(Beyond Pesticides, June 16, 2022) Farmed salmon serves as an inferior food source, accumulating more toxic chemicals in fatty tissue with fewer healthy nutrient properties based on a study from the University of Bergen, Norway and Alternative Medicine Review. However, the issue of toxic chemical contamination in fish dates back decades with investigations demonstrating high levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) flame retardants restricted or banned in the U.S. and U.K., polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), dioxin (a by-product of pesticide manufacturing), and ethoxyquin (a pesticide preservative in fish feed). The aquaculture industry (e.g., farmed seafood/fish) repeatedly faces sustainability issues, failing to adhere to environmental regulations and threatening marine health. Extensive use of pesticides in local marine ecosystems has induced coastal habitat loss and increased genetic and health risks to wild marine populations. Moreover, insecticides used to kill salmon parasites (e.g., fish lice) has led to widespread disease persistence and pest resistance. Marine species biodiversity is rapidly declining due to overfishing, global warming, pathogens, and pollution. Thus, further biodiversity loss can change aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem functions and reduce ecosystem services.

Food analysis results find the consumption of farmed salmon fillets contributes to higher rates of metabolic disorders, including diabetes and obesity. These farmed salmon also contain levels of toxins, including PCBs and dioxin, that are five times higher than levels in other tested foods. The report suggests the primary causes of farmed salmon toxicity stem from the toxicants in fish feed, like ethoxyquin, and environmental concentrations of the chemicals, whether from terrestrial sources or farmed fish itself. 

Farmed fish, like salmon, use one of the most high-risk aquaculture practices, open-net pens in coastal and offshore regions. These pens allow easy exchange of waste (i.e., feces), chemicals (i.e., pesticides and pharmaceuticals), and parasites/diseases (i.e., sea lice) between the farm and the surrounding ocean environment. The discharge of waste, chemicals, and parasites/pathogens can have a disastrous impact on marine organisms and plants, disrupting ecosystem services. Generally, these pens are in relatively remote areas, somewhat “hidden” from public view. However, these fish live in very crowded conditions, unlike wild-caught fish. The fish consume food that may contain various pharmaceuticals (e.g., antibiotics) or insecticides to control diseases and pest infestations that frequently occur in these conditions. Furthermore, the farm pens can attract predators, such as marine mammals, that can tangle and drown in fish farm nets.

The U.S. permits the use of the pesticide ethoxyquin on fruit, vegetables, and meat meant for animal feed, with no intended uses on fish. However, fish feed manufacturing companies fail to address the use of ethoxyquin as a preservative to prevent oxidization/spoilage of fatty tissue. Farmed salmon testing reveals levels of ethoxyquin are up to 20 times higher than levels allowed in fruits, vegetables, and meats. Despite there being no intended uses of ethoxyquin on food for human consumption, the chemical can pass to humans from contaminated food sources. Although claims suggest ethoxyquin has no human health effects, scientific evidence establishes that the chemical can induce DNA damage in human lymphocyte cells and chromosome aberrations.

Although current pesticide use and pollution contaminate both farmed and wild salmon populations, banned legacy pesticides like DDT, dieldrin, chlordane, and toxaphene continue to contaminate many major waterways, including shorelines where fishing is common. Legacy pesticides remain in the environment for decades as these products are relatively stable, with long half-lives. This slower breakdown rate and affinity to lipids (fats) allow these toxicants to accumulate in the fatty tissue of many marine species, including fish. Farmed salmon has a much higher fat content than wild salmon and thus has the potential to accumulate more lipophilic (fat-loving) toxic chemicals. Hence, the report advises individuals to consume wild-caught Alaskan salmon, not only due to the lower fat content but a shorter life cycle as well. Moreover, fish with shorter lifecycles, like small fish such as sardines and anchovies, tend to have a lower fat content and prove a better choice to mitigate chemical exposure. “With their low contamination risk and higher nutritional value, [these fish] are win-win alternative[s]. Other good choices include herring and fish roe (caviar), which is full of important phospholipids that nourish your mitochondrial membranes.”

The oceans are essential to human health and well-being, feeding billions, supporting millions of jobs, and supplying medicinal materials. However, environmental contaminants like pesticides and the subsequent effects of exposure, such as pest resistance, profoundly impact the ecosystem and its inhabitants. Pesticides are pervasive in all water ecosystems—from rivers, lakes, and oceans to glaciers in the Arctic, exacerbating the ubiquity and distribution of pesticide resistance among sea lice populations across the globe. Therefore, it is essential to understand how parasites may develop resistance to pesticides used to control populations in order to safeguard human, animal, and environmental health. Toxic pesticide use must end in order to protect the nation’s and world’s waterways and reduce the number of pesticides and resistant parasites found in our food, water, and wildlife resources. Learn more about how pesticides are hazardous to wildlife and what you can do through Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife program page.

There are many resources individuals can use to help gain knowledge and apply practices to avoid pesticide use and its adverse effects. These include news stories, local organizations, school pesticide policies, regulatory contacts, and least-toxic pest control operators. Organic practices can successfully eliminate toxic pesticide use. Replacing pesticides with organic, non-toxic alternatives is crucial for safeguarding public health and ecosystems from pesticide toxicity. Buying, growing, and supporting organic helps eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Source: PLOS One Journal, Alternative Medicine Review Journal, Epoch Times

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2022) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is cracking down on companies and individuals that took advantage of Americans desire for antimicrobial products that would work against coronavirus during the height of the Covid pandemic. Late last week, a New Jersey man pled guilty to selling nearly $3 million worth of unregistered pesticides he claimed were approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to combat the coronavirus. And yesterday, U.S. Attorney Office for the Southern District of New York announced a record $1.5 million settlement with TZUMI Innovations LLC for illegal distributing millions of products claiming to have antimicrobial properties, while specifically targeting low-income customers.

The case in New Jersey centers around chemist Paul Andrecola, 63, who established an elaborate scheme to sell a product he named “GCLEAN.” Mr. Andrecola used the pesticide registration numbers of a different company on his product, and forged documents to support his advertised claim that his product was “EPA approved to kill coronavirus.” From March 2020 to May 2021, Mr. Andrecola made over 150 sales, making a profit of more than $2.7 million. He specifically defrauded a number of government agencies, including a Delaware police department, Virginia fire department, Georgia medical clinic, school in Wisconsin, and janitorial supply company in New Work. He also targeted U.S. government agencies, including the U.S. Marshal’s Service, Moody Air Force Base, the National Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Andrecola is facing a significant sentence. Each count of illegal pesticide sales can carry a one year prison sentence and fine up to $25,000. Wire fraud, which he is also accused of committing, carries a maximum 20 year prison sentence, and making false claims against the United States can result in up to five years in prison. Both of the aforementioned crimes also include fines of $250,000, or twice the profits he received, or twice the loss the victims suffered. Mr. Andrecola took a plea agreement to forfeit $2.74 million. He is scheduled for sentencing in October.

“Andrecola not only cheated dozens of people out of millions of dollars, but also endangered the health of those who relied on his fraudulent virucidal products,” said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The Department of Justice is committed to prosecuting such crimes to the fullest extent possible.”

TZUMI Innovations recently settled with the Southern District of New York for $1.5 million after selling range of products called “Wipe Out!” that made antimicrobial pesticide claims without going through EPA registration. TZUMI products made claims such as “KILLS GERMS FAST*” and on the back in part “To decrease bacteria on the skin that could cause disease”; “Cleans and sanitizes”; “KILLS 99.9% OF GERMS*”;“*Escherichia Coli (E. coli), Staphylococcus Aureus (Staph), Candida Albicans”; and “Use it Anytime, Anywhere.” TZUMI sold these products to retailers, who subsequently sold them alongside registered antimicrobials making similar claims. According the U.S. Attorney’s, TZUMI explicitly stated that their products were intended to be sold to “lower income level customers.”

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “At the height of the pandemic, Tzumi misled consumers and retailers and exposed the public to pesticide products that had not been found by EPA to be safe and effective. It compounded matters by targeting low-income customers, who face disproportionate environmental burdens. Today’s settlement ensures that Tzumi pays the price for its misconduct.  We will continue to pursue justice in environmental enforcement matters.”

In addition to the payment, under the settlement TZUMI is required to develop a campaign to inform retailers and the public about the appropriate uses for their products. While the settlement requires TZUMI not distribute or sell unregistered pesticide products in the future, the settlement is currently waiting for public comment and court approval.

In the meantime, just as in the story of illegal pesticide smuggling Beyond Pesticides reported on yesterday, the products in question are still easily available for purchase online. “Wipe Out!” products listed by TZUMI are currently available through WalMart online, advertised as “Antibacterial Wipes.” “GCLEAN” products were quickly found for sale on a website called AOE.net.  

As DOJ continues to prosecute those that take advantage of the public to sell toxic pesticides, it is critical that the Department take action regarding continued online sales.

During public health emergencies involving infectious diseases, consumers must take care 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. While many of the products registered by EPA pose significant hazards, those without any level of oversight present an even greater concern for public health.

For information about how you can stay safe, and avoid hazardous chemical use in your cleaning routine, see Beyond Pesticides fact sheet Protecting Yourself from COVID-19 (coronavirus) without Toxic Sanitizers and Disinfectants. And for more information see Beyond Pesticides program page on Disinfectants and Sanitizers.

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

Source:  U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York press release, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey press release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2022) The ringleader of a pesticide smuggling operation conducted across the United States border with Mexico has been sentenced to eight months in prison by a U.S. District Court Judge. According to a press release by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, Sofia Mancera Morales used individuals recruited over social media Bovitraz and Taktic, pesticide products banned in the US that pose hazards to pollinators and cancer risks to humans. “In exchange for ill-begotten profits, this cavalier smuggling operation was more than willing to risk the public’s health and the honeybee industry, which is critical to pollinating our food supply,” said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. While the Department of Justice deserves praise for this enforcement action, health and environmental advocates say that more must be done to stop illegal pesticide sales. A quick search for the two pesticide products in question brings up webpages, including well-known sites like Etsy.com, where the same illegal pesticides cited in this case are currently being sold to U.S. consumers.

Over Facebook, Ms. Morales offered to pay individuals between $40-150 per package of pesticide products they delivered across the border. Those recruited were instructed to open a self-storage unit in their name, place the products in the unit, and send Ms. Morales a picture to ensure proof before payment. Ms. Morales was provided the key to these storage units. The U.S. Attorney’s office indicates that most recruits completed deliveries between 2-5 times per week, while one recruit delivered nearly 1,000 bottles within a single month.

Bovitraz and Taktic are acaricide/miticides that contain high concentrations of the active insecticide ingredient amitraz. While their pesticide products containing amitraz registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), they are at a roughly 3% concentration, whereas the illegal products have a 12.5% concentration. At this lower concentration, the product is allowed for use on dog flea collars and by chemical beekeepers to manage varroa mites. Those purchasing the illegal products may be using them for tick, mite, or mange management in domestic cattle, sheep or pigs.  

A product called Mitcur, which contains 10% amitraz, was previously registered with EPA, and prior to cancellation, represented the majority of bee kill incidents recorded by the agency associated with amitraz. Reports of bee kills associated with Amitraz stretch as far back as 1993, yet EPA approved amitraz for use under an emergency exemption in 2012, and subsequently provided full registration to products containing the lower amount of the chemical. For its use on dogs, EPA reported 109 amitraz poisoning incidents, of which over half were of moderate severity.

In honey bees, amitraz has been shown to weaken honey bee immune systems and their ability to fight off viral infections. Honey bee parasites, like the varroa mite, are also known to rapidly develop resistance to amitraz. Since reregistering use of the chemical for honey bees in 2013,  amitraz resistance has been detected in hives in Louisiana, New York, and South Dakota.

The chemical poses a range of hazards to humans as well. “In addition to posing risks to the bee population, misuse of amitraz-containing products in beehives can result in exposures that could cause neurological effects and reproductive effects in humans from consumption of contaminated honey,” notes the US Attorney’s press release. The chemical is also associated with declines in male fertility in laboratory animal studies, and is a possible human carcinogen. Exposure through pet collars, including an expected activity like hugging one’s dog, is associated with a cancer risk of 2.8 to 5.6 individuals per 100,000.  

Despite registering use for dogs on flea collars, EPA indicates dogs are the most sensitive species to the chemical among animals tested. Studies indicate harmful impacts on the dog’s central nervous system, recording also low pulse rate, hypothermia, increased sugar in urine, increase liver rate, and liver lesions.

While amitraz poses significant hazards under the current EPA allowances, the illegally smuggled products do represent an even greater risk. “This office and our law enforcement partners will not stand idly by in the face of pesticide smuggling. Perpetrators of environmental crimes will be investigated and held accountable,” said U.S. Attorney Grossman. With that in mind, advocates are urging the U.S. Department of Justice to go after the illegal online sales of Bovitraz, Taktic, and the wide range of other highly hazardous pesticides that are being sold on widely available websites.

A “star seller” on Etsy.com, named BeeKeepingTreasures, is currently selling Taktic with an indication that it ships from Laredo, Texas. The product has customer reviews as recent as June 11, 2022.  Likewise, the product Bovitraz was quickly found through a web search sold on the site All4Rooster.com where free shipping to the US is advertised.

Beyond Pesticides reached out to the Southern District of California U.S. Attorney’s Office for comment regarding the continued online sales of these illegal pesticide products, but did not receive a response in time for publication. If a comment is provided this article will be updated.  

Stopping the illegal importation of toxic pesticides is an essential task for pesticide enforcement agencies. It is critical that the Department of Justice continue to go after sellers, both small and large, including repeat offenders like Amazon.com, which recently entered into a consent decree with the state of Washington and agreed to pay a $2.5 million fine for illegal pesticide sales.  

Concerned consumers are encouraged to avoid the use of toxic registered pesticides in general, including those sold through insecure websites. If pest problems arise, consult Beyond Pesticides resources for nontoxic management before even considering organic certified or minimum risk pesticide products. If necessary, aim to purchase pesticides directly from your local home and garden centers, If they don’t carry less these less toxic products, use tools like the Making the Switch webpage to start a conversation about transitioning to safer product selections.

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

Source: U.S. Attorney’s Office, South District of California press release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2022) Birds are beautiful. They fill our world with color, song, and acrobatics. Most songbirds eat insects during the nesting season, thus contributing to management of insects in crops and gardens. It is no wonder that Rachel Carson chose their absence as an indicator of ecosystem collapse in Silent Spring.

Tell your U.S. Senators to cosponsor S. 4187, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Enhancements Act. Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to ensure that EPA does not allow pesticides that threaten birds or their insect food supply. 

It’s not always easy to be a bird. About half of the world’s bird species migrate up to tens of thousands of miles each year. Whether at home or on the way to warmer climates for the winter, birds face harsh weather conditions, barriers like windows and radio towers, and the problem of storing enough energy for the flight in a tiny body. About 72 million birds are killed by pesticides and other toxic chemicals every year. In addition, pesticide use has contributed to the collapse of insect populations—the source of protein and fat that birds need to raise their young.

Congress has passed laws to help prevent a “silent spring”—including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. In spite of these laws, birds continue to be at risk. U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rob Portman (R-OH) have just introduced S. 4187 to enhance the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA). The NMBCA is an innovative and cost-effective approach to the conservation of the more than 350 neotropical bird species in the U.S. that travel to Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Canada every year, such as the Scarlet Tanager, Purple Martin, and Baltimore Oriole. It supports the conservation of bird habitat as well as research, monitoring, outreach, and education.  

As a matching grant program, it catalyzes funding from a range of sources beyond the U.S. government and will triple the investment NMBCA can make in on-the-ground habitat protection, restoration, education, and research, ensuring that those funds are leveraged by other governments and partners. It will also provide greater capacity to implement the grant program by raising the amount the Fish and Wildlife Service can allocate toward managing it. 

Tell your U.S. Senators to cosponsor S. 4187, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Enhancements Act. Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to ensure that EPA does not allow pesticides that threaten birds or their insect food supply. 

Letter to U.S. Senators:
Birds are beautiful. They fill our world with color, song, and acrobatics. Most songbirds eat insects during the nesting season, thus contributing to management of insects in crops and gardens. It is no wonder that Rachel Carson chose their absence as an indicator of ecosystem collapse in Silent Spring.

It’s not always easy to be a bird. About half of the world’s bird species migrate up to tens of thousands of miles each year. Whether at home or on the way to warmer climates for the winter, birds face harsh weather conditions, barriers like windows and radio towers, and the problem of storing enough energy for the flight in a tiny body. About 72 million birds are killed by pesticides and other toxic chemicals every year. In addition, pesticide use has contributed to the collapse of insect populations—the source of protein and fat that birds need to raise their young.

Congress has passed laws to help prevent a “silent spring”—including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. In spite of these laws, birds continue to be at risk. Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rob Portman (R-OH) have just introduced S. 4187 to enhance the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA). The NMBCA is an innovative and cost-effective approach to the conservation of the more than 350 neotropical bird species in the U.S. that travel to Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Canada every year, such as the Scarlet Tanager, Purple Martin, and Baltimore Oriole. It supports the conservation of bird habitat as well as research, monitoring, outreach, and education.  

As a matching grant program, it catalyzes funding from a range of sources beyond the U.S. government and will triple the investment NMBCA can make in on-the-ground habitat protection, restoration, education, and research, ensuring that those funds are leveraged by other governments and partners. It will also provide greater capacity to implement the grant program by raising the amount the Fish and Wildlife Service can allocate toward managing it. 

Please cosponsor S. 4187 and ensure by your oversight that EPA does not allow pesticides that threaten birds or their insect food supply.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative:
Birds are beautiful. They fill our world with color, song, and acrobatics. Most songbirds eat insects during the nesting season, thus contributing to management of insects in crops and gardens. It is no wonder that Rachel Carson chose their absence as an indicator of ecosystem collapse in Silent Spring.

It’s not always easy to be a bird. About half of the world’s bird species migrate up to tens of thousands of miles each year. Whether at home or on the way to warmer climates for the winter, birds face harsh weather conditions, barriers like windows and radio towers, and the problem of storing enough energy for the flight in a tiny body. About 72 million birds are killed by pesticides and other toxic chemicals every year. In addition, pesticide use has contributed to the collapse of insect populations—the source of protein and fat that birds need to raise their young.

Congress has passed laws to help prevent a “silent spring”—including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. In spite of these laws, birds continue to be at risk. Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rob Portman (R-OH) have just introduced S. 4187 to enhance the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA). The NMBCA is an innovative and cost-effective approach to the conservation of the more than 350 neotropical bird species in the U.S. that travel to Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Canada every year, such as the Scarlet Tanager, Purple Martin, and Baltimore Oriole. It supports the conservation of bird habitat as well as research, monitoring, outreach, and education.  

As a matching grant program, it catalyzes funding from a range of sources beyond the U.S. government and will triple the investment NMBCA can make in on-the-ground habitat protection, restoration, education, and research, ensuring that those funds are leveraged by other governments and partners. It will also provide greater capacity to implement the grant program by raising the amount the Fish and Wildlife Service can allocate toward managing it. 

Please ensure by your oversight that EPA does not allow pesticides that threaten birds or their insect food supply. Support S. 4187 when it reaches the House of Representatives.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2022) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on June 1 that it will provide a potential 15-fold increase in funding aimed at organic food production — up to $300 million. The subject Organic Transition Initiative provision is embedded in a new USDA Food System Transformation framework (FSTF), whose raison d’être is captured in the press release: “to transform the food system to benefit consumers, producers and rural communities by providing more options, increasing access, and creating new, more, and better markets for small and mid-size producers.” That funding for organic transition, the invocation of climate as a significant driver of multiple features of the initiative, and a focus on equity concerns are all welcome news. Beyond Pesticides maintains that it will be critical that this FSTF result in concrete goals that set out specific metrics and timelines — particularly around the magnitude of acres shifted to organic production and the pace of the phaseout of non-organic substances and protocols.

The headline of the press release bespeaks the rationale: “Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient.” Broadly, the initiative addresses four sectors of agricultural activity: production, processing, aggregation/distribution, and markets/consumers.

The FSTF sets out four top-level goals; the appendix to the announcement includes more-detailed sections on each of these:

1. building a more resilient food supply chain that provides more and better market options for consumers and producers while reducing carbon pollution; the press release notes that the increase in funding is geared to providing comprehensive supports for farm transition to organic production, including mentoring, comprehensive, wrap-around technical assistance, direct funding through conservation financial assistance and additional crop insurance assistance, and support for developing product markets in targeted areas
2. creating a fairer food system that combats market dominance and helps producers and consumers gain more power in the marketplace by creating new, more, and better local market options; this section points to the huge reduction in producers’ power in the marketplace during the past five decades, due to massive consolidation in the food system, and to the “perils of a food system dominated by a few corporate players”; this initiative, USDA asserts, will “deliver a better deal for farmers, ranchers, growers and consumers”
3. making nutritious food more accessible and affordable for consumers; in this section, USDA emphasizes the unacceptability of food and nutrition insecurity, and commits to its elimination
4. emphasizing equity; here, the agency says that “rural communities, underserved communities, communities that experience persistent poverty, and the people who live there have been left behind”; it further asserts that the FSTF will create more economic opportunities in such communities and help them keep more of the food system dollar — accelerating more-equitable growth, and helping more of the created wealth remain in small towns and underserved communities

USDA’s press release notes that the effort “supports the Biden-Harris Administration’s broader work to strengthen critical supply chains as directed by Executive Order 14017 America’s Supply Chains.” Funding for the initiative will come from the American Rescue Plan Act (and other pandemic relief legislation), and a good number of the features address “lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine.” USDA has emphasized that this new initiative builds on its 2021 provision of pandemic assistance to cover certification and education expenses for certified organic producers and those making the transition to organic. (See more about pandemic support for farmers here.)

The appendix section (of the USDA press release) on Food Production spotlights two initiatives: the increased funding (up to $300 million) for the new Organic Transition Initiative, and up to $75 million to support urban agriculture. Roughly $20 million for the latter will go to processing a backlog of applications from a 2018 grant program to support urban agriculture; in 2020 and 2021, a mere 6% of applications were processed. Another $40 million will help fund outreach and training programs for urban farmers, which USDA says will “expand access to nutritious foods, foster community engagement, increase awareness of climate change and mitigate the effects within urban areas, provide jobs, educate communities about farming, and expand green spaces.” The People’s Garden Initiative, recently revived, will get an infusion of $5 million for 18 flagship gardens across the country, which are used to “grow fresh, healthy food and support resilient, local food systems; teach people how to garden using conservation practices; nurture habitat for pollinators and wildlife; and create greenspace for neighbors.”

Other noteworthy features of the initiative include:

• $40 million to support doctors’ ability to prescribe fresh — and ideally organic and local/regional — produce, aka, food as medicine for patients who have poor access to proper nutrition
• advancement of economic equity and environmental justice
• $375 million to catalyze more independent poultry and meat processing enterprises (because currently, there are four multinational companies doing all of this in the U.S.)
• a food supply chain loan guarantee program to shore up independent investment in mid-chain operations (te.g., rucking, cold storage, and processing) for meat and poultry
• up to $600 million to support supply chain infrastructure beyond the meat and poultry sector
• funds for food safety certification training for specialty crops
• funds to levy commodity purchasing through the Farm-to-School program and other procurement programs, increasing markets for local/regional farms
• additional support for the Community Compost and Food Waste Reduction Program, and a feasibility study (and corresponding actions) for a National Food Loss and Waste Strategy
• increased funding to a variety of programs focused on access to healthful food — for seniors, those who live in so-called “food deserts,” patients with inadequate food and nutrition security (via the “food as medicine” or food prescription initiative mentioned above), students who participate in school feeding programs, and others; also, $25 million to support SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) technology improvements

There is a big focus on animal food processing in the FSTF, largely as a response to the pandemic experiences related to this industry. This is hardly an ideal focus in terms of climate impacts because the consumption of animal products represents a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. This is especially true of the giant CAFO (confined animal feeding operations) sector and conventional dairy sector, from which most “industrial” meat and dairy products come. This may (or may not) be somewhat offset by the multiple other aspects of the FSTF that appear to support local small- and mid-sized, as well as organic and regenerative, farms whose practices have a far smaller climate and environmental footprint.

As the organization Moms Across America points out in its coverage of the FSTF, the initiative may have the additional impact of reducing “the dependency on GMO mono-crops that have been the reason for the destruction of rainforests and sacred lands.” The organization could be speaking for Beyond Pesticides when it writes, “Are we naive to the corruption that could result from these hundreds of millions of dollars being doled out to organizations and companies? No. Are we skeptical if the money will merely line the pockets of more Fat Cats? Yes. But is there also a possibility that we have made progress?” But the organization also asks, “Has the food movement educated Tom Vilsack and his team that regenerative organic farming and access to organic food are essential?”

On that last question, Beyond Pesticides must return to its earlier coverage of Secretary Vilsack’s unhelpful behavior in 2020, when he used a G20 summit to diss the European Union’s Farm to Fork strategy, a primary goal of which is to reduce damaging climate, environmental, and health impacts of agricultural activities, and indirectly, its overall aim to create a “fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system.” At the time, Beyond Pesticides wrote, Secretary Vilsack “chose to counter the F2F efforts by promoting an ‘alternative strategy’ — under the moniker ‘Coalition for Productivity Growth’ — through which ‘other nations pledge not to follow the European path on farm policy.’ He has described this alternative, U.S.-led strategy as ‘a market-oriented, incentive-based, voluntary system [that] is effective’ at slashing agricultural carbon emissions.”

This corporate-friendly approach rankled the health and environment advocacy community, but the criticism was not confined to those circles. The staid outlet Forbes magazine published an article titled, “Why Tom Vilsack Is Wrong About Farm To Fork and What We Can Do About It.” The piece included this: “USDA Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has recently downplayed the European Union’s ambitious Farm To Fork strategy. Farm To Fork [F2F] is the cornerstone of the European Green Deal, and puts sustainability at the heart of the world’s largest food import and export market. But Vilsack’s dismissal of the E.U. are [sic] out of step with consumer sentiments, food justice advocacy and the latest cutting edge research on agroecology. . . . Vilsack’s alignment with agribusiness downplays the vast inequities at the heart of the U.S. food system.”

It continued, “The USDA secretary is promoting an alternative strategy called the Coalition for Productivity Growth, based on market-oriented, incentive-based systems. . . . The Vilsack approach is music to the ears of Big Food conglomerates like Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva (Dow/Dupont), Cargill and JBS, as well as trade groups such as Vilsack’s former employers at the Dairy Export Council.”

Forbes continued to surprise with these comments: “The grassroots sustainability momentum in the U.S. is consistent with recent scientific studies that expose the yield/productivity myth of chemical intensive agribusiness. . . . The European Union Farm To Fork plan is not perfect, but shows that public food system governance is possible and that a sustainable food system is already busy being born. And grassroots efforts in the U.S. are already building such a foundation domestically. A U.S. Farm To Fork strategy based on good food purchasing principles could ensure that healthy, fresh, affordable food grown and processed with justice, transparency and equity are available to all. Now that would be the way to go.”

In a Civil Eats interview that challenged some of the Secretary’s previous positions, he said, “This announcement is designed to do is to say, ‘We’d like to see that higher-value opportunity [that farmers access through the organic premium] more available and even more easily obtainable.’ We know it’s a problem: [organic certification is] complicated. It’s expensive. It’s tough. And they need help. So, here’s money to get a mentoring program in place. Here’s money to potentially look at ways in which we can either right-size the market where there’s too much supply and not enough market or right-size the demand where there’s a lot of market but not enough demand, not enough supply. That’s what we’re trying to do with the $300 million. I think it’s a very important signal about the significance and importance we place on organic as part of the overall system.” Civil Eats coverage calls the FSTF emphases on regionalism, support for organic and urban farming, and nutrition “a significant shift for the agency, which has historically prioritized efficiency over all else.”

Response from elsewhere in the nonprofit world has included this from the Organic Farming Research Foundation’s Gordon Merrick, Policy & Programs Manager: “In the past year, OFRF has had numerous meetings with USDA officials and provided in-depth written comments on how the agency can best support farmers and ranchers transitioning to organic production systems. . . . This is a meaningful first step to truly working towards a just and equitable food system. We at OFRF are excited to see the details of this historic investment into the National Organic Program.”

Beyond Pesticides advises that, in its development of specific goal metrics and plans, USDA look to the example of EU’s F2F plan, particularly in regard to such metrics on transition to organic production and reduction of the use of synthetic inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) on a specified timetable. For example, F2F:

• sets out an objective of moving at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land to organic farming by 2030
• directs major funding to boosting sustainable practices, such as precision agriculture, agro-ecology (including organic farming), carbon farming, and agroforestry
• establishes the goal of reducing, by 2030, overall use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50%, and the use of more-hazardous pesticides by 50%
• makes changes to outdated regulations governing sourcing and use of pesticide data in order to address data gaps and promote evidence-based policymaking

What to make of USDA’s (and presumably the Secretary’s, given that he is promoting FSTF) apparent shift to greater organic, climate, and equity focus via this initiative? Certainly, the Biden/Harris administration’s concerns and priorities about the food system, climate, environment, and equity are a likely and significant impetus. Experiences during the pandemic have clearly been catalysts, as well, including problems such as supply chain issues, transportation problems, staffing shortages, insufficient inventory, and lack of redundancy in systems. Other issues are emerging as a function of the Russian war on Ukraine.

The press release on FSTF concludes with this: “In the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on creating new, more, and better markets to support farmers, ranchers, and consumers. USDA will do this by building more resilient local and regional food production [and] fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America.”

Such a values-driven, rather than corporate interest–driven, approach at USDA would be far preferable and appropriate to the needs of people and the planet; perhaps this FSTF signals movement in that direction. Critically, the federal government needs to heed Beyond Pesticides’ call for ending our ubiquitous use of toxic pesticides over the next decade, and for protection of strong organic standards and integrity in the National Organic Program and National Organic Standards, for which we regularly advocate. (An important feature of those standards is the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, which controls what can and cannot be used in organic crop and livestock production.)

The devil, as always, will be in the details of this new Organic Transition Initiative. For now, Beyond Pesticides is cautiously hopeful that this new injection of funding, and greater focus on the importance of the organic transition, will bear out on the ground — in more acres under organic production and significant reduction in use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, as well as for the other environmental, climate, equity, and economic benefits it may engender.

Source: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply-chain-and-transforming

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2022) A report from the Organic Center finds that people in U.S. BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities endure a significant disproportionate risk of exposure to pesticides and subsequent harms. The report also contains a lesson plan that informs young activists on how to improve the food system. Many communities of color and low-socioeconomic backgrounds experience an unequal number of hazards, including nearby toxic waste plants, garbage dumps, and other sources of environmental pollution and odors that lower the quality of life. Therefore, these populations experience greater exposure to harmful chemicals and suffer from health outcomes that affect their ability to learn and work. Doctoral candidate at Northwestern University and author of the report and lesson plan, Jayson Maurice Porter, notes, “Urban planning and city policy considers certain people in certain communities more or less disposable and puts them in harm’s way, giving them an uneven burden of experiencing and dealing with things like pollutants.” 

The father of environmental justice, Robert Bullard, Ph.D., defines environmental racism as any policy or practice that unequally affects or disadvantages individuals, groups, or communities based on their race. Dr. Bullard stated that, until the 1980s, environmentalism and pollution were separate. During the Jim Crow Era—succeeding slavery—segregation propagated disparities between black and white communities, causing the primary focus of justice issues to vary among the communities. Both the civil rights and environmental justice movements spread nationwide during the 60s and 70s. However, the two movements rarely coincided as the American environmental movement largely focused on preserving beautiful outdoor areas and ignored issues in urban environments. This separation created the perception among advocates for racial equality that environmentalism catered to white organizations and populations and ignored people of color (POC) and their struggles.

However, this does not mean environmental justice was completely void of addressing racial inequalities. Many early environmental justice leaders came out of the civil rights movement, bringing to the environmental movement the same tactics they had used in civil rights struggles—marches, petitions, rallies, coalition building, community empowerment through education, litigation, and nonviolent direct action. For instance, Warren County, NC., a poor, rural county, became the epicenter of the growing environmental justice movement—drawing nationwide attention to racial disparities in the siting of toxic waste sites. Unlike the collective action against the disparities in the location of toxic waste sites in the late 1960s, the Warren County case sparked a national debate about environmental racism. Warren County connected the dots between racial injustice, environmentalism, and public health disparities. New green policies for waste disposal and waste-to-energy incineration aimed to benefit the environment, but actively sacrificed the poorest communities.

Mr. Porter evaluated reports of adverse environmental and health impacts that agrochemical use (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers) causes in North America, particularly Mexico, Canada, and the South and West Coasts of the United States. In all North American regions, agrochemicals predominantly affect communities of color and low socioeconomic.

Southern United States

The report reveals that counties or cities with larger BIPOC populations encounter more pesticide exposure from manufacturing and use. Specifically, the U.S. agricultural industry spends roughly eight times more money on pesticides in rural regions where people of color (POC) comprise 40 percent of the population compared to counties where POC comprise less than six percent. After the abolition of slavery, mechanization and agrochemicals, like fertilizers and insecticides, replaced a lot of slave labor. However, these chemicals did not fully replace black laborers, who remained working on farms, increasing the burden of chemical use without protective equipment and educational support. The Mid-Atlantic region’s growing agrochemical industries supplied the south with pesticides and fertilizer for decades, with Baltimore, MD, quickly becoming the first epicenter of agrochemicals. Waterfront regions in the southernmost part of Baltimore containing high populations of BIPOC communities became an idyllic sacrifice zone for chemical manufacturing.

Western United States

During westward expansion, white settlers seized lands from dozens of Indigenous communities, like the Yokuts, Miwok, and Kawaiisu, importing migrant laborers to aid agricultural development. However, the migrant workers were POC, and most farmers of color could not participate in the agricultural development as landowners. Although as new agricultural technology grew, it served to concentrate wealth, industrialize farming practices, and advance practices and products that farmers and farm workers of color exposed to the occupational hazards of pesticides. Currently, nearly one-third of farmworkers live in California in regions of low-socioeconomic status and largely Latinx populations. However, these regions are not subject to pesticide laws that protect occupational workers and residents from exposure and subsequent health effects. Thus, the agricultural industry is able to use otherwise banned chemicals like chlorpyrifos for commercial use. Chlorpyrifos has been used intensively in agriculture (e.g., almond, apricot, cotton, and other crops) in the central California San Joaquin Valley for many decades. Despite California’s pesticide regulatory system and data on environmental protection, reports identify higher rates of asthma, cognitive disabilities, and developmental delays among children in San Joaquin Valley from maternal exposure to chlorpyrifos. 

North American Expansion

World War I and II aided in the expansion of arsenic-based insecticides as U.S. agricultural companies sought a new global market. California’s agricultural industry spread across the U.S. border into Mexico, establishing sites to experiment with different U.S.-made agrochemicals. Although leaders in both countries believed agrochemicals could be a solution to urban poverty and crop yields, these chemicals eroded financial protection and public health, especially in experimental regions. This report argues that agrochemicals helped the U.S. expand its power beyond national borders. Mr. Porter states, “[It is] important to really see how the United States has imperial relationships with so many different places, both within the United States and outside the United States. Environmental justice needs to move beyond U.S. exceptionalism.”

At the height of the Green Revolution in 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, warning the world of pesticide exposure and associated harms. After the end of slavery, the U.S. relied on pesticides to attack pests and drive up yield. However, this reliance on pesticides resulted in a series of silent springs, where the environment is void of birds singing due to growing pesticide poisonings. Although Carson was not the first to highlight concerns involving arsenic pesticides (first-generation), she was one of the first to argue that DDT (second-generation organochlorinated pesticide) was the greatest pesticide threat to human and environmental health. Both chemicals are highly present in the environment, remaining in soil, plant and animal tissues, as well as water resources for decades.

Since the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), many environmental agencies have banned or restricted the use of pesticides like organochlorines, organophosphates, and carbamates for their devastating toxic—sometimes lethal—effects, particularly on vertebrates, including humans. However, the banning of DDT started a treadmill that resulted in new generations of pesticides (e.g., neonicotinoids, pyrethroids) replacing older ones that were deemed too hazardous or were no longer effective due to insect and weed resistance.  Although newer generation pesticides may be more target-specific, requiring lower chemical concentrations for effectiveness, they have over double the toxic effects on invertebrates, like pollinators. For example, systemic pesticides that coat seeds are applied to specific plants but cause indiscriminate poisoning through contaminated pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets.

A section of Beyond Pesticides’ recent mega-issue of Pesticides and You, “Retrospective 2021: A Call to Urgent Action,” is devoted to the inequities resulting from pesticide use. Section IV, “Disproportionate Pesticide Harm Is Racial Injustice: Documenting Victimization: Structural Racism,” reprises Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 coverage of environmental injustices. It also calls for urgent action re: federal and state “evaluations that go into toxic chemical regulation . . . to reform and replace the current regulatory decision-making process, which is empirically racist, with one that acknowledges and cares for those with the highest real-world vulnerabilities and exposure[s].”

The report’s findings are similar to other resources demonstrating disparities in protection from agrochemicals in low-income and BIPOC communities, yielding frequent instances of pesticide-induced diseases (e.g., respiratory illness, neurological disorders, endocrine/immune disruption, cancers, etc.). Although there are regulatory systems to evaluate and monitor pesticide use and exposure limits (i.e., the Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] and The Food Quality Protection Act [FQPA]), pesticide-related illnesses continue to harm communities due to environmental racism that ignores people of highest risks or increased vulnerability due to preexisting health conditions—many associated with socioeconomic conditions. For example, federal pesticide law does not take into consideration the combined effect of high-exposure, high-risk occupations with the exposures that are endured as a result of pesticide use in residential areas, around the home and garden, parks, schools, and even residues on food, hair, and clothing. 

The report notes that although science, technology, and a shift to organic can aid in the reduction of surface-level food system issues, including growth and distribution, leaders must incorporate social justice into the agricultural industry for permanent structural change. Informing activists in BIPOC communities about the impact of agrochemicals on the community and environment can be a start to alleviating inequalities. However, changes in policy are required in the food system so that the burdens placed on people of color communities are no longer overlooked.

With the report’s findings, Mr. Porter established a lesson plan that “aims to engage with students in discussions about the origin of pesticides and how they affect poor, Black, and Latinx communities. By encouraging students to use history and geography, the lesson plan facilitates discussions about the ways industrial agriculture and agrochemicals may impact their own communities and surrounding environments[…]The lesson plan also invites students to consider whether environmental racism or environmental injustice has inspired any forms of grassroots environmental justice in their own cities or communities.”

The concept of a Silent Spring does not exist outside our reality—it is an ever-present threat. Forgoing toxic pesticide use for cosmetic purposes on lawns and landscapes is one of the easiest ways to stop polluting local waterways. You can make a change by eliminating pesticides on your property and working toward the passage of organic land care policies in your community. To get started, see Beyond Pesticides Tools for Change webpage. Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor progress on inequities related to pesticides, agriculture, farmworker well-being, and health of BIPOC communities in the U.S. For current reporting on matters related to environmental justice, see Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog EJ archives.

One important way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transitioning to organic. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, chemical occupational workers, and the agricultural sector can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment. For more information on the benefits of organic for both consumers and farm workers, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: The Organic Center, Food Tank

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2022) A new biological agent to manage the destructive pest spotted wing drosophila (SWD) (Drosophila suzukii) is set to be released this month after approval was granted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Ganaspis brasiliensis, a parasitic wasp with a specific affinity for SWD, has the ability to significantly curtail the use of toxic pesticides otherwise employed to manage the pest. The move is an important step forward for biological pest management in the United States, an approach that has already added billions of benefits to agricultural economies, and has the potential to help farmers eliminate the regular use of hazardous pesticides.

SWD is a small fruit fly originally from southeast Asia. In 2009, it was discovered on the U.S. West Coast and rapidly became a major pest, leading to significant crop loss estimated at over $700 million each year. The insect attacks nearly all soft bodied fruits, including blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, cherries, peaches, nectarines, apricots, grapes, and others. It has an apparent preference for blueberries, costing that industry alone $100 million per year. It lays its eggs inside of ripe fruit, which hatch into larvae and ruin the entire fruit as it feeds. Female SWD reproduce rapidly, laying up to 600 eggs per year and producing as many as 13 generations per season.

Current nonpesticidal management approaches to SWD include cultural practices, like good sanitation, pruning, and the use of drip irrigation. Some growers have had success with traps baited with apple cider vinegar and wheat dough. Farmers are encouraged to bag infested fruit, but larger scale operations often have difficulty with this approach, and are likely to attempt to harvest early when pest levels are high.

G. brasiliensis, the parasitic wasp, was recently discovered along the Canadian border in Washington State, having made its way there naturally. But USDA had been carefully studying the parasitoid for over 10 years prior to its impending release in Oregon, undergoing extensive testing on its viability and behavior.

Scientists ultimately concluded that G. brasiliensis would be a viable biological control agent. “It’s kind of the best of both worlds,” said Elizabeth Beers, PhD, an entomology professor at Washington State University. “It’s great that we have a lot of research showing that Ganaspis is very host-specific and safe to spread around. But there are also benefits to it being found here in nature.”

The parasitoid kills SWD by laying eggs in the larvae of SWD. The parasitoids eggs develop and hatch inside of SWD, subsequently consuming the pest. “It’s a bit like the movie Alien,” said Dr. Beers. “It’s unpleasant to think about in sci-fi movie terms, but really effective for killing spotted-wing drosophila.” Preliminary reports indicate that the parasitoid can reduce SWD populations by up to 65%.

“This will have a huge impact,” said Vaughn Walton, PhD, entomologist at Oregon State University. “Growers are really interested and are excited about a biological control that will work along with cultural management tools to decrease SWD and not cost them any money. It’s a natural resource available to them. We think this is going to change things.”

Researchers are also studying another parasitic wasp known to attack SWD in its home range, Pachycrepoideus vindemmiae. A study published in 2019 found that it had the potential to readily replace pesticide use for SWD, killing up to 600 SWD during its lifespan. However unlike G. brasiliensis,  P. vindemmiae is more of a generalist feeder, and there are some lingering concerns that it may kill other insects in addition to SWD.

While the introduction of a new biological control agent is positive, some advocates say that 10 years is far too long to wait for a permit. As opportunistic pests cross national and state boundaries at increasing speed, more research and funding for biological controls are needed in many areas of pest management. A 2020 study found that biological pest management has added billions of dollars in benefits to agricultural economies over the last 100 years, even more so than the benefits often cited from the ‘green revolution’ in agriculture.

In the context of the 10 year delay in introducing the SWD parasitoid, the authors of the 2020 study note that “a small number of ill-advised introductions” from the middle of the 20^th century led to “a more risk-adverse attitude,” which “eclipsed its myriad societal benefits.” Referring to introductions like the cane toad, first introduced in Australia to control sugarcane insects, but became a pest in its own right.

Increased funding and use of biological controls is necessary for a sustainable future for agriculture. Fortunately, there is important progress being made for a range of problematic pests. Parasitoid wasps are being released in Southern California to manage the destructive Asian citrus psyllid. In 2020, OSU scientists discovered a nematode that had the ability to “liquify” exposed slugs. A specific nematode was also recently found to be a promising control against non-native fire ants invading the US. And scientists have discovered a small mite that has the potential to knock down tree of heaven populations.

Those wishing to manage pests with biological controls in their own home gardens and landscapes can find resources and purchase biological control agents from online retailers like Arbico-Organics. More information to help eliminate the use of toxic pesticides in one’s home and yard can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe portal.

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

Source: Oregon State University press release, Washington State University press release

Photo Credit: Washington State University

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2022) Bumblebee colonies exposed to low levels of the weed killer glyphosate are unable to adequately regulate nest temperature, imperiling the next generation of bumblebees and long-term colony growth and survival. This latest finding, published this month in the journal Science, is a stark reminder that a pesticide does not have to kill an animal outright in order to create effects that ultimately result in death and population declines. “Sublethal effects, i.e. effects on organisms that are not lethal but can be seen, for example, in the animals’ physiology or behaviour, can have a significant negative impact and should be taken into account when pesticides are approved in future,” said Anja Weidenmüller, PhD, of the University of Konstanz, Germany. With regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refusing to adequately account for sublethal impacts, and myopically focused on the acute effects of pesticide exposure, bumblebee populations in the United States are in free fall and require urgent protective action.

To better understand how glyphosate exposure affects bumblebee colony growth and brood (young larval bee) development, researchers first split colonies in two. One side of the colony was fed sugar water containing 5mg/liter of glyphosate, while the other side was fed pure, unadulterated sugar water. This practice accounts for natural variation in strength that can occur between different bumblebee colonies. Although the colonies were separated by a mesh screen, each day the scientists switched the queens between the two sides.

Bees did not die from exposure to this level of glyphosate, living at least 32 days, a typical worker bumblebee life span. While bees exposed to glyphosate did display slightly reduced investment in brood development, the most outsized effect of glyphosate exposure was on colony thermoregulation. Bumblebee colonies require temperatures between 82.4°F and 95°F (28°C and 35°C) in order for eggs and brood to properly develop. “Just as we humans keep our body temperature constant, the animals in a colony collectively show homeostasis in the temperature regulation of their brood,” says Dr. Weidenmüller.

Glyphosate exposure alone did not impair thermoregulation, but when researchers dialed back on the sugar syrup, the effects became pronounced. Compared to the unexposed control colony halves, the sides treated with glyphosate dropped below 82.4°F much more rapidly. In sum, glyphosate-exposed sides maintained adequate brood conditions 26% less time than the unexposed side of the colony. Most of the contaminated sides had no region in the nest that was above the 82.4°F mark, and thus viable for new eggs. “When resources become scarce, you see very clearly that the collective thermal behaviour of colonies that have been chronically exposed to glyphosate is affected,” says Dr. Weidenmüller. “They cannot keep their brood warm for as long.”

Impairing nest thermoregulation has major knock-on effects that place the colony in existential danger. Even temperatures at 77°F reduce brood development speed by 50% of its potential maximum and give new eggs a success rate as low as 17%. “Bumblebee colonies are under really high pressure to grow as quickly as possible within a short period of time,” says Dr. Weidenmüller. “Only when they reach a certain colony size during the relatively short growth period are they able to produce the sexually reproductive individuals of a colony, i.e. queens and drones.” Further modeling of the study’s findings show that low temperatures are likely to further impair this process.  

One of the most critical time in a colony’s development is after queen hibernation, when there is an urgent need to replenish their energy stores in order to start constructing a nest. Bumblebee queens waking up in the cold, early spring to relatively low floral resources, and a contaminated landscape represents a slow moving disaster that is likely playing out in regions across the world.

As it stands currently, the American bumblebee has experienced an 89% decline in its population over the last 20 years. The rusty patched bumblebee has seen a similar 91% decline since the 1990s and in 2017 was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  under the Endangered Species Act.

Glyphosate is far from the only chemical stressor harming bumblebees. Systemic neonicotinoid insecticides represent an even more potent threat, posing both acute and chronic hazards to a range of pollinators. In fact, there is evidence that neonicotinoids pose a threat to bumblebees at every single step in their life stage.

Reinforcing the present study, research published in 2020 by researchers at University of California, Davis revealed that mason bees experiencing a combination of food scarcity and exposure to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid saw a 57% reduction in offspring, compared to unexposed bees.

In addition to a wide range of chemical exposure, and the lack of floral resources from development and industrialized agriculture, are the effects of climate change. A 2015 study published in Science determined that North American and European bumble bees are unable to colonize new warmer habitats north of their historic range, while simultaneously disappearing from the southern portions of their range.

At this point, it almost feels contrived to say that pollinator declines are a result of many factors. But it is critical to understand that chemical use is one of the most easily modifiable factors in this equation. Despite a profound body of independent, peer-reviewed literature associating various pesticides with a myriad of different lethal and sublethal effects on pollinator populations, EPA regulators are permitting the continued use of these hazardous chemicals. Glyphosate and the neonicotinoids alone represent millions of pounds of pesticides applied throughout the United States. Although EPA has the power to order more comprehensive reviews that will result in actions that truly protect pollinators, it is repeatedly refused to do so. Not only that, we have seen that even the lackluster requirements added at the beginning of the pollinator crisis are falling by the wayside, as EPA skips over pollinator assessments while nonetheless declaring how “benefits…outweigh any remaining risk.”

If you’re appalled by a taxpayer-funded agency tasked with environmental protection declaring the benefits of a chemical pesticide over deliberately unknown risks to the future of insect pollination, you’re not alone. Pressure on EPA and other regulators must come from all sides – from scientists and academics, advocates, and policymakers at every level. Take action today by urging EPA to do its job to protect pollinators, and insisting Congress add pressure to that call. But don’t stop there. Get active at your local and state level to implement strong protections from toxic pesticides for our remaining, and greatly imperiled pollinators. For assistance, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected].

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

Source: University of Konstanz press release, Science

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2022) In spite of the known harm to migratory and residential birds, salmon, forage fish, other wildlife and their primary feeding areas, and a recommendation by the National Marine Fisheries Service that “an alternative site be identified in a location that results in less potential impacts to wildlife that is more appropriate for aquaculture and meets the goals of the tribe,” permitting agencies approved permits and a lease for a 50-acre industrial oyster farm for private financial gain inside the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. This decision, which is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, must be reversed.

Agencies are well aware of the potential damage to the lands it is their mission to protect.

Tell the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the Dungeness National Wildlife lease must be rescinded.

 The Dungeness Bay Wildlife Refuge was created by Executive Order in 1915 by Woodrow Wilson, directing the area to be set aside as a “refuge, preserve and breeding ground for native birds and prohibits any disturbance of the birds within the reserve.” The Refuge provides habitat, a preserve and breeding grounds for more than 250 species of birds and 41 species of land animals.

 The front page of the Refuge website states: “Pets, bicycles, kite flying, Frisbees, ball-playing, camping, and fires are not permitted on the Refuge as they are a disturbance for the many migrating birds and other wildlife taking solitude on the Refuge.” With this level of concern, it is counterintuitive to allow destructive industrial aquaculture.

These detrimental effects to the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge are NOT minimal.

Among the negative impacts of this project are: 50% reduction in bird primary feeding grounds;  20,000 – 80,000 toxic plastic oyster bags that exclude the probing shorebird flocks from feeding deeply into the substrate, entrapment of fish and birds, add macro- and micro-plastic bits to the sediment throughout the refuge, and shift the benthic community composition; diminishment of the ecological benefits provided by eelgrass to threatened fish and birds, such as nourishment and cover from predators and, with warming waters, increased toxic algal blooms that will leave a graveyard of dead oysters. Additionally, commercial shellfish operations attract pathogens and non-native species that threaten the area ecosystem and the shellfish. Decision makers should not place financial benefits to the corporation above the long term and cumulative impacts to the refuge.

Tell the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the Dungeness National Wildlife lease must be rescinded.

Letter to Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Commissioner Hilary Franz)

I am writing to ask that your agency rescind the lease from the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe to reestablish oyster farming in the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge.  They have four other sites, one of which has space to expand.

In spite of the U.S. Corps of Engineers predicted harm to the Refuge birds, salmon, forage fish, and other wildlife, and a recommendation by the National Marine Fisheries Service that “an alternative site be identified in a location that results in less potential impacts to wildlife that is more appropriate for aquaculture and meets the goals of the tribe,” permitting agencies approved an industrial oyster farm inside the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. This decision, which is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, must be reversed.

The Dungeness Bay Wildlife Refuge was created by Executive Order in 1915 by Woodrow Wilson, directing the area to be set aside as a “refuge, preserve and breeding ground for native birds and prohibits any disturbance of the birds within the reserve.” The front page of the Refuge website states: “Pets, bicycles, kite flying, Frisbees, ball-playing, camping, and fires are not permitted on the Refuge as they are a disturbance for the many migrating birds and other wildlife taking solitude on the Refuge.” With this level of concern, it is counterintuitive to allow destructive industrial aquaculture.

Industrial shellfish aquaculture is known to reduce or eliminate eelgrass. Shifts in the sediment from the thousands of bottom bags containing the oysters will damage the eelgrass beds. This shellfish operation involves large-scale use of plastics that are hazardous to marine organisms and can trap and entangle wildlife. Commercial shellfish aquaculture, already a major industry in Washington State, has significant impacts on the nearshore marine environments, which provide essential habitat for many species, including invertebrates, fish (including herring and salmon), and birds (migratory and shorebirds).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers predicts the negative impacts of this project are: 50% reduction in bird primary feeding grounds;  plastic oyster bags that exclude the probing shorebird flocks from feeding deeply into the substrate, entrap fish and birds, add macro- and micro-plastic bits to the sediment throughout the refuge, and shift the benthic community composition; diminishing of the ecological benefits provided by eelgrass to threatened fish and birds, such as nourishment and cover from predators; and increased algal blooms that will leave a graveyard of dead oysters. These detrimental effects to the Dungeness Bay National Refuge are NOT minimal. Decision makers should not place financial benefits to the corporation above the long term and cumulative impacts to the refuge.

Please revoke the lease and prevent damage to the wildlife refuge and the harm that would come to the wildlife that depend on it.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Interim Regional Director Hugh Morrison):

I am writing to ask that your agency reinstate your opposition to establish oyster farming in Dungeness Bay.

In spite of demonstrated harm to birds, salmon, forage fish, and shellfish, and a recommendation by the National Marine Fisheries Service that “an alternative site be identified in a location that results in less potential impacts to wildlife that is more appropriate for aquaculture and meets the goals of the tribe,” permitting agencies approved a lease for an industrial oyster farm inside the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. This decision, which is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, must be reversed.

The Dungeness Bay Wildlife Refuge was created by Executive Order in 1915 by Woodrow Wilson, directing the area to be set aside as a “refuge, preserve and breeding ground for native birds and prohibits any disturbance of the birds within the reserve.” The front page of the Refuge website states: “Pets, bicycles, kite flying, Frisbees, ball-playing, camping, and fires are not permitted on the Refuge as they are a disturbance for the many migrating birds and other wildlife taking solitude on the Refuge.” With this level of concern, it is counterintuitive to allow destructive industrial aquaculture.

Among the negative impacts of this project, as predicted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are: 50% reduction in bird primary feeding grounds;  toxic plastic oyster bags that exclude the probing shorebird flocks from feeding deeply into the substrate, entrap fish and birds, add macro- and micro-plastic bits to the sediment throughout the refuge, and shift the benthic community composition; diminish the ecological benefits provided by eelgrass to threatened fish and birds, such as nourishment and cover from predators; and increased algal blooms that will leave a graveyard of dead oysters. These detrimental effects to the Dungeness Bay National Refuge are NOT minimal. Decision makers should not place financial benefits to the corporation above the long term and cumulative impacts to the refuge.

Your mission is to protect refuges. Please reinstate USFWS opposition to the lease and prevent damage to the wildlife refuge and the harm that would come to the wildlife that depend on it.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2022) It is hardly news that plastics are a huge environmental problem, but three features of the plastic saturation of our planet are not well or widely recognized. One is the exacerbation of the climate emergency via emissions from the feedstocks for, and production and use of, plastics. Another is that proffered in a late 2021 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: “the land we use to grow our food is contaminated with even larger quantities of plastic pollutants” than the well-publicized amount of plastics in our oceans. The third is the little-known issue of the plastic coating of some synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, as investigated by a recent report from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). Beyond Pesticides has written about the “contributions” of plastics to the climate crisis, as well as issues related to uses of plastics in organic agriculture and the scourge of chemically intensive farming.

An enormous amount of plastic in thousands of forms is produced globally each year. Toxic plastic pollution is now found, as The Guardian puts it, “from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans.” A frequently cited and chilling metric is this: the total mass of plastics on Earth now exceeds the total mass of all living mammals. How did we get here?

With the chemical “boom” years during and following World War II, the invention, and industrial, defense, medical, and consumer applications of synthetic polymers grew robustly in the U.S. These materials seemed remarkable in the early, pre-war and WWII years — strong, flexible, lightweight, resistive, easy to mass produce, and chemically inert. As Beyond Pesticides wrote earlier in 2022, “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 [although much of the production has shifted to Asia]. 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.’”

The “chemically inert” property of plastics has proved supremely problematic, in part because it turns out that under some conditions, many plastics are actually not inert, but can and do leach toxic chemicals into their surrounds. Also, plastics do not break down chemically into their constituent compounds, and because plastics are synthetic materials, they cannot exist “benignly” in nature after their useful lives. In addition, the “inert” quality is causing massive damage to environments and organisms because, centrally, plastics can break down only mechanically, into smaller and smaller bits until, as “microplastics” — pieces less than five millimeters in diameter — they mobilize and travel everywhere.

Microplastics have suffused every ecosystem on the planet (including the heights of Everest, the depths of the oceans, and Antarctica), and have entered the food chain, atop which humans sit. Thus, they are now in marine organisms, terrestrial livestock, and human bodies (bloodstream, placentas, lungs, feces). Microplastics are in our drinking water and in the soils that grow our food. Humans are inhaling and ingesting plastics — and whatever toxins they may contain — through multiple exposure routes.

Multiple research efforts have identified the role of plastics in the entropic climate trajectory along which the fossil fuel industry has driven the globe. Carbon and methane are the two primary actors in human causation of the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. The Environmental Defense Fund has notes that “at least 25% of today’s warming is driven by methane from human actions. One of the largest methane sources is the oil and gas industry.”

Beyond Pesticides has explained that this hegemonic industry provides the petrochemical feedstocks for the production of plastics, as well as of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Worse, as the industry is more often and more vociferously called out for its role in the climate crisis, it has come to view plastics (and fertilizers and pesticides) as important future markets for its petrochemical products, and is creating facilities geared for that future.

The Executive Summary for the 2019 report, Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, asserts that plastic pollution is “not only destroying the environment and endangering human health, but also, undermining efforts to reduce carbon pollution and prevent climate catastrophe. . . . Nearly every piece of plastic begins as a fossil fuel, and greenhouse gases are emitted at each of each stage of the plastic lifecycle: 1) fossil fuel extraction and transport, 2) plastic refining and manufacture, 3) managing plastic waste, and 4) plastic’s ongoing impact once it reaches our oceans, waterways, and landscape. . . . At current levels, greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic lifecycle threaten the ability of the global community to keep . . . temperature rise below 1.5°C. With the petrochemical and plastic industries planning a massive expansion in production, the problem is on track to get much worse.”

The particular roles and magnitude of plastic use and pollution in agriculture have generally received little public or advocacy attention, but they certainly merit it. Plastics are used in agricultural production, by associated value chains, and in food packaging. Farmers use plastic for sheet mulches, netting, tree guards, plant containers, irrigation tubing, feed bags, and many other items, to the tune of roughly 816 million pounds annually in the U.S. Plastic sheet mulches account for 126 million of those pounds, and plastic containers for another 422 million — one third of all that in Florida alone. There are no policies in the U.S. that require or encourage recycling of agricultural plastics.

Plastic mulching films have become, over the past couple of decades, an extremely popular product for use on crops to suppress weeds, increase soil temperatures, reduce moisture loss from surface evaporation, and reduce nutrient runoff due to heavy rains. These mulch products are commonly produced from LDPE (low-density polyethylene) or synthetic polymers, including PVC (polyvinyl chloride, a particularly nasty material that releases carcinogenic dioxins when produced or burned). Farmers increasingly rely on such synthetic mulching films rather than on traditional materials such as cover crops, composted manures, straw, and others.

For all their utility to producers, these huge sheets of mulching film are creating more environmental havoc. After sitting on the soil for a season, they often have been damaged by farmworkers’ tools or motorized farm equipment; acquire clinging globs of soil and plant residue; and are further degraded by effects of sunlight, water, and wind, causing some tearing and mechanical breakdown that ends up contaminating agricultural soils with microplastics. Indeed, the 2021 FAO report indicates that there is more microplastic pollution in soils than in the oceans.

In addition, even if farmers try to recycle these plastic mulching sheets (and facilities that can do so are not especially common), the sheets are often so fragmented that they are difficult to retrieve post-harvest, and recycling them becomes nearly impossible. Typically, this mulching film is pulled up, leaving plenty of microplastics behind, and either burned in the field — releasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and toxic compounds into the air — or dumped eventually into landfills.

Ohio’s Country Journal noted in a 2020 article that “the plastic left in the soil is changing the soil environment. At first, the remnants in the soil were a nuisance, clogging farm equipment, blowing in the wind, getting caught on fencing and washing into ditches. Now, more than 20 years of plastic building up in the soil has started to interfere with roots and water movement, reducing crop yield and canceling out some of the benefits of the plastic mulch.”

The FAO report makes recommendations, chief among which is to return to one of the “alternatives” — which are actually entirely traditional — organic mulch materials, cover crops, and other methods that are largely what organic farmers use. The co-benefits of these practices include savings on inputs, avoidance of the GHGs embedded in plastic production and disposal, incorporation of carbon-holding biomass into the soil, yielding long-term improvements in soil health, and when coupled with organic, non-chemical management (no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers), potential access to premium markets. The report also recommends avoiding petrochemical plastic use, banning of toxic PVC for these materials, and increasing the thickness of mulching sheets so as to make them less likely to degrade in the field.

There are other kinds of alternatives, such as so-called “bioplastic” mulching film, made from the starches in corn, soy, wheat, or sugarcane. Manufacturers of these promote them as biodegradable, i.e., capable of breaking down and being incorporated into the soil after harvest. However, the decomposition of such plastics in different soils and climatic conditions varies widely, and the long-term impact on soils of the use of biodegradable mulch films is not well understood. A genuinely biodegradable mulch film that breaks down adequately, is readily decomposed by soil microbes, and has no deleterious impacts on soil or those microorganisms, is not yet a reality.

In the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Organics Program (NOP), the issue of plastic mulches has been a controversial one since biodegradable biobased mulch film (BBMF) was first added to the NOP National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances in 2014. Beyond Pesticides, which has been active in advocating for the integrity and strength of the National Organic Standards (NOS), has repeatedly weighed in on the issue. (See our Keeping Organic Strong webpage for an orientation to these issues.)

In its most-recent (2021) missive to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), Beyond Pesticides wrote: “While BBMF was supported enthusiastically by those who saw an opportunity to have the benefits of plastic mulch without the wasteful and labor-intensive practice of carting it off to the landfill at the end of every growing season, others . . . warned that the available products were ‘not ready for prime time.’ As predicted, the Organic Materials Research Institute (OMRI) soon announced that no products met the criteria in the National List — that is, 100% biobased and biodegradable.”

In addition to the inadequate character of the available products — which per se fail to meet NOSB requirements — Beyond Pesticides’ testimony identified other problems with their deployment. “BBMFs are not removed from the field by the grower. Instead, they are tilled into the soil. The tillage process purposefully creates microplastics, with the intention that the action of soil organisms will degrade these small particles. However, as reported in OMRI’s 2016 Supplemental Technical Review, many growers report that fragments persist in the soil. OMRI reports that research on the eventual fate of biodegradable mulch films is ongoing. There is, nevertheless, research reported by OMRI indicating that the BBMFs do not completely degrade and may degrade more slowly when tilled under the surface, that they contain components that may be hazardous, and particles may adsorb persistent toxins.”

Beyond Pesticides affirms that synthetic mulches should not replace organic mulches in the National List, noting that organic mulches have long been a hallmark of organic production. It justifies this position on the basis of the NOSB Principles of Organic Production and Handling, which state: “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. These goals are met, where possible, through the use of cultural, biological, and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic materials to fulfill specific functions within the system.”

The use of plastics in coating pesticides and fertilizers, purportedly to allow for controlled release of chemicals or nutrients, is an additional and alarming branch of global petrochemical saturation. (Beyond Pesticides is compelled to note that organic fertilizers, by their nature, provide “controlled release” nutrition without all the toxic downsides of synthetic fertilizers coated in polymers.) In addition, agrochemical companies add microplastics to synthetic fertilizers (e.g., as anti-caking agents), proffer them as soil conditioners, and coat some seeds with polymers.

The CIEL report, Sowing a Plastic Planet: How Microplastics in Agrochemicals Are Affecting Our Soils, Our Food, and Our Future, dives deep into the many issues around microplastics, including the coating, or “encapsulation,” of pesticides and fertilizers. It notes that agriculture is one of the largest users of products with intentionally added microplastics, and that this use is rising (11% growth is projected for 2018 to 2025). Microplastics remain in the soil long after the encapsulation’s function — slow release — ends, polluting the soil and readily dispersing into the air or water.

The report clarifies that this application of “plastic-coated agrochemicals to soils and crops directly introduces microplastic into the environment and potentially into the food supply. It also compounds the health and environmental hazards posed by agrochemicals themselves. . . . Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, derived primarily from oil- and gas-based feedstocks, are already some of the most toxic substances in use today. Encapsulating them in microplastic, itself fossil fuel in another form, only heightens the risks. Because of its deliberate and controlled nature, microplastic pollution from plastic-coated agrochemicals is especially egregious, but it is also readily preventable. The only barriers are public awareness of the problem and political will to tackle it at its source by regulating the plastics industry.”

Though encapsulation is not a new technology, industry’s promotion of its use in synthetic pesticides and fertilizers has taken a perverse turn — to greenwashing these products as “planet-safe” choices. The CIEL report asserts that the “repackaging” of this microplastic technology in this context sometimes involves no mention of “plastics,” but instead, use of less well-known and poorly understood terms, such as “polymer,” in describing the coating material. Further, “plastic encapsulation may be portrayed as a plus for the environment. Agrochemical industry marketing and messaging around controlled-release products emphasizes the technology’s purported efficiency as a key to more sustainable farming.”

The report concludes: “Plastic-coated fertilizers and pesticides are not only dangerous, but also unnecessary, because effective alternatives exist. There are a multitude of strategies for reducing the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, including high-performing agroecological techniques that do not rely on fossil fuel-based agrochemical inputs at all.”

Beyond Pesticides agrees, and reiterates that organic regenerative approaches to agriculture are the solution, and beat out chemical approaches on virtually every front: safety for humans, organisms, and the environment; soil health; a nutritive food supply; and even yields and economics, in many cases. Use of chemical pesticides to achieve agricultural and other goals is by nature a dead end, both because these compounds cause great and broad damage, and because resistance inevitably develops over time, rendering them ineffective — to which industry responds with new, additional, and potentially more harmful, formulations.

Making the transition to non-chemical management in farming, turf care, and other maintenance and protection protocols is beyond urgent. The chemical — and plastic — ubiquity in our materials stream, environment, food, and bodies, coupled with the climate emergency (and the enormous catalysis of it by the petro- and agrochemical industries) threaten every single thing humans value. Join Beyond Pesticides in advocating for the protection of our world from the risks imposed by these industries.

Sources: https://www.fao.org/3/cb7856en/cb7856en.pdf and https://www.ciel.org/reports/microplastics-in-agrochemicals/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2022) A California judge ordered state-run pesticide spraying to cease on public, agricultural, wild lands, and private properties. The judge states that government officials fail to consider and minimize the potential health and environmental risk associated with pesticide use. Moreover, officials failed to notify the public on the risks of pesticide spraying. The suit was brought by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the City of Berkeley and ten other public health, conservation and food safety organizations, including Beyond Pesticides. Board member of the California Environmental Health Initiative Nan Wishner states, “The court made the right decision to throw out CDFA’s plan to cement into place for the indefinite future the agency’s ‘spray now, ask questions later approach to pest management, which would have perpetuated the existing situation, in which Californians learn their yards or neighborhoods are to be sprayed only when the treatments are about to happen and have little or no recourse to stop the use of pesticides.” 

On May 19, 2022, the Superior Court of California – County of Sacramento ruled to remove an environmental impact report allowing California’s Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to spray pesticides at any time and any place. Removal of the environmental impact report also brings an end to chemical pest management under the CDFA pesticide spray program. State and local agencies must provide research on how pesticide spraying projects may affect the health of humans, animals, and the environment while finding solutions to eliminate the potential threat.

Moreover, the law requires CDFA to research and reveal environmental and health threats from 75 pesticides used across California. However, the geography and ecosystem of regions in California differ, and CDFA failed to analyze the adverse environmental and health effects in specific locations. The geography (e.g., lowland) and ecosystem (e.g., temperature, light exposure, moisture) of a region can significantly affect the severity of pesticide toxicity. Moreover, CDFA’s pest management program used pesticides known to be toxic to pollinators like bees, butterflies, bats and birds, and aquatic organisms. The impact of pesticides on wildlife—including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within the soil—is extensive. Many studies document how exposure to these toxic chemicals causes reproductive, neurological, renal, hepatic, endocrine, and developmental damage and cancers in various species. Although there are policies to protect wildlife from harm, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, a 2013 report by the National Academy of Sciences identifies shortcomings in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) evaluation and analysis of pesticides on endangered species. Like CDFA, the agency regularly disregards discussing how to take precaution to protect threatened and endangered species from pesticide harms. 

This litigation requires CDFA to cease state-run pesticide spraying programs due to the understudied and undisclosed risks. Although pesticide spraying under CDFA will reduce, many of these same chemicals remain in use through other programs and in various regions like wildlife refuges. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), some of these chemicals include: 

• Neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides are highly toxic to pollinators like bees that encounter the chemical through pollen or nectar. Songbirds encounter neonic through consumption of pesticide-treated seeds, with one seed being enough to result in death. Moreover, the chemical is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, which share a similar morphology to insects on land.
• The toxic fumigant methyl bromide, known to deplete the ozone layer, can cause children to develop autism in their first year of life after exposure in the womb. 
• Chloropicrin, a soil fumigant also used as a fungicide and herbicide, has links to a catalogue of health effects, including genetic damage, respiratory ailments, skin irritation, and headaches. Moreover, the chemical is prone to drift. 

California director of government affairs for EWG, Bill Allayaud, concludes, “The court was right to rule against the Department of Food and Agriculture’s outrageous effort to keep the public in the dark about how and when it plans to spray toxic pesticides and to downplay the risks these chemicals pose to pollinators, the environment and the health of those who live near farm fields.[…] It is our hope that this court decision moves the CDFA to join the state’s movement toward sustainable pest management, as represented by the governor’s Sustainable Agriculture budget initiative and the state Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Sustainable Pest Management Work Group.”

The use of pesticides should be phased out and ultimately eliminated to protect the health of humans, wildlife, and the ecosystem. Pesticide spraying threatens the survivability and recovery of many species, and litigation such as this helps curb the effects of chemical exposure. The globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk and an increasing rate of biodiversity loss. However, advocating for local and state pesticide reform policies can protect all species’ health. For more information on pesticide impacts on wildlife and human health, visit Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife page and Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Furthermore, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits that eliminate the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices across the nation. For more information on how the organic choice is the right choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.  

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

Sources: Environmental Working Group

(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2022) A new evolutionary strategy spreading among German cockroaches is making them more difficult to kill than ever before. In a recent publication in Nature Communications Biology, scientists determined that cockroaches are developing an aversion to sugar baits containing glucose, with impacts that are changing their behavior and altering their mating rituals. “We are constantly in an evolutionary battle with cockroaches,” said study co-author Coby Schal, PhD, of North Carolina State University. “Evolution can be sped up tremendously in the urban, human environment because the selection force imposed on insects, especially inside homes, is so intense.”

At issue with German cockroaches is a trade-off between natural and sexual selection. Natural selection or, in this case, human-induced natural selection, has led cockroach females to become averse to baits containing glucose sugars. While many are now familiar with the fact that the vast majority of German cockroaches are resistant to nearly every synthetic pesticide, with some resistant to upwards of 10x the label application rate, less reported is the pests’ growing resistance to sugar-laced baits. Sugar-containing baits have been employed for decades and, over time, cockroaches that are able to survive in locations where sugar baits were employed developed a distaste for the otherwise attractive solution.

As the present study shows, the implications of this development are affecting a critical life stage of the German cockroach: mating. Roach copulation is initiated by males approaching a female and exposing a specialized gland on its abdominal segment, which subsequently excretes a sugary concoction that is intended to attract the female. Females feeding on the gland are thus at the right position for males to mate. Copulation is generally more successful when females feed for longer periods of time; a successful courtship can last up to 90 minutes.

It follows that bait aversion has come to an evolutionary reckoning with cockroach mating rituals. For female cockroaches, something tastes a bit off. “We’re seeing glucose-averse female German cockroaches turning down this nuptial gift – and the chance to mate – and wanted to understand more about the mechanism behind it,” said Ayako Wada-Katsumata, PhD, study coauthor and research scholar at NC State. Male excretions contain a range of sugars and amino acids that females rapidly break down into glucose with their saliva. But with natural selection dictating a need to avoid these sugars, female cockroaches averse to glucose taste bitterness when feeding on the solution, resulting in a short and failed courtship.

According to the study, glucose-averse females mated at a significantly lower rate with wild type male cockroaches (lab-reared cockroaches without sugar aversion). There was no significant difference seen when glucose-averse males mated with glucose averse females. However, even within glucose-averse pairs, their courtship was much shorter than wild type mating events. Looking closer at the nuptial secretions, scientists found that by adding fructose to the secretion of wild type males, they could increase their mating success with glucose-averse females.

“Wild-type females accept the sugary secretions,” said Dr. Wada-Katsumata. “Glucose-averse females don’t accept the wild-type secretions because they easily convert to glucose. Males can change the composition of secretions – perhaps producing more maltotriose which takes longer to convert to glucose – or try to mate faster. In short, the glucose aversion trait evolved under natural selection, but under sexual selection it is causing the male to modify his sexual secretion and behavior.”

While cockroaches having trouble mating sounds like a good thing, don’t get too excited. Glucose-aversion is likely to spread rapidly in populations where it exists. As far back as 2013, scientists made recommendations that manufacturers avoid using glucose in cockroach baits. With the current study, this recommendation is expanded to all sugars that contain glucose.

With synthetic pesticide use already precluded due to its lack of efficacy and high risk, the loss of effective baits to manage cockroach infestations has significant implications for pest management. It is particularly difficult because most manufacturers do not indicate whether their products do or do not contain glucose. However, there are still strategies that can be used to address cockroach infestations.

To manage cockroaches, focus on denying them access to the necessities of life –food, water, and shelter. Seal up cracks and crevices that may allow entryway, install door sweeps to further impede movement, and make sure food and water is never left out, and all surfaces are clean/vacuumed. Throughout the process, monitor populations with traps to gauge areas of activity, and the intensity of the infestation. Once you have done everything you can to deny food, water, and shelter, employ the only insecticide that cockroaches have not developed resistance to: boric acid.

Boric acid products can be formulated as a powder or bait. It may be worth an initial application of boric acid bait products in high infestation settings. In the context of the present study however, pay close attention to whether they are consuming the bait after it is applied. In any case, boric acid’s use as a desiccant can work to your advantage. Apply the product in powder form in very thin lines along areas where there is high cockroach activity. Cockroaches walking over the boric acid will have it attach to their feet or antennae. Then you can take advantage of cockroach grooming, a biological trait that has not (yet) been altered by human selection. Because cockroaches use their mouths to groom, pieces of boric acid they clean off of their bodies will be ingested, eventually resulting in death. Cockroaches also often feed on the carcasses of other dead cockroaches, potentially resulting in a positive feedback cycle that can help bring an end to an infestation. While we suggest the use of boric acid in bait formulations that do not off-gas, if handing powder formulations, use gloves and a mask

Once cockroach infestations are dealt with, don’t let up on sanitation or structural repairs. These pests are likely to return if conditions favor them. For a step-by-step checklist and guide to take care of a German cockroach problem, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe entry on this appalling pest.

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

Source: NC State University press release, Nature Communications Biology

(Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2022) Fifty years after the banning of DDT, the notorious insecticide is still harming iconic birds of prey along the California coastline. According to research published in Environmental Science and Technology, California condors and marine mammals along California’s coast are contaminated with several dozen different halogenated organic compounds (hazardous, often-chlorinated chemicals) related to DDT, chlordane, and other now-banned legacy chemicals. The findings highlight the incredible importance of addressing these original “forever chemicals,” and making certain that we do not continue to repeat the mistakes of the past with new and different, yet equally dangerous, chemistries.

Between 1947 and 1971, the Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, the largest historical producer of DDT, released over 1,700 tons of DDT into the LA sewer system, which eventually made its way into the Pacific Ocean. During this time, several other companies discharged PCBs, leading to further chemical contamination of land and sediment. As recent as April 2021, scientists discovered 25,000 barrels likely containing DDT near Catalina Island along the southern California coast.

These releases have resulted in serious environmental and health problems throughout the coastal food chain. Yet, as the present study shows, scientists are only beginning to understand the far-reaching effects.

DDT and similar halogenated organic compounds present significant risks to bird populations. Throughout the 1960s, populations of birds of prey declined precipitously throughout the United States, similar to the serious pollinator decline that is currently being experienced with the continued use of neonicotinoid insecticides. DDT biomagnifies up the food chain; the chemical does not break down, and as each animal progressively up the food chain consumes contaminated prey, the amount of the chemical accumulates, increasing the toxicity to predators at the top. Birds that consume high amounts of fish and other marine organisms contaminated with DDT are more likely to experience egg shell thinning. Thin eggs crack and become nonviable in the nest, which resulted in a widespread failure to procreate among birds of prey during the middle of the 20^th century.

By 1987, only 27 California condors remained in existence. It has taken 40 years of captive breeding to grow the population to its current level of 537, yet as the present study highlights, the same threats still remain. “The abundance is so high in Southern California,” said Eunha Hoh, PhD, study coauthor and researcher at San Diego State’s School of Public Health to the LA Times. “We can’t just move on … our ocean is so much more polluted with DDT.”

Scientists assess the continuing threat of DDT (and DDT-related compound) contamination by comparing blood plasma samples from California condors and coastal marine life located at different locations in California. Using two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry, levels of halogenated organic compounds were determined for both inland and coastal California condors, as well as marine mammals (various dolphin species, seals, and California sea lions) from both Baja California, Mexico, and southern California.

In summary, researchers identified 415 unique halogenated organic compounds in tested samples. Nine classes of compounds found, likely related to the past chemical dumping, were unknown to scientists. Coastal condors contained four times greater levels of halogenated compounds than inland condors, and marine mammals along the southern California coast contained levels three times higher than those located in Baja California. For DDT alone, coastal California condors had concentrations in their blood seven times higher than their inland neighbors.

“Our ongoing work has demonstrated that the more years a female condor spends on the coast, and thus likely feeding on marine mammals, the lower the probability her egg will hatch,” said Myra Finkelstein, PhD, an environmental toxicologist at UC Santa Cruz to LA Times.

According to previous reports, thinning eggshells have been seen in coastal California Condors since 2006. These coastal populations have been observed feeding on the carcasses of various marine life, including highly contaminated seals and sea lions. Condors along Big Sur are experiencing hatching success as low as 20-40%, while those farther inland near Tejon are seeing rates of 70-80%. Perhaps the silver lining of the present research is the relatively lower levels of contamination found in Baja California, indicating that location as a possible site for coastal reintroduction.

As we deal with the toxic legacy of long-banned pesticides, we must take steps to stop the chemical disasters currently in the making from the use of new long-lived chemistries. Neonicotinoid insecticides can persist in soils for years, resulting in continuous re-uptake by plants, which pollinators feed upon and subsequently experience lethal or sublethal exposure. PFAS chemicals, the new generation of “forever chemicals,” are ubiquitous in farmland throughout the United States. Clean up and species recovery are decades long affairs that society must take preventative measures to prevent.

Take action today to urge lawmakers to enact real, meaningful reforms to federal pesticide law to ensure that we have the tools necessary to prevent the next man-made ecological crisis. As Rachel Carson wrote, “Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the Earth without making it unfit for all life?”

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

Source: LA Times, Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2022) This Memorial Day, ask the U.S. government to show respect for veterans by recognizing Gulf War Illness (GWI) and honoring our commitment to those who have served the country. New research is providing strong causal evidence that Gulf War Illness (GWI) is the result of exposure to sarin gas, an organophosphate nerve agent, when Iraqi chemical weapons storage and production facilities were bombed during the Gulf War. The findings, published earlier this month in Environmental Health Perspectives, have important implications for the hundreds of thousands of American service members suffering from a constellation of chronic symptoms without a true understanding of how they became sick. “Quite simply, our findings prove that Gulf War illness was caused by sarin, which was released when we bombed Iraqi chemical weapons storage and production facilities,” said Robert Haley, MD, lead author of the study and epidemiologist at University of Texas Southwestern. “There are still more than 100,000 Gulf War veterans who are not getting help for this illness and our hope is that these findings will accelerate the search for better treatment.”

Tell the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Senate to provide disability benefits to those veterans suffering from Gulf War Illness.

Veterans of the Gulf War are still fighting for care. A 2017 Government Accountability Office report found that 80% of Gulf War veteran disability claims are denied by U.S. Veteran’s Affairs. GWI claims are approved at a rate roughly three times lower than all other potential claimed disabilities. With strong data now on the cause, VA must move rapidly to ensure American veterans get the treatment they deserve.

Veterans dealing with Gulf War Illness have described a range of ongoing symptoms, from fever to fatigue, headaches, night sweats and insomnia, difficulty finding words, issues with concentration and retaining information, sexual dysfunction, respiratory problems, dizziness, skin rashes, joint and body pain and diarrhea and indigestion. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs refers to the illness as a “chronic multisymptom illness.”

A bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 3967, Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2021 (with 100 cosponsors—97 Democrats, 3 Republicans), which passed the House in March, 2022 and was sent to the Senate, would provide broad coverage for toxic exposure during military service, combining 15 previous bills. The Senate has not taken up this legislation. S. 1039, improving compensation for disabilities occurring in Persian Gulf War veterans, was introduced by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

Tell the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Senate to provide disability benefits to those veterans suffering from Gulf War Illness.

Letter to Secretary Denis Richard McDonough, Department of Veterans Affairs

This Memorial Day, please ensure that the U.S. government shows respect for veterans by recognizing Gulf War Illness (GWI) and honoring our commitment to those who have served the country. New research is providing strong causal evidence that Gulf War Illness (GWI) is the result of exposure to sarin gas, an organophosphate nerve agent, when Iraqi chemical weapons storage and production facilities were bombed during the Gulf War. The findings, published earlier this month in Environmental Health Perspectives, have important implications for the hundreds of thousands of American service members suffering from a constellation of chronic symptoms without a true understanding of how they became sick. “Quite simply, our findings prove that Gulf War illness was caused by sarin, which was released when we bombed Iraqi chemical weapons storage and production facilities,” said Robert Haley, MD, lead author of the study and epidemiologist at University of Texas Southwestern. “There are still more than 100,000 Gulf War veterans who are not getting help for this illness and our hope is that these findings will accelerate the search for better treatment.”

Veterans of the Gulf War are still fighting for care. A 2017 Government Accountability Office report found that 80% of Gulf War veteran disability claims are denied by U.S. Veteran’s Affairs. GWI claims are approved at a rate roughly three times lower than all other potential claimed disabilities. With strong data now on the cause, VA must move rapidly to ensure American veterans get the treatment they deserve.

Veterans dealing with Gulf War Illness have described a range of ongoing symptoms, from fever to fatigue, headaches, night sweats and insomnia, difficulty finding words, issues with concentration and retaining information, sexual dysfunction, respiratory problems, dizziness, skin rashes, joint and body pain and diarrhea and indigestion. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs refers to the illness as a “chronic multisymptom illness.”

Please take action immediately to fully serve with health care and disability benefits the veterans who have served our country.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators

This Memorial Day, please ensure that the U.S. government shows respect for veterans by recognizing Gulf War Illness (GWI) and honoring our commitment to those who have served the country. New research is providing strong causal evidence that Gulf War Illness (GWI) is the result of exposure to sarin gas, an organophosphate nerve agent, when Iraqi chemical weapons storage and production facilities were bombed during the Gulf War. The findings, published earlier this month in Environmental Health Perspectives, have important implications for the hundreds of thousands of American service members suffering from a constellation of chronic symptoms without a true understanding of how they became sick. “Quite simply, our findings prove that Gulf War illness was caused by sarin, which was released when we bombed Iraqi chemical weapons storage and production facilities,” said Robert Haley, MD, lead author of the study and epidemiologist at University of Texas Southwestern. “There are still more than 100,000 Gulf War veterans who are not getting help for this illness and our hope is that these findings will accelerate the search for better treatment.”

Veterans of the Gulf War are still fighting for care. A 2017 Government Accountability Office report found that 80% of Gulf War veteran disability claims are denied by U.S. Veteran’s Affairs. GWI claims are approved at a rate roughly three times lower than all other potential claimed disabilities. With strong data now on the cause, VA must move rapidly to ensure American veterans get the treatment they deserve.

Veterans dealing with Gulf War Illness have described a range of ongoing symptoms, from fever to fatigue, headaches, night sweats and insomnia, difficulty finding words, issues with concentration and retaining information, sexual dysfunction, respiratory problems, dizziness, skin rashes, joint and body pain and diarrhea and indigestion. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs refers to the illness as a “chronic multisymptom illness.”

Please take action immediately to fully serve the veterans who have served the country by taking up H.R. 3967, Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2021, which passed the House in March, 2022 and was sent to the Senate for consideration. Also, please cosponsor S. 1039, improving compensation for disabilities occurring in Persian Gulf War veterans, which was introduced by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

Please show your support of veterans with action by supporting desperately needed health care and disability benefits for illnesses contracted during their service to our country.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 27, 2022) In a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) court document filed on May 16, the agency signaled potential changes to the labeling it requires for “over the top” (OTT, or post-emergent) herbicides containing dicamba, a very problematic pesticide. The filing — in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, where EPA currently faces litigation about its 2020 dicamba registrations — comes as a result of Bayer, Inc.’s March 2022 proposed amendments to EPA registration for its XtendiMax herbicide, which contains dicamba and glyphosate. Beyond Pesticides has covered the dicamba saga for years, including the EPA Office of the Inspector General’s critical 2021 report citing an abandonment of science and assault on agency integrity for EPA’s dicamba decisions during the Trump years.

Dicamba has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, birth defects, and kidney and liver damage. It is toxic to birds, fish, and other aquatic organisms, and is known to leach into waterways after application. Dicamba also causes serious damage to non-GE (genetically engineered), non-target plants, damaging habitat and food sources for various organisms, especially for birds and insects.

According to Progressive Farmer, EPA is currently considering some dicamba use restrictions after Bayer submitted them to EPA for the 2023 spray season; purportedly, these amendments involve additional use restrictions in counties that are home to federally listed endangered or threatened species. Apart from Bayer, the only other manufacturers of dicamba herbicides for OTT applications are Syngenta (with its Tavium product) and BASF (with Engenia); they have alerted EPA that they, too, “may propose alternative restrictions on . . . dicamba use prior to the 2023 growing season.”

In a statement to DTN (the communications company for Progressive Famer), Bayer asserted: “Our proposed amendments are meant to address the EPA’s stated concerns about protecting endangered species in certain counties in the U.S. We are examining all actions we can to ensure that this important tool remains available for our customers.”

Progressive Farmer writes, “This court filing was prompted by Arizona District Court judge, David C. Bury, asking EPA to clarify its plan for dicamba regulation in 2022 and beyond, in an effort to determine if he should lift a stay and let the lawsuit proceed. The plaintiffs, environmental groups led by the Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity, are asking the district court to vacate EPA’s 2020 dicamba registration entirely, based on its risks to the environment and endangered species (see more, below).

Why the sudden interest in threatened species coming from the chemical industry? In January 2022, EPA announced it would change course and follow the law by methodically reviewing the impacts of pesticides on endangered species prior to registering a pesticide for use (or re-registering subsequent to the required review of registered pesticides every 15 years). This, along with the court’s request, likely spurred dicamba manufacturers — who are not unaware of the impacts of their products on organisms and habitats — to propose such amendments.

If this sounds backward . . . it is. Why are proposed, piecemeal “amendments” to use allowances for dicamba coming from companies that make them, rather than from the federal body tasked with regulating pesticide use and protecting human health and the environment? Why does EPA at least appear to be taking its cue from industry? And why would EPA not simply evaluate the (extensive) environmental and health threats dicamba poses, make public that information, and de-register it on that basis? To nearly no one’s surprise, there is a considerable history of industry bias at EPA, as Beyond Pesticides has explored here, here, here, here, and here.

Before 2016, dicamba was used as a pre-planting or post-harvest “burndown” herbicide — to reduce both weedy biomass and the number of viable weed seeds in crop fields. One of the reasons for the herbicide’s great destructive potential is that dicamba formulations are notoriously drift prone — able to travel well more than a mile off the target site and harm or kill non-target plants.

EPA’s 2019 allowance of over-the-top spray applications of products with a combination of dicamba and S-metolachlor, and of mixtures of dicamba and glyphosate, has resulted in very significant environmental damage. Researchers found that dicamba formulations become even more volatile and drift-prone in hot conditions and when tank-mixed with glyphosate. Dicamba’s intensive use has, whether by design or not, also eroded the market for non-GE soybeans because growers saw GE dicamba seeds as the one way to escape rogue dicamba damage to their farms. (Meanwhile, it turns out that XtendiMax and Engenia, which were ostensibly formulated to be less drift prone, are not appreciably less volatile than prior formulations of dicamba.)

The destructive environmental impacts of this compound have been extensive. Levels of damage to non-GE crops and to trees, organic production fields, orchards, and other sites has been so severe in some areas that many lawsuits ensued, and states began generating restrictions on the compound’s use — scrambling to enact limits on when and how dicamba can be used, amend buffer zones around application sites, and in some cases, ban its use outright. 

A report in late 2019 by Arkansas Audubon found widespread impacts to the habitat of birds and other wildlife, asserting that it “predicts that in a landscape full of GMO [genetically modified organisms] crops (on which dicamba is typically used), the atmospheric loading of volatile dicamba could be enough to cause landscape scale damage to our state natural areas, wildlife management areas, national wildlife refuges, family farms, and the wildlife they harbor.”

Dicamba has been the subject of intense controversy in recent years, particularly in the Midwest and South, where it is used extensively on GE soybean and cotton crops. After intensive use of glyphosate herbicides (such as Bayer’s/Monsanto’s Roundup) on much of the three largest U.S. commodity crops (soy, corn, and cotton), resistance to glyphosate-based herbicides in GE crop fields has become rampant. As a response, Bayer/Monsanto developed glyphosate- and dicamba-resistant seeds that would tolerate both compounds. The company released them into the marketplace prior to any EPA approval of a corresponding dicamba-plus-glyphosate product that was expected to reduce dicamba’s drift problem. As Beyond Pesticides explained in 2021: “farmers began using older, unapproved dicamba formulations, but [even after their] approval, new formulations proved too drift-prone and problematic to be used without incident.”

In 2020, a federal court voided the registration of dicamba on GE cotton and soy crops, saying that EPA had “substantially understated risks that it acknowledged and failed entirely to acknowledge other risks” related to the registration of Bayer’s XtendiMax and BASF’s Engenia. Despite that ruling, a few months later EPA renewed the registration of these dicamba compounds. That move prompted yet another lawsuit — there have been many — this one in late 2020 by the same plaintiffs who secured the earlier court decision to void dicamba’s registration (the Center for Biological Diversity [CBD], the National Family Farm Coalition [NFFC], the Center for Food Safety, and the Pesticide Action Network North America [PANNA]).

The suit challenged EPA’s “rushed re-approval of products containing the dangerous, drift-prone dicamba pesticide,” charging that the agency had failed again in its duty “to ensure that the pesticide would not cause unreasonable harm to farmers and farming communities as well as to the environment and hundreds of endangered species.” Advocates’ frustration with EPA was evident in their commentary.

CBD’s Nathan Donley said at the time, “We’re in court yet again because for four years the EPA has repeatedly claimed dicamba is safe, and for four years the agency has been dead wrong, resulting in millions of acres of damage. The Trump administration keeps insisting it wants to grant ‘certainty’ to farmers, and it’s certainly done that. Farmers across the U.S. are now certain dicamba use poses an extremely high risk of damaging neighboring crops, orchards and forests.” NFFC’s Jim Goodman asserted, “The Environmental Protection Agency clearly has no intention of living up to its name or its mission. The agency continues to work on behalf of corporate profits over the health and well-being of farmers, farmworkers and their communities.” And PANNA’s Kristin Schafer commented, “It’s absurd that we have to go to court to force EPA to do its job. Millions of acres of crops have already been damaged by dicamba. This herbicide is hurting farmers and is already creating more resistant weeds, accelerating a dangerous pesticide treadmill.”

Their comments go directly to points that Beyond Pesticides has emphasized, and which other advocates support: EPA is far too enmeshed with agrochemical industry interests; the agency minimizes or ignores real risks and threats in its pesticide evaluations, which behavior contravenes its mission; and these failures of EPA to act protectively and comprehensively cause real-world, on-the-ground harms to people, ecosystems, natural resources, the climate, and all living things.

These proposed amendments from manufacturers of harmful dicamba products — which EPA has signaled it may proffer in the near term as labeling requirements — are one example of EPA’s whack-a-mole and misguided attempts to mitigate dicamba’s “downstream” risks and harms. Real solutions would abandon such a fragmented and glacial strategy, and employ genuinely precautionary and protective approaches, such as the critical transition to organic agriculture and turf care.

Maddeningly, in these likely new dicamba labeling changes, EPA seems headed for another round of inadequate restrictions that profit the agrochemical industry, but keep producers, the environment, and the consuming — and exposed— public chained to the toxic treadmill of synthetic, petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use. It is beyond time that EPA do far, far better to achieve its mission.

Source: https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2022/05/19/epa-reviews-proposed-dicamba-label

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 26, 2022) A study published in The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology finds environmental exposure to neurotoxic pesticides increases Parkinson’s Disease (PD) risk through gastrointestinal (GI) disruption. Research finds exposure to chemical toxicants, like pesticides, can cause neurotoxic effects or exacerbate preexisting chemical damage to the nervous system. Although the mechanism by which pesticides induce disease development remains unclear, this study suggests environmental pesticide exposure disrupts GI cells responsible for supporting the autonomic nervous system. Enteric glial cells (EGCs) are GI cells that play a critical role in the functional changes that accompany GI dysfunction, as this dysfunction is one of the earliest symptoms indicating the onset of PD.

Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, with at least one million Americans living with PD and about 50,000 new diagnoses each year. The disease affects 50% more men than women, and individuals with PD have a variety of symptoms, including loss of muscle control and trembling, anxiety and depression, constipation and urinary difficulties, dementia, and sleep disturbances. Identifying early biomarkers of PD, such as pesticide-mediated toxicity on GI cells, is crucially important as symptoms intensify overtime, with no current cure for this fatal disease. While only 10 to 15 percent of PD incidents are genetic, PD is quickly becoming the fastest-growing brain disease due to nongenetic factors. Therefore, research like this highlights the need to examine alternate risk factors for disease development, especially if disease triggers are overwhelmingly nonhereditary. The study notes, “Overall, our study demonstrates that mitochondrial dysfunction in EGCs can induce autophagic dysregulation and a proinflammatory response, thereby affecting gut motility.”

The researchers investigated how EGCs respond to environmental pesticide exposure using cellular and animal models to understand the mechanisms driving gastrointestinal abnormalities. The pesticides implicated in the study include rotenone and tebufenpyrad. Both pesticides induce cell death via mitochondrial dysfunction among neurotransmitters that release, activate, or involve dopamine, also known as dopaminergic cell damage. Mitochondrial stress impairs molecular gradient function in EGCs, increasing inflammation of these cells consistent with GI cellular inflammation from neurotoxic pesticide exposure. Pesticide-induced mitochondrial dysfunction adversely affects smooth muscle motion and kinetic energy of the enteric nervous system (ENS) in the GI tract.

The gut, also known as the “second brain,” share similar structural and chemical parallels to the brain. The microbiota in the gut 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. The impacts of pesticides on the human gut microbiome represent another pesticide assault on human health. Because the biome harbors between 10 and 100 trillion symbiotic microbes, pesticide exposure has effects on some of those bacteria. The human gastrointestinal tract and its digestive processes (aka, the “gut”) mediate the function of several systems. Dysfunction of the gut microbiome is associated with a host of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, some cancers, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, asthma, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as allergies, autism, depression, obesity, and other disorders or syndromes.

Parkinson’s disease occurs when there is damage to the dopaminergic nerve cells (i.e., those activated by or sensitive to dopamine) in the brain responsible for dopamine production, one of the primary neurotransmitters mediating motor function. Although the cause of dopaminergic cell damage remains unknown, evidence suggests that pesticide exposure, especially chronic exposure, may be the culprit. Several studies identify various pesticides involved in the pathology of PD, including insecticides, rotenone and chlorpyrifos, and herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, and paraquat. Literature comprehensively documents the neurotoxic properties of paraquat and rotenone as laboratory experiments reproduce features of Parkinson’s in the brain of animals. A Washington State University study determined that residents living near areas treated with glyphosate—the most widely used herbicides in the U.S.—are one-third more likely to die prematurely from Parkinson’s disease. In the Louisiana State University study, exposure to 2,4-D, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat from pasture land, forestry, or woodland operations are prominent risk factors for PD, with the highest risk in areas where chemicals quickly percolate into drinking water sources. Overall, research finds exposure to pesticides increases the risk of developing PD from 33 percent to 80 percent, with some pesticides prompting a higher risk than others. Another study finds a 2.5-fold increase in PD risk among users of each chemical compared to non-users.

Occupational pesticide exposure poses a unique risk through direct handling and application. A 2017 study finds that occupational use of pesticides (i.e., fungicides, herbicides, or insecticides) increases PD risk by 110 to 211 percent. Even more concerning is that some personal protection equipment (PPE) may not adequately protect workers from chemical exposure during application. However, indirect nonoccupational exposure to pesticides can also increase the risk of PD. For instance, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide compound in their body, primarily stemming from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water. These compounds have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. Thus, exposure to these toxicants can cause several adverse environmental and biological health effects. With the increasing ubiquity of pesticides, current measures safeguarding against pesticide use must adequately detect and assess total chemical contaminants.

This study is the first to demonstrate that exposure to environmental neurotoxic pesticides impairs mitochondrial transformation of energy in living organisms, causing inflammation in EGCs. The mitochondrial dysfunction and inflammatory events induce gut dysfunction. Mitochondrial dysfunction is a significant aspect of PD pathology. Research demonstrates acute and chronic exposure to pesticides, like rotenone, organophosphates, and organochlorines, can inhibit the mitochondrial brain function responsible for cell regeneration and induce oxidative stress. Although many countries, including Europe and Canada, ban the use of chemicals like rotenone and organochlorines due to concerns about links to Parkinson’s, among other illnesses, the U.S. merely restricts use as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permits the use of rotenone to kill invasive fish species. Considering research demonstrates that a multitude of pesticides presenting a risk of developing PD belong to various pesticide classes and have a differing mode of action, advocates say that government officials must evaluate all health effects related to chemical exposure equally regardless of chemical composition. The study concludes, “Our findings have major implications in understanding the GI-related pathogenesis and progression of environmentally linked PD.”

This study adds to the large body of scientific studies strongly implicating pesticide’s involvement in Parkinson’s disease development. However, indirect health effects from pesticide exposure are not a new phenomenon as pesticide exposure can cause severe human health (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.) and wildlife and biodiversity issues, even at low residue levels. Although the exact cause of PD remains unknown, studies continuously identify exposure to pesticides and specific gene-pesticide interactions as significant adverse risk factors. Environmental triggers like occupational exposure to pesticides can prompt PD in individuals with or without the genetic precursor. However, PD can develop regardless of whether an individual is a carrier of the PD gene mutation. Pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Therefore, the impacts of pesticides on the nervous system, including the brain, are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farm workers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Considering that health officials expect Parkinson’s disease diagnosis to double over the next 20 years, it is essential to mitigate preventable exposure to disease-inducing pesticides. For more information on the effects of pesticide exposure on neurological health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database pages on Parkinson’s disease, dementia-like diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, and other impacts on cognitive function. 

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

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

Source: The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell 

(Beyond Pesticides, May 25, 2022) Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to deny a request by Bayer to review a verdict that found the corporation liable for damages from the use of its Roundup (glyphosate) herbicides. Now, Bayer is using proxy organizations to place pressure on the Biden Administration and Justice Department to rescind its decision. Alongside a range of chemical industry umbrella groups, many of which—like Croplife America—Bayer is a member of, a letter was sent to President Biden expressing “grave concern” about the opinion filed by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. Among a range of baseless claims, the agrichemical industry is deflecting lower court findings on the hazards and cancer risk of their products with the claim that their toxic chemicals are needed to feed the world, as crops shipments from Ukraine have been halted during the ongoing war. “The agrichemical industry has long tried to sell the idea that their toxic pesticides are needed to feed the world, as if to suggest that their motives are altruistic when, in fact, they have shown a callous disregard for life and a sustainable future,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. ” We can grow food without toxic chemicals and offer support for all the victims of war, with a reverence for healthy ecosystems and the life they support,” he said.

Bayer filed its petition with the Supreme Court in August 2021, seeking to reverse the case of Hardeman v. Monsanto, as Bayer assumed all liabilities associated with Monsanto when it purchased the company in 2018. In that suit, a California court found unanimously in favor of the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman. Mr. Hardeman told the jury he had used Roundup since the 1980s to spray poison oak and weeds around his property, resulting in his diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2014. He was awarded $5.27 million, while the punitive damages were ultimately reduced from $75 to $20 million.

Bayer’s appeal to the Supreme Court includes two claims. The first is a preemption argument, suggesting that federal pesticide law preempts state-level “failure-to-warn” claims that form the basis of the Hardeman suit. To prevail under California’s failure-to-warn law, plaintiffs must prove that the product had knowable risks, the risks presented were substantial if used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, consumers would not have recognized those risks, defendants failed to warn consumers, and consumers were thus injured as a result.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already affirmed a lower court ruling that state-level failure-to-warn claims were “equivalent to” and “fully consistent with” federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and that because the company had the ability to comply with both federal and California law, federal law did not preempt plaintiff claims. Bayer is arguing that because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not approve labels with a cancer warning, failure-to-warn claims should not apply. However the court ruled that Roundup’s label did not have “the force of law necessary to have a preemptive effect.”

Bayer is also arguing that the allowance of expert testimony by the Ninth Circuit violates court precedent and federal rules. The Ninth Circuit held that a district court applied the correct standards in admitting expert testimony in the Hardeman case. This issue centers significantly around causation experts use of epidemiological evidence, a strong and growing body of literature linking glyphosate to cancer, which EPA and pesticide manufacturers have regularly discounted.  

In December 2021, the Supreme Court requested the Solicitor General provide an opinion about whether the Court should take up the civil verdict. This resulted in Bayer suspending settlement discussions until the Supreme Court made its decision. It is very rare for the Supreme Court to review a civil claim; reports indicate less than 1% of such claims are granted review by the Justices.

The amicus brief filed by the Solicitor General rejects both of Bayer’s claims. It asserts that the Ninth Circuit’s standard for the admission of expert testimony is not different from other circuit courts, “and its factbound application of that standard here raises no issue of general importance.”

In regard to preemption, it notes, “The court of appeals correctly held that FIFRA [federal pesticide law] does not preempt respondent’s claims, and that decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals. The brief further indicates, “Although some aspects of EPA-approved labeling may preempt particular state-law requirements, EPA’s approval of labeling that does not warn about particular chronic risks does not by itself preempt a state law requirement to provide such warnings.” Despite having the statutory authority to do so, and making regulatory determinations regarding the issue, EPA does not relay information on its label about the chronic risks, like cancer, that a pesticide product may pose. No legal requirements within federal pesticide law stop or preempt California from requiring pesticide labels to include information about chronic health dangers like cancer.  

To the pesticide industry, allowing states to alert the public about the chronic hazards of the products they produce would stop them from feeding the world while there is a war in Ukraine. “Supplying wheat to the world is more important than ever given the unprecedented times with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” said National Association of Wheat Growers President Nicole Berg. “NAWG is concerned this new policy would undermine access to safe and effective crop protection tools that play a critical role in helping feed the world.”

The wording of the industry’s letter to President Biden urging his Administration to withdraw the brief is even more bombastic. “Such action would reduce crop yields at a time when lives depend on us producing every bushel possible.” With such a claim, one may suppose that the agrichemical industry is a nonprofit charity. Yet, nothing could be farther from the truth. These industry groups represent a modern-day oligopoly, focused solely on short-term goals, the next quarterly returns, and outsized compensation for its executives. The chemical industry aims to extract as much profit as possible from the land, and through the unnecessary use of hazardous pesticides, transfer the risk of crop loss from weeds and insects to its customers in the form of chronic health risks, health care costs, and environmental contamination. In this context, states are simply notifying their residents of the health risks the chemical industry is attempting the transfer to them when they use one of their pesticide products. As the agrichemical industry proclaims its mission to “feed the world,” as many as 30 million adults and 12 million children are living in food insecure homes where they are not consistently getting enough to eat.

Bayer is a member, has a representative who sits sits on the board, or provides monetary donations to nearly every industry group that signed the letter attempting to pressure the Biden Administration to withdraw its amicus brief. This letter follows along with Bayer’s “Hail Mary” attempts to sidestep responsibility for the health effects of Roundup. As Bayer notes on its website, “Regardless of the final outcome at the Supreme Court, the company is fully prepared to move forward with its five-point plan, manage litigation risks and bring closure to the Roundup™ litigation.” As part of this “five-point plan,” the corporation has already indicated it is reformulating consumer-use Roundup products beginning in 2023. However, as Beyond Pesticides noted at the time, there would be nothing to stop Bayer from rescinding that decision at any moment.

It is not enough to maintain a status quo that permits chemical industry cartels to bully regulators and elected officials into defending their hazardous products. Real reform is needed to address the depth of corruption that allows dangerous, carcinogenic pesticides to be placed on the market in the first place. Join Beyond Pesticides in urging your Senators to enact meaningful reforms to federal pesticide law, and tell EPA to stop allowing the pesticide industry free rein to regulate itself based on financial risks instead of the risks to health and the environment that federal law requires.

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

Source:  US Department of Justice, FB.org, About Lawsuits

(Beyond Pesticides, May 24, 2022) New research is providing strong causal evidence that Gulf War Illness (GWI) is the result of exposure to sarin gas, an organophosphate nerve agent used by Saddam Hussein as a chemical weapon during the Gulf War. The findings, published earlier this month in Environmental Health Perspectives, have important implications for the hundreds of thousands of American service members suffering from a constellation of chronic symptoms without a true understanding of how they became sick. “Quite simply, our findings prove that Gulf War illness was caused by sarin, which was released when we bombed Iraqi chemical weapons storage and production facilities,” said Robert Haley, MD, lead author of the study and epidemiologist at University of Texas Southwestern. “There are still more than 100,000 Gulf War veterans who are not getting help for this illness and our hope is that these findings will accelerate the search for better treatment.”

Sarin was first synthesized in the late 1930s by Nazi chemists working for IG Farben (a consortium that included Bayer) in an attempt to create stronger and more powerful insecticides. Sarin is a G-series organophosphate (named after the scientists that created them), characterized by high acute toxicity and quick evaporation after release. Exposure to sarin can quickly result in death, though lower levels of exposure have been linked to long-term brain and nervous system impairment. The chemical was identified as a potential chemical weapon but not used per se during World War 2. It was subsequently produced by both the U.S. and USSR during the 1950s. Production ceased near the end of that decade, though stockpiles remained in the U.S. until the 1970s. In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against both Kurdish civilians and Iranian soldiers. Production and stockpiling of sarin was banned under the United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

During the Gulf War, the U.S. military bombed Saddam Hussein’s stockpiles of sarin gas. Satellite imagery from the time show that debris plumes from these bombed sites drifted over to American troop positions. Nerve agent alarms were set off at certain American encampments during the course of the war.

Veterans dealing with Gulf War Illness have described a range of ongoing symptoms, from fever to fatigue, headaches, night sweats and insomnia, difficulty finding words, issues with concentration and retaining information, sexual dysfunction, respiratory problems, dizziness, skin rashes, joint and body pain and diarrhea and indigestion.  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs refers to the illness as a “chronic multisymptom illness.”

GWI has been investigated and associated with a range of environmental exposures over the years, including depleted uranium, smoke from oil wells, and other chemicals exposures like carbamates, DEET, and permethrin, used extensively to address pest problems among the deployed. Firm epidemiological data showing causation has been elusive due to scientific scrutiny over recall bias from self-reported exposures, selection bias of studied cohorts, and other potential confounding exposures.

“What makes this new study a game-changer is that it links GWI with a very strong gene-environment interaction that cannot be explained away by errors in recalling the environmental exposure or other biases in the data,” Dr. Haley said.

To make their determination, researchers enrolled 1,016 randomly selected veterans deployed during the Gulf War out of over 8,000 that completed a U.S. Military Health Survey. Half of whom developed GWI and half did not. Researchers collected blood and DNA samples from all those enrolled, and completed a questionnaire specifically asking whether- and if so, how often, nerve agent alarms sounded where they were living or working while in Iraq (alarm frequency was used as a measure to gauge exposure amounts).  

The enrolled veterans’ DNA – in particular, a gene known as paraoxonase-1 (PON1), were analyzed by researchers. Previous research has found PON1 to be a genetic determinant to human susceptibility to organophosphate poisoning. There are two versions of the gene – a “Q” version that produces a blood enzyme that breaks down sarin and an “R” version that can break down other chemicals but does not do well at neutralizing sarin. Individuals may have QQ, QR, or RR genotypes.

Gulf Veteran’s PON1 genes tied very closely to risk of GWI. Among service members who heard nerve agent alarms during their deployment, QQ genotypes had a 3.75 fold increase risk of GWI, QR a 4.4 fold increased risk, and RR were 8.9 times likely to develop GWI. These results, adequately addressing a range of confounders while showing a strong ‘gold standard’ gene-environment interaction, provide a high degree of confidence of causality, according to the researchers. “Your risk is going up step by step depending on your genotype, because those genes are mediating how well your body inactivates sarin,” said Dr. Haley. “It doesn’t mean you can’t get Gulf War illness if you have the QQ genotype, because even the highest-level genetic protection can be overwhelmed by higher intensity exposure. There’s no other risk factor coming anywhere close to having this level of causal evidence for Gulf War illness.”

Front line service members that put their lives on the line deserve answers regarding how they became and meaningful action to treat their illnesses. Far too many veterans of the Vietnam war are still suffering with illnesses caused by exposure to dioxin present in the notorious herbicide Agent Orange. But after fighting in war, sickened service members have found that they must fight a different sort of fight at home for their own health care. Veterans of the Gulf War are likewise still fighting for care. A 2017 Government Accountability Office report found that 80% of Gulf War veteran disability claims are denied by US Veteran’s Affairs. GWI claims are approved at a rate roughly three times lower than all other potential claimed disabilities. With strong data now on the cause, VA must move rapidly to ensure American veterans get the treatment they deserve.

As the National Capital Poison Control Center notes, pesticides and nerve agents are similar poisons with similar symptoms. Numerous individuals across the country – many of whom reach out to Beyond Pesticides for assistance – are suffering from a debilitating range of environmentally induced chronic symptoms that affect their ability to function in day-to-day life. This constellation of conditions is often referred to as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Idiopathic Environmental Illness, or Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance. A recent review by a national team of researchers incorporates GWI into its review of chemical sensitivity conditions, with important findings for wider public health.

More investment is needed in both epidemiological approaches to determine the cause of environmental illnesses among service members and the general public, and treatments to address the myriad of chronic conditions one may experience after a triggering exposure. For more information on chemical sensitivities, see read a transcript of a talk given by Doris Rapp, MD published in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You newsletter, and visit the University of Texas, San Antonio website on the Hoffman TILT program.

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

Source: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center press release, Environmental Health Perspectives, (Also See Environmental Health Perspectives editorial on the study).

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23, 2022)  The climate change-induced increase in wildfire frequency and intensity has lent new urgency to efforts to manage so-called “invasive” plants. Unfortunately, the herbicide-based approach favored by many is both counterproductive and hazardous. It must be replaced by an organic system, incorporating biological control agents like goats and establishing a more resilient ecology.   

Tell your county/city officials to replace herbicides with organic vegetation management. Tell EPA and Congress that herbicides must be evaluated in the context of the availability of organic systems.

Use of the herbicide indaziflam is an example of the ineffectiveness of management based on herbicides. While indaziflam is considered a “selective” herbicide, it actually kills and prevents germination of a wide range of broad-leaved plants and grasses and comes close to being a soil sterilant. The action on seedlings is long-lasting, thus inhibiting the growth and establishment of a resilient plant community that is resistant to invasion. Given its persistence and nonselective action and the extent of the damage it causes to native soil seed banks and plant biodiversity, indaziflam could contribute to the eventual ecological collapse of ecosystems where it’s applied, similar to the cascading impacts of the systemic insecticides, fipronil and the neonicotinoids on animals. The impacts of indaziflam could be even greater than insecticides since plants are the foundation of all living systems.  Building resilience and resistance into a plant community requires working with succession, which requires the growth of some annuals, in preparation for the longer term community of mostly perennials—contrary to the approach of killing all “weeds.”

As one might expect from an herbicide with such wide-ranging effects, indaziflam—which was promoted and used for 10 years with an incomplete (“conditional”) registration—has serious and pervasive ecological impacts. Plants are the foundation of both terrestrial and aquatic food chains, and thus impacts of this long-lasting herbicide reverberate through the ecosystem. In spite of these risks, EPA considers registration of indaziflam to be “in the public interest.” EPA’s conclusion is based on considerations that do not include alternative management systems— or, indeed, the inadequacies of the management systems in which it is used. No determination weighing risks and benefits can be adequate if it does not consider the conditions under which the user decides to use it.

In addition to the substantial negative ecological impacts, indaziflam’s health effects are also significant. The nervous system is the major target for toxicity in mammals. Evidence of neurotoxicity (e.g., decreased motor activity, clinical signs, and neuropathology) was observed in rats and dogs, in acute, subchronic, and chronic toxicity studies. Organs affected by indaziflam in mice and rats include the kidney, liver, thyroid, stomach, seminal vesicles, and ovaries. Adverse effects on the thyroid indicating potential endocrine disruption include increased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and thyroid histopathology. Chronic exposures also led to atrophied small seminal vesicles (which produce semen) in male rats and glandular erosion/necrosis in the stomach and blood-filled ovarian cysts/follicles in female mice. Developmental toxicity is evidenced by decreased fetal weight with decreased maternal body weight gain and food consumption. Decreased pup weight and delays in sexual maturation were observed in offspring in the rat two-generation reproductive toxicity study, along with clinical signs of toxicity, at a dose causing parental toxicity.

Herbicide treatments should be replaced by . Organic vegetation management occurs within a system of defined parameters, which determine which materials may be used. In the case of vegetation control for fire management, many have found that no synthetic chemicals are needed—that goats can provide both vegetation removal and soil preparation. Although overgrazing with cattle can contribute to “invasive” plant problems by creating bare spots for them to colonize, well-managed cattle grazing can reduce exotic annual grasses that pose a fire hazard. 

Tell your county/city officials to replace herbicides with organic vegetation management. Tell EPA and Congress that herbicides must be evaluated in the context of the availability of organic systems.  

Letter to county/city officials:

The climate change-induced increase in wildfire frequency and intensity has lent new urgency to efforts to manage so-called “invasive” plants. Unfortunately, the herbicide-based approach favored by many is both counterproductive and hazardous. It must be replaced by an organic system, incorporating biological control agents like goats and establishing a more resilient ecology.

Use of the herbicide indaziflam is an example of the ineffectiveness of management based on herbicides. While indaziflam is considered a “selective” herbicide, it actually kills and prevents germination of a wide range of broad-leaved plants and grasses and comes close to being a soil sterilant. The action on seedlings is long-lasting, thus inhibiting the growth and establishment of a resilient plant community that is resistant to invasion. Given its persistence and nonselective action and the extent of the damage it causes to native soil seed banks and plant biodiversity, indaziflam could contribute to the eventual ecological collapse of ecosystems where it’s applied, similar to the cascading impacts of the systemic insecticides, fipronil and the neonicotinoids on animals. The impacts of indaziflam could be even greater than insecticides since plants are the foundation of all living systems.  Building resilience and resistance into a plant community requires working with succession, which requires the growth of some annuals, in preparation for the longer term community of mostly perennials—contrary to the approach of killing all “weeds.”

As one might expect from an herbicide with such wide-ranging effects, indaziflam—which was promoted and used for 10 years with an incomplete (“conditional”) registration—has serious and pervasive ecological impacts. Plants are the foundation of both terrestrial and aquatic food chains, and thus impacts of this long-lasting herbicide reverberate through the ecosystem. In spite of these risks, EPA considers registration of indaziflam to be “in the public interest.” EPA’s conclusion is based on considerations that do not include alternative management systems— or, indeed, the inadequacies of the management systems in which it is used. No determination weighing risks and benefits can be adequate if it does not consider the conditions under which the user decides to use it.

Herbicide treatments should be replaced by organic management. Organic vegetation management occurs within a system of defined parameters, which determine which materials may be used. In the case of vegetation control for fire management, many have found that no synthetic chemicals are needed—that goats can provide both vegetation removal and soil preparation. Although overgrazing with cattle can contribute to “invasive” plant problems by creating bare spots for them to colonize, well-managed cattle grazing can reduce exotic annual grasses that pose a fire hazard.

I request that you replace the use of herbicides with organic alternatives. Thank you.

Letter to EPA:

The climate change-induced increase in wildfire frequency and intensity has lent new urgency to efforts to manage so-called “invasive” plants. Unfortunately, the herbicide-based approach favored by many is both counterproductive and hazardous. It must be replaced by an organic system, incorporating biological control agents like goats and establishing a more resilient ecology.

Use of the herbicide indaziflam is an example of the ineffectiveness of management based on herbicides. While indaziflam is considered a “selective” herbicide, it actually kills and prevents germination of a wide range of broad-leaved plants and grasses and comes close to being a soil sterilant. The action on seedlings is long-lasting, thus inhibiting the growth and establishment of a resilient plant community that is resistant to invasion. Given its persistence and nonselective action and the extent of the damage it causes to native soil seed banks and plant biodiversity, indaziflam could contribute to the eventual ecological collapse of ecosystems where it’s applied, similar to the cascading impacts of the systemic insecticides, fipronil and the neonicotinoids on animals. The impacts of indaziflam could be even greater than insecticides since plants are the foundation of all living systems.  Building resilience and resistance into a plant community requires working with succession, which requires the growth of some annuals, in preparation for the longer term community of mostly perennials—contrary to the approach of killing all “weeds.”

As one might expect from an herbicide with such wide-ranging effects, indaziflam—which was promoted and used for 10 years with an incomplete (“conditional”) registration—has serious and pervasive ecological impacts. Plants are the foundation of both terrestrial and aquatic food chains, and thus impacts of this long-lasting herbicide reverberate through the ecosystem. In spite of these risks, EPA considers registration of indaziflam to be “in the public interest.” EPA’s conclusion is based on considerations that do not include alternative management systems— or, indeed, the inadequacies of the management systems in which it is used. No determination weighing risks and benefits can be adequate if it does not consider the conditions under which the user decides to use it.

Herbicide treatments should be replaced by organic management. Organic vegetation management occurs within a system of defined parameters, which determine which materials may be used. In the case of vegetation control for fire management, many have found that no synthetic chemicals are needed—that goats can provide both vegetation removal and soil preparation. Although overgrazing with cattle can contribute to “invasive” plant problems by creating bare spots for them to colonize, well-managed cattle grazing can reduce exotic annual grasses that pose a fire hazard.

I request that you reconsider the registration of indaziflam and other herbicides for which organic alternatives are readily available.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

The climate change-induced increase in wildfire frequency and intensity has lent new urgency to efforts to manage so-called “invasive” plants. Unfortunately, the herbicide-based approach favored by many is both counterproductive and hazardous. It must be replaced by an organic system, incorporating biological control agents like goats and establishing a more resilient ecology.

Use of the herbicide indaziflam is an example of the ineffectiveness of management based on herbicides. While indaziflam is considered a “selective” herbicide, it actually kills and prevents germination of a wide range of broad-leaved plants and grasses and comes close to being a soil sterilant. The action on seedlings is long-lasting, thus inhibiting the growth and establishment of a resilient plant community that is resistant to invasion. Given its persistence and nonselective action and the extent of the damage it causes to native soil seed banks and plant biodiversity, indaziflam could contribute to the eventual ecological collapse of ecosystems where it’s applied, similar to the cascading impacts of the systemic insecticides, fipronil and the neonicotinoids on animals. The impacts of indaziflam could be even greater than insecticides since plants are the foundation of all living systems.  Building resilience and resistance into a plant community requires working with succession, which requires the growth of some annuals, in preparation for the longer term community of mostly perennials—contrary to the approach of killing all “weeds.”

As one might expect from an herbicide with such wide-ranging effects, indaziflam—which was promoted and used for 10 years with an incomplete (“conditional”) registration—has serious and pervasive ecological impacts. Plants are the foundation of both terrestrial and aquatic food chains, and thus impacts of this long-lasting herbicide reverberate through the ecosystem. In spite of these risks, EPA considers registration of indaziflam to be “in the public interest.” EPA’s conclusion is based on considerations that do not include alternative management systems— or, indeed, the inadequacies of the management systems in which it is used. No determination weighing risks and benefits can be adequate if it does not consider the conditions under which the user decides to use it.

Herbicide treatments should be replaced by organic management. Organic vegetation management occurs within a system of defined parameters, which determine which materials may be used. In the case of vegetation control for fire management, many have found that no synthetic chemicals are needed—that goats can provide both vegetation removal and soil preparation. Although overgrazing with cattle can contribute to “invasive” plant problems by creating bare spots for them to colonize, well-managed cattle grazing can reduce exotic annual grasses that pose a fire hazard.

I request that you prevent EPA from abusing the conditional registration of pesticides, which allows companies to market products before they are fully evaluated.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2022) Beyond Pesticides has long covered the various ways in which corruption related to pesticides, agriculture, and food — whether in industry or government — can result in harm to human and environmental health, including to a multiplicity of organisms, and their ecosystems and habitats. In this Daily News Blog entry, we will review the landscape of U.S. pesticide regulation, examples of corruption, and what can be done to counter it.

A look at some recent instances provides unfortunate assurance that problems of corruption at EPA persist. A serious flaw in EPA’s registration (and periodic pesticide registration review) processes is their reliance on industry-provided data and research on safety of pesticide products, which does not reliably represent actual risks of harms. Agrochemical companies sometimes purchase research that yields biased or distorted findings, cherry pick results in their submissions to EPA, or try to suppress research findings.

USRTK recently covered an instance in which Bayer (and other companies) funded a study on the impacts — of use of their neonicotinoid (neonic) corn seed treatments — on bees during planting season. Neonics have been widely implicated in the plummeting health, function, and populations of pollinators and in the so-called “insect apocalypse,” as covered by Beyond Pesticides and The Intercept. Bayer then pressured the university-based academic research team to leave out of the research report photos that implicated a neonic-treated seed product harmful to bees. Such attempts to control research findings, or communications about them, are common. In the Bayer case, all findings were eventually published, but not without industry attempts to suppress “damaging” information.

In another instance of industry misbehavior, the outcome of a court case, revealed only days ago by the U.S. Department of Justice, is a guilty plea by a pesticide company product manager to the charge of falsifying and using a document in order to obtain approval from EPA to manufacture a pesticide. (Both the company and the specific pesticide are unnamed in the DOJ statement.) Christopher James Davis, of Venice, California knowingly submitted to EPA documents (supporting the registration of a pesticide) that falsely represented that the pesticide had been approved for manufacture and use in Canada. It had not, but EPA relied on that false information in its approval of the manufacturer’s application.

Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division commented, “The honesty of individuals applying to manufacture pesticides is vital to protecting the public’s health and the environment.” EPA Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent in Charge Chuck Carfagno added, “In order to safeguard the environment, it is essential that the Environmental Protection Agency’s pesticide programs receive accurate and honest information from pesticide producers and their employees. This guilty plea sends a clear message that EPA and its law enforcement partners will continue to hold individuals fully accountable for illegal conduct that jeopardizes the environment.” Fair enough, but it begs the question: why would EPA just accept such a representation from a pesticide company without investigating the claim?

There are myriad ways in which toxic pesticides enter the environment, and the organisms and resources in it: through direct application (and misapplication) in agriculture and turf management, for uses in buildings (homes, schools, hospitals, etc.), via airborne applications for crops or insects and the drift that results, in coatings on crop seeds, via animal feed, in “pest control” strategies, in pet treatments and collars, and embedded in consumer products (e.g., disinfectants, clothing and textiles, toys, and many other items). Customers for these products range from the average American consumer to huge entities such as the agricultural, healthcare, and military sectors, as well as many smaller institutions and industries.

How does the firehose of roughly 17,000 chemical pesticide products available in the U.S. happen? The two big “players” that make decisions about pesticide use are government and industry. (Academia enters the picture, as well, in that universities are often tapped for various kinds of research.) On the government side, Congress generates laws that guide federal regulatory agencies as they enact the laws. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the chief statute governing pesticide policy and regulation, though other statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Food Quality Production Act of 1996 (FQPA) — which modified both ESA and FFDCA — and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) also affect pesticide management.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary regulatory body for pesticides in the country. Other federal agencies have some regulatory, monitoring, and/or enforcement roles, including the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), USDA (Department of Agriculture), FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service), OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), Consumer Products Safety Division (CPSC), NIH (National Institutes of Health), CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), ATSDR (the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), and DOT (Department of Transportation), as do various state-level (and occasionally, county or municipal) agencies.

The other big entity is the pesticide industry, which includes, dominantly, agrochemical and petrochemical companies that must apply to have their pesticide products registered by EPA. The registration process is described by EPA as “a scientific, legal, and administrative procedure through which we examine the ingredients of the pesticide, the particular site or crop where it is to be used, the amount, frequency, and timing of its use, and storage and disposal practices. In evaluating a pesticide registration application, we assess a wide variety of potential human health and environmental effects associated with use of the product. The company that wants to produce the pesticide must provide data from studies that comply with our testing guidelines.”

EPA also is required to develop and conduct risk assessments for potential harms to “humans, wildlife, fish, and plants, including endangered species and non-target organisms . . . contamination of surface water or ground water from leaching, runoff, and spray drift.” It defines potential risks to humans as those ranging from acute toxicity to long-term impacts (e.g., cancer, reproductive system disorders, et al.). The agency also approves the text that appears on the labels on pesticide products “to ensure the directions for use and safety measures are appropriate to any potential risk.”

Industry’s goal is to sell as much product as it can. Government’s role (through its agencies) is supposed to be regulatory and protective. In-house federal agency research scientists, those in academia, and those working in private laboratories may contribute to both government and industry evaluation of pesticide products. In any of these arenas, and as with all human processes and systems, there are opportunities for distortion, negligence, and outright corruption, and so it is in the universe of pesticide research, evaluation, registration, and use.

These instances threaten the public and its interests, and require members of the public, environmental and health advocates, and “good government” entities to pay close attention to how that interest is compromised or harmed, and work to reform systems and processes to reduce and prevent them in the future. Indeed, to this end, Congress has created 57 Offices of the Inspector General (OIGs), attached to various federal agencies, whose purpose is “to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse relating to their agency’s programs and operations, and to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the agency’s operations and programs.”

There are too many examples of bad behavior to review comprehensively in this Daily News Blog; readers can learn more through Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of, e.g., Monsanto/Bayer malfeasance related to dicamba and general Monsanto misconduct disclosed in the Monsanto Papers; undermining of science and outsize industry influence at USDA; the threat to scientific integrity at EPA (p. 17); EPA receptivity to industry influence; whistleblower “outing” of unethical practices at EPA; and the “capture” of EPA by industry.

In the summer and fall of 2021, Beyond Pesticides reported on complaints filed with the EPA’s OIG by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) on behalf of four EPA whistleblower scientists. These individuals maintained that “risk assessments for both new and existing chemicals were improperly changed by agency managers to eliminate or reduce calculations of risks.” More specifically, they charged that during the Trump administration and into 2021, managers at EPA (in both the Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics’ New Chemicals Division) accessed “risk assessments completed by staff scientists in order to . . . remove language that identifies potential adverse effects, including developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, and/or carcinogenicity; and [to] revise conclusions in risk assessment reports significantly to indicate no toxicity concerns despite data to the contrary.”

It is not only the pesticide industry that engages in unsavory practices. The conventional food industry (and notoriously, the fossil fuel industry, the tobacco industry before that, and others) engage in the practice of funding third-party “front groups” to advance their messaging, too often including disinformation, so as to maintain profits. The practice, sometimes called “astroturfing,” encourages an impression of grassroots or public support for such groups, when in fact, they exist to promote industry interests among the public, and with legislators and regulators. Often, the groups sport names that attempt to make them sound like reasonable, unbiased, informational entities.

Globalization and Health released a report in February 2022 investigating the work of one such group, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) and its foundation, whose funding sources are not widely or well-disclosed, but which draft Internal Revenue Service documents show to include PepsiCo, Mars, Inc., Kraft, and Monsanto, among others. IFIC has, according to the research, voiced strong opposition to nutritional research demonstrating the role of sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages in obesity epidemics.

Further, the researchers “suggest that IFIC promotes a skewed portrayal of evidence, disseminating only research which is favourable to industry,” and note how IFIC uses its “seeming credibility [to] reach the press, policy makers, and the public at large” — which its underlying funders cannot do because of clear conflicts of interest. These front groups “camouflage” messaging to make it appear more legitimate than it is. The report’s conclusion: “IFIC’s promotion of evidence for the food industry should be interpreted as marketing strategy for those funders. Effective science communication may be obfuscated by undeclared conflicts of interests.”

None of these phenomena does anything to repair public trust in science, government agencies and officials, or other institutions whose goals are, nominally, the well-being of life on the planet. In 2021, Beyond Pesticides and 37 other environmental and health groups, farm organizations, and beekeeper councils sent a letter to EPA imploring the organization to reform its Office of Pesticide Programs in light of the agency’s broad and persistent failures to regulate pesticide use effectively enough to protect human and environmental health.

It is clear that Congress must either (1) be made far more aware of EPA failures and the ethical failures of the agency, and of the companies it is supposed to regulate, than it appears it is, or (2) be made to understand the concern, fear, and outrage of the public, which is subjected to pesticide and other toxic chemical exposures in multiple ways every single day.

Follow these issues through Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog, the Take Action feature on the website homepage, and through our journal, Pesticides and You. Please consider getting involved, by calling or writing to your federal elected officials, to EPA itself, to companies that engage in astroturfing, or to a research university with which you may be affiliated, and/or by joining or developing a local, genuinely grassroots organization to work on these kinds of issues. We can help; contact us at 202.543.5450 or [email protected].

Sources: https://usrtk.org/pesticides/bayer-osu-neonic/, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-executive-pesticide-manufacturing-company-pleads-guilty-making-and-using-false, and https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-022-00806-8

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 19, 2022) A study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association finds a correlation between the number of fires fought annually and atrial fibrillation (AF), one of the most common medical arrhythmias that increases the risk of stroke, heart failure, and other cardiovascular health issues. In the firefighting occupation, firefighters can experience exposure to chemicals and particulate matter in smoke, pollutants, volatile organic compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that increase cardiovascular (heart) and respiratory distress risk through oxidative stress and autonomic function disruption. However, firefighters encounter both personal and occupational (work-related) risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, making this subset of the population particularly vulnerable to heart-related fatalities. Considering firefighters live 10 to 15 years less than non-firefighters, studies like these are significant for understanding how chemical exposure contributes to health and wellness disparities. Lead author Paari Dominic, Ph.D., notes, “Clinicians who care for firefighters need to be aware of the increased cardiovascular risk, especially the increased risk of [AF], among this unique group of individuals… The conditions that elevate their risk further, such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, lung disease and sleep apnea, should be treated aggressively. In addition, any symptoms of [AF], such as palpitations, trouble breathing, dizziness and fatigue, should be investigated promptly.”

Using the Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, researchers surveyed 10,860 firefighters who are members of one of the five preselected organizations. The survey asked firefighters how many fires they fought per year to determine occupational exposure and compare that to self‐reported cardiovascular disease. Firefighters were mostly men less than 60 years old. The results demonstrate that firefighters face a 14 percent increase in AF risk due to occupational exposure. Inhalation and dermal (skin) exposure represent the main routes of exposure driving cardiovascular issues. The more fires fought per year, the higher the cardiovascular risk, denoting a dose-response relationship between the magnitude of chemical exposure and response to chemical exposure.

Firefighters play a role in protecting wildlife, people, and personal properties from harms, making the job more physically demanding. However, regardless of a healthy lifestyle (e.g., fitness, diet) to prevent illness or injury from physical dangers, firefighters can still frequently encounter hazards like chemical exposure, which can be unavoidable. Thus, studies on firefighter health have shown an increase in risks like heart diseases, not only from toxic chemicals in fire, smoke, or combustion, but from chemicals in gear, such as flame retardants. Organophosphate ester  (OPEs) is an additive used in flame retardants, mainly used as a replacement for the phased-out polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Consequently, residues of organophosphates (OPs) enter the environment, making these chemicals ubiquitous in human and animal blood, urine, tissues, and milk. Research demonstrates that OPs are highly toxic, originating from the same compounds as World War II nerve agents, producing adverse effects on the nervous system, endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, fetal defects, neurotoxic damage, and kidney/liver damage. Exposure can increase vulnerability to deadly diseases, including cardiovascular disease. However, the growing cancer incidence among firefighters nationwide is most concerning, as reports suggest exposure to chemicals in safety equipment and aqueous film-forming foams (e.g., flame retardants) leads to cancer development.

For the first time, researchers discovered a dose‐dependent relationship between heart conditions like AF and firefighters’ occupational exposure to toxic chemicals. Every additional five to ten years of firefighting increased AF prevalence by one-half to a full percentage point, even after adjusting for age. Although OPEs toxify the environment, other chemical compounds of concern in the study are PAHs, with over 100 different chemicals that exist naturally or artificially (e.g., coal, wildfires, agricultural burning, pesticide products, medicine, hazardous waste sites, etc.). Exposure to PAHs occurs by breathing in contaminated air, as these toxic compounds can attach to particulate matter or contaminate food, water, and other resources. PAHs are carcinogens that can prompt other health consequences. Moreover, regions with high chemical use can also have higher rates of wildfires, and thus more fires are fought per year. California, a region prone to wildfire, also contains many agricultural lands that are treated with pesticides. However, the interaction between pesticides and fire has unknown health and environmental consequences and pesticide labels specifically advise the user to avoid flammable environments. With ample evidence demonstrating cancer rates and other disease prevalence is higher among firefighters, the study recommends, “Further research into causal relationships, underlying mechanisms, and risk mitigation strategies is crucial and will lead to a better understanding of cardiovascular risk factors in [firefighter] and the ability to protect and care for [firefighters] in the line of duty.”

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

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, chemical occupational workers, and the agricultural sector can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment. For more information on the benefits of organic, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: About Lawsuits, Journal of the American Heart Association

(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2022) Bat population declines are costing American farmers as much as $495 million each year, finds research published this month in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. Since 2006, a devastating fungal pathogen known as  Pseudogymnoascus destructans has torn through U.S. bat populations, causing a disease known as White Nose Syndrome that has killed over 90% of northern long eared, little brown, and tricolored bats. As researchers try to get a handle on the devastating and rapidly spreading disease, the effects are becoming apparent in agriculture as farmers lose their critical ecosystem services. “Lost bat populations have harmful ripple effects on food and agriculture,” says study coauthor Amy Ando, PhD. “Crop yields fall and input costs rise as farmers try to compensate for the services bats usually provide. That drives down the value of farmland and the number of acres planted, and the supply shock probably also hurts consumers as ag production becomes more costly.”

White nose syndrome and its fungal pathogen were first discovered in a cave in New York in the mid-2000s, having likely traveled from Europe on the gear of a hiker or spelunker. The syndrome is characterized by white fungal growth on the muzzle of infected bats. Researchers believe that bats become infected with the fungus during hibernation. The fungus colonizes the skin of bats and ultimately affects their entire body, resulting in bodily dysfunctions that can cause bats to wake up early for hibernation, and burn through fat reserves before spring insects arrive. There is no known cure to the disease, and recent data indicates that it has spread from the single New York cave to dozens of states, reaching as far north as Canada’s Manitoba province and as far west as Seattle, Washington.

To determine how the disease and subsequent loss of pest control services is affecting farmer’s bottom lines, researchers calculated the value of bat ecosystem services, focusing in particular on corn, wheat and soy crops grown extensively throughout the U.S. They then determined how the loss of bats affected the land rental rates for farmland in a U.S. county. Results show that land rentals fell by $2.84 per acre in an affected county, and $1.50 in counties nearby the disease outbreak. Not only did land rental rates decrease, but functional agricultural lands were reduced in total–including roughly 1,100 acres in a county with a disease outbreak and 582 acres in nearby counties.

“If you no longer get that free pest control you’ve had on marginal land where yields may be lower than average and input costs are already high, then having to also deal with yield loss and/or purchase chemical pesticides to replace the bats’ service can be enough to make land no longer viable,” said Dale Manning, PhD, professor of agricultural and resource economics at CSU, and lead author on the paper.

Increases in chemical pesticide use can cause additional ripple effects that further harm bats and other ecosystem services. A study published late last month found that pesticides can accumulate in fly larvae and be retained through a pest insect’s metamorphosis. The bioconcentration of pesticides in pest insects can then act as a chronic source of exposure to birds and bats that feed on them. The authors of the research note how declines in these important animals have coincided with increases in toxic pesticide use over the last two decades. Pesticide use harms the immune system of most animal, making contaminated populations more susceptible and at increased risk of disease.

As declines in bird and bat populations continue to occur, it is becoming increasingly clear that just like the loss of pollinators, ecosystem services provided by bats cannot be adequately replaced by human activities. “Some bats are important pollinators for high-value crops in tropical and desert climates, and guano [bat dung] is an important fertilizer in some parts of the world,” Dr. Ando says. “But the biggest benefit people get from the bats hurt by white-nose syndrome is pest control. The humble little brown bat can eat over half of its body weight in bugs every night.”

Researchers note that their estimate on the value of bat ecosystem services are conservative, and do not include a range of add-on benefits provided by these animals. In addition to pest management, bats provide a public health benefit, and thus lower health care costs by reducing toxic pesticide use on chemical farms, in addition to their ability to lower the rate of mosquito borne disease. Bats are also incredibly useful in the study of emerging viral diseases such as coronaviruses, and have an inherent, existential value to natural landscapes.

Using data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, researchers determined that interventions to aid bat populations would be worth the cost. One proposal, costing $42 million, would include a campaign to preemptively spray fungicides in bat caves, representing an approach that is likely to do more harm than good. Another approach, modeled at roughly half the cost ($22 million) would vaccinate individual bats against the disease. The bottom line, the study shows, is that we should be willing to spend big to save the backbone of agricultural pest management before it is too late.

For more information on the effects of pesticides on wildlife, see Beyond Pesticides Wildlife program page.

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

Source:  University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,  Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2022) With public awareness of an ongoing ‘insect apocalypse’ growing, one of the first anecdotes people often note is how many fewer bugs are found splatted onto their car windshield than in the past. In a recent survey, conservation groups in Britain are finding evidence of insect declines in exactly that place, providing scientific backing for these concerning suspicions. Between 2004 and 2021, 58.5% fewer flying insects were squashed onto car license plates. “The results from the Bugs Matter study should shock and concern us all,” says Paul Hadaway, conservation director at Kent Wildlife Trust, which conducted the study alongside UK organization Buglife. “We are seeing declines in insects which reflect the enormous threats and loss of wildlife more broadly across the Country. These declines are happening at an alarming rate and without concerted action to address them we face a stark future. Insects and pollinators are fundamental to the health of our environment and rural economies.”

The survey was conducted primarily through citizen science, utilizing the “Bugs Matter” mobile app, and a sampling grid, referred to as a ‘splatometer’ that is affixed to a car’s license plate. Data was retrieved from trips taken by citizen scientists between June 1 and August 31 in 2004 and 2021. Locations and trip distance was written down in 2004, but automatically tracked via the app in 2021. Trip speed generally averaged under 30 miles per hour, and trip length ranged between an average of 16 to 36 miles.

Analysis of the survey results determined a splat rate of .238 insect splats per mile in 2004, but only .104 per mile in 2021. Within that period, the odds of taking a trip and seeing no insects squashed to one’s license plate increased by 2.9 times. Differences were seen between different areas of the United Kingdom. Scotland witnessed the smallest decline, at 28%, which could be attributed to the region having more wild land and fewer farms and cities. England, on the other hand, saw the greatest declines, at 65%, while Wales recorded losses of 55%. (Data was not available for Northern Ireland).

These results line up with the latest data on the insect apocalypse from peer-reviewed scientific literature. Published in Nature, a recent study found that in the context of climate change, low intensity agriculture and expansive natural habitats provided the best chance to reduce insect losses. The more wildland regions have surrounding their farmland, the better insects are expected to fare. The difference between the results observed in Scotland and England line up well with that modeling.

“This vital study suggests that the number of flying insects is declining by an average of 34% per decade, this is terrifying,” said Matt Shardlow, CEO at Buglife. “We cannot put off action any longer, for the health and wellbeing of future generations this demands a political and a societal response, it is essential that we halt biodiversity decline – now!”

Research published in 2017 rose a major red flag for insect populations worldwide, finding that in German nature preserves, 75% of flying insect biomass had been lost. A systematic review of insect population decline studies subsequently published in 2019 determined that 41% of insect species worldwide are declining. Declines of butterflies, wild bumblebees, and honey bees are specifically linked to hazardous pesticide use in industrial agricultural systems. Worldwide, roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been lost since 1990, according to research published in Science. This research finds worldwide trends in declines in terrestrial insect biomass to be nearly 1% each year (~9% each decade).

As a 2019 review concluded, “We know enough to act now.” Across the globe, data continues to line up with people’s anecdotal experiences of seeing fewer and fewer insects as the years go by. Unless we act soon, ecological amnesia will set it, as subsequent generations will perceive the environment in which they were born as the norm.

Consider the decline of insects in the context of efforts to stop the deaths of eagles, falcons, condors, and other birds of prey in the 1960s from widespread DDT use. Field observations of broken eggs in Peregrine falcon nests in Britain the late 1960s led to populations surveys. In the United States, most longstanding falcon nests were found deserted. Massive increases in pesticide use following World War II was suspected as the cause, and it was confirmed that as DDT bioconcentrated up the food chain, it would be contained in eggshells. DDT concentrations in eggshells correlated in lock step with the thinness of an eggshell, scientifically confirming the issue.

With pollinators and the wider insect world, we are at a similar moment. We know that industrial agriculture and its use of hazardous pesticides, particularly systemic insecticides like the neonicotinoid class, are harming insect life and biodiversity throughout the globe. Scientific data is now so sophisticated we can provide year by year and decade by decade models of insect declines both past and future.

It took 10 years after Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring for DDT to be banned. Yet, it has taken decades for bird of prey populations to bounce back. On the east coast, local populations of Peregrine Falcons were extirpated, and needed to be reintroduced over subsequent decades. It was not until 1999 that populations recovered enough to remove the birds from the endangered species list. Bald eagles were only removed from endangered species status in 2007. It was in early May that wildlife officials and the Yurok Tribe were able to reintroduce California condors into Northern California.

How many readers have anecdotally noticed more birds of prey in their region, but fewer pollinators and other insects?

The lag time between precipitous declines and species recoveries are often decades-long affairs. As we cheer the return of birds of prey we must likewise lament the years lost without them unnecessarily and shortsightedly, and be cognizant of the ongoing harm chemical use is causing to animals that form the basis of all ecological food chains. The work to ensure future generations can experience a world where “the bees are coming back” must start now.

For more information on ongoing insect declines, see Beyond Pesticides article Tracking Biodiversity: Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse. See here for more resources to get engaged and collect crucial ecological information through citizen science projects.

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

Source: BugsLife UK press release, BugsLife/Kent Wildlife Trust Technical Report