digital, real-time, integrated data infrastructure for public health; and advances in vaccines and therapeutics. It must also address “stark racial and ethnic disparities” and differences in vulnerability.

However, there is more to disease prevention than medical advances. Exposure to toxic chemicals like pesticides creates greater vulnerability to disease. The manufacture, use, and disposal of pesticides disproportionately affects farmworker and fenceline communities, where those “stark racial and ethnic disparities” must be addressed. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “The COVID-19 pandemic has brought social and racial injustice and inequity to the forefront of public health. It has highlighted that health equity is still not a reality as COVID-19 has unequally affected many racial and ethnic minority groups, putting them more at risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19.” The use of toxic pesticides is not necessary. Agencies like EPA must be included in a pandemic preparedness program to eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides that increases vulnerability to disease.

Your oversight is required to ensure that toxic pesticides do not intensify future pandemics.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 21, 2022) The bottom-line conclusion of a recent study is that global chemical pollution has now exceeded a safe limit for humanity. As reported by The Guardian, “The cocktail of chemical pollution that pervades the planet now threatens the stability of global ecosystems upon which humanity depends.” Published in Environmental Science & Technology, the research paper asserts that the creation and deployment (into the materials stream and environment) of so many “novel entities” (synthetic chemicals) is happening at a pace that eclipses human ability to assess and monitor them. The study team calls this exceedance of the “planetary boundary” of such chemical pollution “the point at which human-made changes to the Earth push it outside the stable environment of the last 10,000 years.” According to Beyond Pesticides, which covers pesticide (and other kinds of) chemical pollution, these results underscore a grim twin reality to the human-caused climate emergency, and should be a dire warning on the state of our shared environment and a time for systemic movement to eliminate fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers.

Hailing from Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, and Switzerland, members of the research team define “novel entities” as those compounds and materials introduced by humans that “are novel in a geological sense and that could have large-scale impacts that threaten the integrity of Earth system processes.” The novel entities that have so suffused Earth’s air, water, ecosystems and biodiversity, wildlife, and human bodies comprise 350,000 synthetic chemicals — including persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) — found in plastics, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, industrial and manufacturing compounds, antibiotics, degreasers, cleaning agents, and many other commodities. Only a tiny fraction of those 350,000 compounds has been assessed for safety, yet many are now found in human tissues. (See the Beyond Pesticides web page on “body burden” of synthetic chemicals and the relationship to disease development.)

Although there is no consensual metric attached to the category of “novel entities,” the researchers assert that the human introduction of them is globally concerning because “these entities exhibit persistence, mobility across scales with consequent widespread distribution and accumulation in organisms and the environment, and potential negative impacts on vital Earth System processes or subsystems.”

The introduction of synthetic chemicals into the materials stream began in 1869 with the creation of chloral hydrate (a sedative) and the first nearly synthetic polymer, celluloid, which was developed as a substitute for ivory. Such innovations, which began in the 19^th century as a trickle of new compounds and materials, yielded in the first half of the 20^th century materials such as nylon, Bakelite (the first fully synthetic plastic), and the first synthetic fluorocarbon. But it was the advent of World War II and the decades to follow that opened a firehose of new materials, as military–industrial research spawned a universe of new chemicals and materials.

Many of those were plastics; during the war, U.S. plastic production increased by 300%. The plastic surge continued throughout the rest of the 20^th century, and is unabated today. Indeed, 2020 estimates clocked the amount of plastic in the world at roughly 8.3 billion tons — with 6.3 billion of those tons being “trashed” plastic. As the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) invites us to consider: “Imagine 55 million jumbo jets and that’s how much plastic exists.”

Beyond plastics, the 20^th century spawned a new world of chemical compounds that were engineered into nuclear and chemical weapons, pesticides, and the universe of nearly 5,000 PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl) substances, among others. Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a PhD candidate and member of the research team, commented, “There has been a fiftyfold increase in the production of chemicals since 1950 and this is projected to triple again by 2050. The pace [at which] societies are producing and releasing new chemicals into the environment is not consistent with staying within a safe operating space for humanity.”

Were all these synthetic compounds chemically inert, the implications for human and environmental health might be quite different. However, biological organisms do interact with many of them, causing largely unknown, unpredictable (except as they are studied retrospectively), and frequently, harmful impacts to all manner of organisms, from archaea to armadillos to humans (never mind the ecosystem impacts).

The extensive chemical pollution this study documents is a threat to the functioning of Earth’s systems because, as The Guardian writes, it damages “the biological and physical processes that underpin all life. For example, pesticides wipe out many non-target insects, which are fundamental to all ecosystems and, therefore, to the provision of clean air, water and food.” Rebecca Altman, PhD, member of the Board of Directors of Science and Environmental Health Network, has written in the article, “Time-bombing the future,” this pithy sentence: “Synthetics created in the 20^th century have become an evolutionary force, altering human biology and the web of life.”

The study paper notes that toxic plastic pollution — which is now found, as The Guardian puts it, “from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans” — is of especial concern. One of the researchers, Professor Bethanie Carney Almroth, commented, “There’s evidence that things are pointing in the wrong direction every step of the way. For example, the total mass of plastics now exceeds the total mass of all living mammals. That to me is a pretty clear indication that we’ve crossed a boundary. We’re in trouble, but there are things we can do to reverse some of this.” The research paper asserts that the high social (health, environmental, economic, et al.) costs of the impacts of these “novel entities” are a potent argument for strong and urgent action.

According to The Guardian, Professor Sir Ian Boyd of the University of St. Andrews notes: “The rise of the chemical burden in the environment is diffuse and insidious. Even if the toxic effects of individual chemicals can be hard to detect, this does not mean that the aggregate effect is likely to be insignificant. Regulation is not designed to detect or understand these effects. We are relatively blind to what is going on as a result. In this situation, where we have a low level of scientific certainty about effects, there is a need for a much more precautionary approach to new chemicals and to the amount being emitted to the environment.”

The researchers say that stronger regulation and a fixed cap on chemical production and release are needed — initiatives analogous to the maximum carbon targets that have been established (if not necessarily honored) in some locations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Increasingly, members of the global science and health communities are calling for action on reining in the flow of synthetic chemicals and plastics, into the environment — including the establishment of a global scientific body for chemical pollution akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A 2009 study, “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity,” asserts that there are nine “planetary boundaries” within which humans should operate in order to avoid disastrous consequence. These boundaries relate to climate change, biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, global freshwater use, changes/intensification of land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution. The study authors note that in 2009, three of those nine interlinked planetary boundaries had already been transgressed.

In late March 2021, Mongabay published an article, “The nine boundaries humanity must respect to keep the planet habitable,” which set out a very slightly revised system of boundaries and a sober warning. “All life on Earth, and human civilization, are sustained by vital biogeochemical systems, which are in delicate balance. However, our species — due largely to rapid population growth and explosive consumption — is destabilizing these Earth processes, endangering the stability of the ‘safe operating space for humanity.’ Scientists note nine planetary boundaries beyond which we can’t push Earth Systems without putting our societies at risk . . . . Humanity is already existing outside the safe operating space for at least four of the nine boundaries [emphasis by Beyond Pesticides]: climate change, biodiversity, land-system change, and biogeochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus imbalance).”

The subject study confirms that humankind has now pushed past the fifth of the nine boundaries in its planet-wide synthetical chemical pollution that is damaging the biological and physical processes that underpin all life. Beyond Pesticides has long taken to task the regulatory bodies in the U.S., particularly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its multitude of failures in regulating pesticides. But EPA also regulates non-pesticide synthetic chemicals and materials, as do other federal agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Comporting with Professor Boyd’s points, Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly asserted that a “whack-a-mole” approach to regulation of pesticides, and toxic synthetic chemicals broadly, is decidedly not a precautionary way forward. What is needed urgently is a holistic, precautionary approach to the deployment of all synthetic chemicals, domestically and around the world, given the apparent lack of urgency among policymakers to take action, and the piecemeal chemical regulations that abound in the U.S. and abroad. As noted previously, the researchers are recommending an international body to address these issues.

Beyond Pesticides wrote in its Pesticides and You journal two winters ago (see p. ii): “When we advance reform, we do not want to just tinker with a failed risk assessment-based regulatory system. . . . We want to eliminate the use of these toxic materials, starting from the ground up. This means that we, as a part of our decision-making process — whether in a community or [in] federal law — must look at whole ecological and biological systems, the range of interactions that are possible, and reject any harm. With alternatives available, there is no reason to accept anything less.”

Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/18/chemical-pollution-has-passed-safe-limit-for-humanity-say-scientists and https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158#

Environmental Science & Technology is an “environmental science and technology research journal that aims to be transformational and direction-setting, publishing rigorous and robust papers for a multidisciplinary and diverse audience of scientists, policy makers and the broad environmental community.”

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 20, 2022) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced it will follow the law and review the impact of pesticides on endangered species prior to authorizing a pesticide for use. While it is not usually news for a government agency to announce it will follow statutory requirements, the agency’s new policy reverses decades of violative practice, whereby the EPA allowed pesticides on to market without a complete understanding of how threatened and endangered species would fare. Advocates are responding favorably to this commonsense reform, but emphasize that this should only be the start, and more significant actions are necessary to fix the long-term failures in EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs.

According to EPA, “There are over 1,300 endangered or threatened species in the United States today. Endangered species are those plants and animals that have become so rare they are in danger of becoming extinct.” Scientists warn that humanity is causing the sixth mass extinction in the planet’s history. A series of reports from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) highlights how human activities threaten the healthy functioning of ecosystems that produce food and water, as well as one million species now at risk of extinction. The UNEP report, Food System Impacts on Biodiversity Loss, identifies the global food system as the primary driver of biodiversity loss. (See Daily News.)

EPA’s announcement pertains to how it registers pesticides in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under Section 7 of ESA, federal agencies are required to ensure that the actions they carry out do not jeopardize the existence of endangered or threatened species. In the context of pesticide use, EPA must consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a pesticide may adversely affect an ESA listed species. If the consultation with federal wildlife agencies determines that threatened or endangered species is in jeopardy, EPA must make recommendations to limit use of a pesticide to protect that species.

In practice, EPA rarely conducted these required consultations prior to registering a pesticide. This placed the onus on health and environmental groups to bring EPA to court to force legal compliance. EPA acknowledges this in its press release, stating, “…in most cases, EPA did not consistently assess the potential effects of conventional pesticides on listed species when registering new AIs [active ingredients]. This resulted in insufficient protections from new AIs for listed species, as well as resource-intensive litigation against EPA for registering new AIs prior to assessing potential effects on listed species.”

As part of its new policy, EPA will conduct a formal consultation with wildlife agencies prior to registering a new pesticide active ingredient. If the agency determines that the pesticide is likely to adversely affect endangered species or their habitat, EPA may require additional mitigation measures from the start. EPA may also require pesticide manufacturers to add a link to an online system that alerts applicators to pesticide use restrictions in areas where endangered species and their habitat need protections.

The agency indicates, however, it will phase in this policy to provide “regulatory predictability” to pesticide manufacturers and users, and may initially register some new pesticides without completion of a formal consultation. This phase in process, which the agency indicates is due to resource constraints, will incorporate new uses for existing pesticides, including those on crops genetically engineered to tolerate pesticide use.  

Less is clear about how the agency will complete ESA requirements for pesticides already on the market. Biological reviews for many commonly used pesticides, like the highly hazardous neonicotinoid class of systemic insecticides, have taken over a decade to receive a formal consultation with wildlife agencies. Earlier this year, the Center for Biological Diversity sued EPA for registering new synthetic pyrethroid insecticides without any substantive assessment of endangered species risks.

There is also concern as to whether federal wildlife agencies will take on this task. FWS, like EPA, consistently claims lack of resources as a reason for incomplete consultations and endangered species reviews. This likewise results in legal settlements with environmental groups that require FWS prioritize and adopt a timetable for its legal requirements.

EPA does provide some indication that this will not be its only substantive action on pesticide use. “Incorporating ESA assessments into the registration process for new pesticides is a key component of EPA’s larger effort to meet the Agency’s ESA obligations efficiently and effectively,” said Ya-Wei (Jake) Li, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs.  

Beyond Pesticides joined with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and three dozen allied groups to lay out what a “larger effort” to reform the Office of Pesticide Programs should resemble. The current action, if properly implemented, would begin to address a single problem within the scope of systemic failure. Reform advocates are urging EPA to focus on holistic reforms that confront climate change, biodiversity collapse, and environmental racism. To rout out industry influence by rejecting corrupt data from pesticide companies and promote alternative assessments that embrace safer pest management systems that do not require toxic chemical use.

While the Biden administration has worked to shift the tone and tenor of EPA, it has continued to reregister some of the most toxic pesticides on the market. While pentachlorophenol is on its way out, another toxic wood preservative, creosote, is set to be reregistered, despite the EPA administrator’s visit to fenceline communities in Houston that experienced the first-hand effects creosote manufacture through decades and generations of suffering. As the agency declared its intent to chart a new path, it reregistered the Parkinson’s-promoting pesticide paraquat with additional allowances for air applications that the Trump administration planned to remove.   

Although EPA appears to be listening to advocates, it is imperative that the agency continue to take meaningful actions to protect people and the planet from the unnecessary use of toxic pesticides. Get involved today by calling on EPA to make further reforms, and on Congress to pass new legislation that will shift EPA policy and culture.

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

Source: EPA press release, EPA Q&A

(Beyond Pesticides, January 19, 2022) After registering over 300 products containing synthetic pyrethroid pesticides within the last six years, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done nothing to safeguard endangered species from toxic exposure to these chemicals, despite legal requirement to do so. This dereliction of duty is set to be the subject of a new lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity, which announced its intent to sue EPA. “The EPA admits pyrethroids’ wide-ranging harm to wildlife but still rubberstamps hundreds of pesticide products containing them without assessing their risks to endangered species,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center. “The EPA needs to get serious and come up with a comprehensive plan to address the havoc these pesticides are wreaking on the environment.”

Synthetic pyrethroid insecticides are synthesized derivatives of pyrethrins, which are found in pyrethrum, an extract of dried chrysanthemum flowers. Compared to their natural counterpart, synthetic pyrethroids take significantly longer to degrade in the environment and thus pose longer term risks to humans and wildlife. The chemicals interfere with the proper function of the body’s sodium channels, resulting in harm to the central nervous system. Symptoms of poisoning include headache, nausea, incoordination, tremors, and facial swelling, with severe incidents causing diarrhea,  convulsions, paralysis, and death.

Despite the range of dangers posed by the use of these chemicals, EPA has continued to registered new products without a legally required biological assessment under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under 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 a pesticide. In practice, EPA regularly fails to conduct this evaluation, requiring environmental and conservation organizations to sue the agency in order to force compliance with the law. (See tomorrow’s Daily News on EPA’s new ESA biological opinion policy.) 

While the implications are dire for species at the brink of existence, the penalty for the agency failing to follow the law is effectively nil. The legal tables are tilted towards deference to agency actions, and EPA consistently claims it does not have the capacity to conduct timely biological assessments. Instead of requesting funds from Congress to complete this work, EPA recently lowed the cost it would charge pesticide companies to register hazardous pesticides that could kill endangered species. In this context, accountability is found through legal settlements on work plans with the agency, which commit EPA to a timeline for completing the assessment.

“We’ll see if the Biden EPA can muster the political will to finally follow the law, or if it will just continue throwing endangered species under the bus,” said Ms. Burd at the Center. “For decades the pesticide industry has called the shots for the EPA, but as the extinction crisis worsens we’re hoping this administration will finally provide the leadership our most imperiled plants and animals need to survive.”

Biden’s EPA has a range of opportunities to correct course on synthetic pyrethroids. While this path starts with ESA reviews, there is still time for the agency to reject Trump-era decisions that put wildlife, particularly endangered species, and human health in harms way. In both instances, EPA placed the opinion of the pesticide industry above the science, and above the health of everyday Americans and the environmental on which they depend.

First, EPA stripped away protections that reduced children’s exposure to pyrethroids. There is broad scientific understanding that children are at greater risk from toxic pesticides, and in 1996 Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act, amending pesticide law to require a “safety factor”  be imposed on pesticide products in attempts to protect children. This provision resulted in EPA reducing children’s allowed exposure to a pesticide active ingredient by 3 to 10 times. Although even these factors may not be wholly protective in many cases, they are to be added unless there is compelling evidence that these safety factors are unnecessary. In the case of synthetic pyrethroids, EPA allowed a letter from the pesticide industry umbrella group Croplife America to dictate its approach to protecting children from hazardous, neurotoxic pyrethroids. The model proposed by Croplife eliminated safety factors for children. In a rare instance, EPA conducted an outside literature review to buttress its argument, but instead ignored those data and prioritized the unprotective model proposed by the pesticide industry.

After selling out children’s health, the agency then took directions from a group referring to themselves as the “Pyrethroid Working Group (PWG).” If you pictured a motley crew of independent scientists, you’d be quite wrong. PWG is comprised of major pesticide manufacturers Bayer, FMC, Syngenta, BASF, AMVAC, and Valent. At the request of this working group, EPA reduced a proposal from EPA staff scientists to implement 66 ft buffer zones between agricultural fields and water bodies down to 10-25 ft. The agency also agreed that wind speeds up to 15 miles per hour were acceptable for pyrethroid applications, despite previous proposals setting the cut-off at 10 mph.

While these adverse decisions occurred under the Trump administration, the rot of industry corruption within EPA spans administrations. It is important to underline how rare it is for EPA to make substantive changes in the other direction, towards the protection of health, once presented with strong evidence.

With the default assumption that pesticide provide benefits, and that harms must be proven, our post-cautionary approach to pesticide regulation is failing people and the environment. Lawsuits like the Center’s are critical to holding EPA accountable to current laws in a post-cautionary system, but major changes are needed to prevent toxic pesticides from being registered in the first place. Help send the message to EPA Administrator Michael Regan that now is the time to stand up to the influence of the pesticide industry, ignore their letters, suggestions, and eventual protestations, and implement real, meaningful pesticide reforms.  

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity (press release)