(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2022) The combined effects of insect pollination and natural pest control provided by birds synergize to improve yields and income for coffee farmers, finds research published this month in the journal PNAS. Ecosystem services – the positive benefits provided by ecosystems, wildlife, and their natural processes – underpin agricultural production, but are often analyzed in silos, on a case by case basis in the scientific literature. The current research finds that the quantitative benefits of ecosystem services can be greater when considering their interactive effects. “Until now, researchers have typically calculated the benefits of nature separately, and then simply added them up,” says lead author Alejandra Martínez-Salinas, PhD of Costa Rica’s Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE). “But nature is an interacting system, full of important synergies and trade-offs. We show the ecological and economic importance of these interactions, in one of the first experiments at realistic scales in actual farms.”  

Researchers based their experiment in Costa Rica, working with 30 shade grown coffee farms owned by small landholders. Eight coffee plants on each farm were selected for the study. Pest control services provided by birds were assessed using a 20mm mesh screen that excludes birds but allows bees and other insect pollinators to forage. Bee pollination was analyzed by choosing four comparable branches on each of the eight coffee plants, and using nylon mesh bags to exclude bees during flowering on two of the four branches. With this design, scientists were able to evaluate bird activity alone, pollination activity alone, bird and bee activity combined, and no activity from either birds or bees.

The impacts of these services were evaluated on the fruit set, fruit eight, and economic value of a coffee farm’s output. With each of these measurements, ecosynergy, a synergy between ecological services, resulted in the greatest benefit. While bird activity alone did not increase fruit set or weight, bee activity alone did cause a modest average increase of 11% in fruit set and 4.2% in fruit weight. Combined activity of birds and bees show the highest fruit set and weight among all scenarios, with a 24% increase in fruit set and 6.6% increase in fruit weight.

Increases in fruit weight and set meant greater economic benefits for coffee farms. Researchers estimated that farmers generally received roughly $4,300 US dollars per hectare. The results of the experiment show that excluding birds reduces yield by 13.5%, representing a nearly $600 loss per hectare. Losing bees in the landscape reduces yield by 24.5%, a $1,059 per hectare loss. Losing both birds and bees causes the highest yield and economic loss at 24.7%, representing a $1,066 gap.

“These results suggest that past assessments of individual ecological services—including major global efforts like IPBES—may actually underestimate the benefits biodiversity provides to agriculture and human wellbeing,” says Taylor Ricketts of the University of Vermont. “These positive interactions mean ecosystem services are more valuable together than separately.” 

The study underscores the importance of preserving, maintaining, and improving on-farm biodiversity and ecosystem services as a key aspect in considering agricultural yields. These services are critical, yet more vulnerable than one may think. For instance, research published in 2015 by some of the same scientists from the current study found that only a small number of bee species actually provide pollination services, making their continued existence crucial to long term farm sustainability and profitability. A study published in 2016 found that the loss of microbial diversity in the soil hampered ecosystem services associated with decomposition, nutrient cycling, and carbon fixing, all critical roles needed to maintain food production. The 2019 report from the United Nation’s IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), provides a stark warning to the world about the how the decline of biodiversity impinges on society’s ability to meet basic needs. But as the authors of the present study note, even these dire calls may underestimate the benefits humanity is provided by natural services, those which we often take for granted.

Time and again, research has found that increasing on-farm biodiversity decreases the need for pesticide use (by increasing natural pest management services), and improves overall productivity. That is why organic farming represents the best approach for the future of farming. A core component of organic law is requirement to maintain or improve soil health. From this concept flows and spirit and intent of organic to continuously improve, and promote natural materials and processes over toxic synthetic substances. These practices on the ground, according to Rodale Institute’s long running Farming Systems Trial, result in higher organic matter and improved soil health, yields that are competitive with chemical-intensive practices, farm profits 3-6x higher, and significantly less greenhouse gas emissions and chemical use.  

The benefits of natural systems are difficult to suss out without considerably more investment in the sort of research being conducted under the present study. As the author’s note, the available literature on synergies between ecosystem services is particularly thin, and in need of further time and attention. For a review of the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to food production and our current way of life, see the articles “Organic Systems The Path Forward,” and “Biodiversity in Land Management Integral to Sustainability,” published in the Pesticides and You journal.

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

Source: University of Vermont press release, PNAS

(Beyond Pesticides, April 12, 2022) A recent study published in Scientific Reports warns that parasitic salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) in Pacific Ocean open-net fish farming operations are becoming resistant to emamectin benzoate (EMB), an active ingredient used to control salmon lice population in North America, both in the U.S. and British Columbia, Canada. Previously, researchers believed parasitic salmon lice only had high rates of chemical resistance in the Atlantic region due to the mixing of farmed and wild salmon. However, Pacific salmon lice are exhibiting similar rates of decreased sensitivity to EMB from various sources, including a decrease in the wild Pacific salmon population, overuse of chemical treatments, and reliance on single chemical treatments.

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 to rid the parasite has led to widespread resistance to multiple pesticides, prompting increasing infection rates among North Atlantic salmon populations. These parasites endanger both farmed salmon and wild salmon, in addition to other local species of fish. In this context, pesticide treatments contributes to resistance among lethal pest populations, especially in ecologically vulnerable and interconnected ecosystems like ocean basins. The researchers caution, “Salmon lice in the Pacific Ocean appear to have evolved EMB resistance based on two lines of evidence. First, lice from BA salmon farms experienced decreased sensitivity to EMB in bioassays conducted between 2010 and 2021. Second, the field efficacy of EMB treatments on these farms declined over the same period. […] Whatever the cause, the emergence of resistant salmon lice in the Pacific poses serious challenges for controlling outbreaks to protect wild salmon in the coming years, further exacerbating the negative consequences of lice on salmon predicted in a warming climate.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines aquaculture as any “farming of aquatic organisms, including baitfish, crustaceans, food fish, mollusks, ornamental fish, sport or game fish, and other aquaculture products.” 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.

Emamectin benzoate (EMB), also known by the trade name SLICE® and others, is the most common treatment applied to salmon farms to control fish lice. However, pesticide treatments to control fish lice are causing higher rates of chemical resistance among the species in the Pacific Ocean and around the world.

Researchers used an EMB bioassay (to measure the potency of a chemical) and quantitative measurements of sea louse populations on a farm in Broughton Archipelago (BA), Canada. This region of Canada encompasses many salmon farms in the Pacific, and the results demonstrate a dramatic decrease in pacific louse sensitivity and exponential growth in resistance to EMB treatments between 2010 and 2021. Moreover, the real-world effects of EMB treatments on fish farms declined over the same period. The researchers suggest that substantial EMB resistance among pacific salmon lice evolved recently. Therefore, controlling salmon-louse outbreaks may be difficult in the future.

Aquaculture farming industries routinely use pesticide treatments, such as emamectin benzoate, in fish feed to minimize the impacts on farmed fish living in an enclosed marine environment. Yet, salmon lice are the greatest challenge to aquaculture production and environmental sustainability. These parasites attach to the fish’s skin and feed on their blood and mucus, creating sores that lead to infection or death. Under normal conditions, lice populations decline in the winter with a shift in salmonid population dispersal. However, the crammed, over-treated nature of farm fishing creates an environment for these parasites to persist through regular winter die-offs. Resistant lice appear in farm pens a few years post-treatment and leak via current through the barrier due to their small size. For instance, in 2017, over a quarter-million salmon died from lice infestations at two Gray Group salmon farms in the Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick, Canada.

Although EMB is a growing concern as louse resistance increases, pesticide treatments are just as toxic. For instance, organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides are pesticide classes commonly used to control parasitic salmon lice. However, laboratory studies find increasing chemical resistance among lice, sometimes resulting in resistance to multiple chemical treatments. Since laboratory studies identify that multi-resistance to both chemical classes can occur via crossbreeding, researchers suggest this same resistance transpires among parasitic salmon lice resulting from reduced sensitivity to chemical compounds in the North Atlantic region. All oceans connect, cycling nutrients, chemicals, and organisms throughout the world. Hence, pesticide-resistant lice can potentially spread their resistance gene across the ocean basin. These mutant parasites have already made their way from Atlantic to Pacific waters, even in areas where farmers never used chemical pesticides.

While this is the first study to identify the evolution of EMB resistance in the Pacific Ocean, the authors suggest that industry and the federal regulator have already known about the emerging issue for some time. There are similar reports about the adverse effects of farmed fish on Scotland’s west coast and Northern Isles. The use of antibiotics and pesticides in local marine ecosystems results in coastal habitat loss and genetic and health risks to wild marine populations. Marine species biodiversity is already 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.

The Pacific Ocean was the last sanctuary for salmon as louse were susceptible to chemical treatments. At first, scientists determined the emerging resistance to be isolated incidents of ephemeral (short-lived) reduction in EMB sensitivity among lice. However, 2021 bioassay data demonstrates that salmon-louse population control requires a higher concentration of EMB to kill at least 50 percent (EC₅₀) of the lice population (EMB treatment amount for; males 907 parts per billion (ppb), females 340 ppb. These results demonstrate a fivefold increase in EMB treatment concentrations for males and a 16-fold increase for females between 2010 and 2021. Moreover, researchers did not obtain this bioassay data through industry or federal regulators’ reports, but rather through an Indigenous group, First Nation, who obtained data from salmon-farming companies under a legal obligation.

Similar to this study, other research supports that resistance among parasitic lice is genetic and depends on spatiotemporal (location and time) evolutionary patterns. This pattern means that lice demonstrate simultaneous resistance to parasiticides across North America. Although this study could not perform a genetic diagnostic of salmon lice resistance mechanisms, evidence of emerging resistance from a decade ago points to a change in genes rather than phenotype plasticity (changes in an organism’s behavior, morphology, and physiology in response to a unique environment). The authors conclude, “Our results highlight the need for assessments of the frequency of this rare genotype, ideally with full public reporting and independent verification, as an integral part of EMB bioassays until a full diagnostic test is developed.”

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, have profound impacts on the ecosystem and all 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 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 to 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: Narwhal, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, April 11, 2022) As the U.S. encourages the spread of chemical-intensive, industrialized agriculture, local farmers are increasingly pressured into giving up traditional agricultural practices in favor of monocultures to increase the demand  for agrichemical pesticides and fertilizers worldwide. This policy is promoted by the industry with vested economic interests as good for the U.S. economy, but it is not good for either planetary health or global food security. Instead, U.S. foreign aid agencies, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other agencies, should be supporting traditional practices and organic agriculture.

Tell Congress and U.S. AID to support aid that promotes traditional and organic agriculture. 

Industrial agriculture depends on monoculture—growing single crops that can be easily planted, fertilized, treated with pesticides, and harvested—especially on large-scale, mechanized farms. In spite of the perceived advantages of monoculture, however, it is a significant contributor to biodiversity loss and pollinator decline. Loss of biodiversity feeds the pesticide treadmill by removing predators and parasites who keep crop-feeding insects below damaging levels. The vast majority of crop plants depend on pollinators.

Traditional agriculture, like organic agriculture, depends on interacting species. Most organic agriculture resembles monoculture piecewise, but integrates cover crops, hedgerows and other natural areas, and crop diversity. Traditional agriculture frequently involves plant polycultures—such as the corn-beans-squash polyculture of Native Americans—but also integrates animals. A traditional rice paddy that incorporates fish or other aquatic animals is an example of the latter. Research shows that such systems not only protect global ecosystems, but can also yield more food.

Traditional and organic agriculture do not depend on the petroleum-based pesticides that keep industrial agriculture running. Nor do they depend on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, a source of nitrous oxide, or NO_x — another potent greenhouse gas that also pollutes the air and feeds the development of ozone. NO_x is roughly 300 times as potent in trapping heat as CO₂. They do not depend on synthetic pesticides that poison our soil, air, water, and ecosystems, as well as people.

The U.S. government’s international aid must aggressively and urgently support traditional agricultural systems that meet organic standards. Instead, USAID has used an “Invitation for Applications” in its Feed the Future program (Bangladesh Rice and Diversified Crops Activity) that describes “farm production challenges” for rice production that may allow for the introduction of practices and materials (pesticides and fertilizers) that undermine traditional and organic practices. The USAID states the following:

      Farm Production Challenges

     Farmers have limited availability of quality commercial rice inputs such as short duration
     and high yielding varieties, climate resilient varieties, pest and disease resistance varieties 
     seeds, fertilizers (macro & micro), crop protection products (especially for insect, disease &
     weed control).

     Inadequate information and knowledge for farmers on the benefits of quality seeds, new
     varieties, modern cultivation practices (appropriate age of seedling, judicious use of
     fertilizer & pesticides) and post-harvest practices, and rice-based cropping system.

     Farmers lack of linkages with product buyers (small to large) and processing plants (small
     engleberg friction, semi-auto, and auto rice millers).

Embracing a sustainable future requires an honoring of traditional agricultural methods and organic practices that work in sync with nature and advances food security worldwide.

Tell Congress and U.S. AID to support aid that promotes traditional and organic agriculture. 

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

As the U.S. encourages the spread of chemical-intensive, industrialized agriculture, local farmers are increasingly pressured into giving up traditional agricultural practices in favor of monocultures to that increase agrichemical use worldwide. This policy is promoted by the industry with vested economic interests as good for the U.S. economy, but it is not good for either planetary health or global food security. Instead, U.S. foreign aid agencies should be supporting traditional practices. It is time for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other agencies to aggressively and urgently support traditional agricultural systems that meet organic standards.

Meanwhile, studies are showing that local economies in developing countries are best served by traditional agricultural practices. Research shows that such systems not only protect global ecosystems, but can also yield more food. An article, “Using aquatic animals as partners in increase yield and maintain soil nitrogen in the paddy ecosystems,” published eLife, shows a yield increase in rice production with co-cultures.

Industrial agriculture depends on monoculture—growing single crops that can be easily planted, fertilized, treated with pesticides, and harvested—especially on large-scale, mechanized farms. In spite of the perceived advantages of monoculture, however, it is a significant contributor to biodiversity loss and pollinator decline. Loss of biodiversity feeds the pesticide treadmill by removing predators and parasites who keep crop-feeding insects below damaging levels. The vast majority of crop plants depend on pollinators.

Traditional agriculture and organic agriculture, depend on interacting species. Most organic agriculture resembles monoculture piecewise, but integrates cover crops, hedgerows and other natural areas, and crop diversity. Traditional agriculture frequently involves plant polycultures—such as the corn-beans-squash polyculture of Native Americans—but also integrates animals. A traditional rice paddy that incorporates fish or other aquatic animals is an example of the latter.

Traditional and organic agriculture do not depend on the petroleum-based pesticides that keep industrial agriculture running. Nor do they depend on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, a source of nitrous oxide, or NO_x — another potent greenhouse gas that also pollutes the air and feeds the development of ozone. NO_x is roughly 300 times as potent in trapping heat as CO₂. They do not depend on synthetic pesticides that poison our soil, air, water, and ecosystems, as well as people.

Please urge USAID to promote traditional and organic agriculture in its funding and support programs. Embracing a sustainable future requires an honoring of traditional agricultural methods and organic practices that work in sync with nature and advance food security worldwide.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID):

As the U.S. encourages the spread of chemical-intensive, industrialized agriculture, local farmers are increasingly pressured into giving up traditional agricultural practices in favor of monocultures to that increase agrichemical use worldwide. This policy is promoted by the industry with vested economic interests as good for the U.S. economy, but it is not good for either planetary health or global food security. Instead, U.S. foreign aid agencies should be supporting traditional practices. It is time for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other agencies to aggressively and urgently support traditional agricultural systems that meet organic standards.

Meanwhile, studies are showing that local economies in developing countries are best served by traditional agricultural practices. Research shows that such systems not only protect global ecosystems, but can also yield more food. An article, “Using aquatic animals as partners in increase yield and maintain soil nitrogen in the paddy ecosystems,” published eLife, shows a yield increase in rice production with co-cultures.

Industrial agriculture depends on monoculture—growing single crops that can be easily planted, fertilized, treated with pesticides, and harvested—especially on large-scale, mechanized farms. In spite of the perceived advantages of monoculture, however, it is a significant contributor to biodiversity loss and pollinator decline. Loss of biodiversity feeds the pesticide treadmill by removing predators and parasites who keep crop-feeding insects below damaging levels. The vast majority of crop plants depend on pollinators.

Traditional agriculture and organic agriculture, depend on interacting species. Most organic agriculture resembles monoculture piecewise, but integrates cover crops, hedgerows and other natural areas, and crop diversity. Traditional agriculture frequently involves plant polycultures—such as the corn-beans-squash polyculture of Native Americans—but also integrates animals. A traditional rice paddy that incorporates fish or other aquatic animals is an example of the latter.

Traditional and organic agriculture do not depend on the petroleum-based pesticides that keep industrial agriculture running. Nor do they depend on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, a source of nitrous oxide, or NO_x — another potent greenhouse gas that also pollutes the air and feeds the development of ozone. NO_x is roughly 300 times as potent in trapping heat as CO₂. They do not depend on synthetic pesticides that poison our soil, air, water, and ecosystems, as well as people.

I urge USAID to promote traditional and organic agriculture in its funding and support programs. Embracing a sustainable future requires an honoring of traditional agricultural methods and organic practices that work in sync with nature and advance food security worldwide.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2022) “The jury has reached a verdict. And it is damning. This report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a litany of broken climate promises. It is a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unlivable world. We are on a fast track to climate disaster.” These words came from United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres in a statement responding to the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report released on April 4. As a Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog headline virtually shouted in October 2021, “Climate Crisis, Soil, Pesticides, Fertilizers: Red alert! This is Not a Drill!”

This IPCC report — Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — is the third and final part of the panel’s latest review of climate science. It is informed by the work of thousands of scientists, and follows on the first two of the trio of reports that comprise the comprehensive Sixth Assessment Report. The first, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, from the IPCC Working Group I, was released on August 9, 2021. The second, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, from Working Group II, was issued on February 28, 2022. (Readers: please note that these reports are very long, but that there are, for each, multiple [and perhaps more-digestible] downloadable documents that address specific aspects or sections.)

As The Guardian reports, “IPCC reports take about seven years to compile, making this [third report] potentially the last warning before the world is set irrevocably on a path to climate breakdown.” The co-chair of Working Group III, which generated this final report, is Jim Skea, PhD, a professor at Imperial College London. His comment to The Guardian was this: “It’s now or never if we want to limit global warming to 1.5C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”

The report itself indicates that the planet is nearly inevitably going to crash through that 1.5°C barrier — the degree of temperature increase (above pre-industrial levels) above which many impacts of climate breakdown will likely become irreversible. The report adds that it might be possible to bring temperatures down below that mark by the end of this century, but that achieving this could require carbon-removal (or “carbon capture”) technologies that are currently unproven and, in any case, cannot be a substitute for immediate and large emissions reductions.

According to The Guardian’s reporting, Secretary-General Gutteres expanded on his charges of broken promises and empty pledges in saying that some governments and corporations, which may claim to be “on track” to meet goals that would help limit temperature increase to the 1.5°C mark (agreed to in 2015’s Paris Agreement) are outright lying. “Some government and business leaders are saying one thing — but doing another. Simply put, they are lying. And the results will be catastrophic. This is a climate emergency.”

The Secretary-General’s statement also noted that participating countries left 2021’s COP26 (the 26th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) in Glasgow with new promises and commitments, but continued to ignore the elephant in the global living room. That behemoth is “the enormous, growing emissions gap. . . . The science is clear: to keep the 1.5°C limit . . . we need to cut global emissions by 45 per cent this decade. . . . But, current climate pledges would mean a 14 percent increase in emissions. And most major emitters are not taking the steps needed to fulfil even these inadequate promises. Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

Among the findings in this third report, which focuses on cutting greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), are these:

• coal must be effectively and rapidly phased out if the world is to stay within 1.5C°
• currently planned new fossil fuel infrastructure would push the average global temperature increase past that 1.5°C limit
• methane emissions must be reduced by one-third
• growing forests and preserving soils’ carbon holding capacity is necessary, but planting more trees will be inadequate to compensate for continued fossil fuel emissions
• globally, investment in the transition to a low-carbon world is a mere one-sixth of what it needs to be
• all sectors of the global economy (energy generation, transportation, buildings [which use energy for heating and cooling], and food production) must change dramatically and rapidly
• new technologies, such as hydrogen fuels and so-called “carbon capture” and storage will be needed

Secretary-General Guterres elaborated on the scientists’ findings in his statement, asserting that (1) the world must triple the speed of the transition to use of renewable energy, (2) governments must stop subsidizing fossil fuels, and (3) regular folks across the planet must demand renewable energy “at speed and at scale.”

During climate talks and conferences of the past several years, a schism has emerged between the so-called “developed” countries, which have used fossil fuels for a century and a half to develop their economies and build wealth, and the so-called “developing” countries, which are less well-resourced and have undertaken such activity on a more-recent timetable. Part of the discussion has been the insistence by some less-wealthy countries that they, too, are entitled to develop — even through use of fossil fuels, as the more well-resourced countries have done for decades.

Many of these smaller and poorer countries are also on the frontlines of current and coming, and often devastating, climate impacts. These equity arguments run right up against the physics of climate change and where things stand: the planet cannot afford any more fossil fuel use. The commonsense solution, according to many environmental and justice advocates, is for wealthier nations to cough up the funds to finance sustainable energy infrastructure and capacity (and other relevant socioeconomic initiatives) in poorer countries.

To date, this has not been hugely palatable to some wealthy countries, and even some of those who have pledged such funds have failed to deliver on their promises. Indeed, the publication of this third report was delayed (though only by a matter of hours) as eleventh-hour arguments ensued between scientists, who lead the writing of IPCC reports, and government representatives, who have “input” on final messaging in the policymaker summary. The Guardian reports that some governments, including China, India, and Saudi Arabia challenged messaging on phasing out fossil fuels, and on financing emissions-reduction initiatives in less well-resourced countries. Ultimately, all 195 governments involved concurred on the final policymaker summary.

Chair of the “least developed” countries group at the UN climate talks, Madeleine Diouf Sarr, said: “There can be no new fossil fuel infrastructure. The emissions from existing and planned infrastructure alone are higher than scenarios consistent with limiting warming to 1.5C with no or limited overshoot. We cannot afford to lock in the use of fossil fuels.” Rounding out the equity point, Exeter University’s professor emerita of energy policy, Catherine Mitchell, said that the needs of the poorest countries must be prioritized: “Unless we have social justice, there are not going to be more accelerated greenhouse gas reductions. These issues are tied together.”

The production of food through agriculture and livestock husbandry is a significant part of the climate picture. The IPCC report’s Summary for Policymakers notes that in 2019, 22% of total net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions could be attributed to agriculture, forestry, and other land uses (referred to as “AFOLU”). It goes on to say, in Section C (System Transformations to Limit Global Warming), that mitigation options in the AFOLU sector “can deliver large-scale GHG emission reductions and enhanced removals, but cannot fully compensate for delayed action in other sectors.” The summary also notes that sustainably sourced agricultural products (such as those permitted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program) can be used instead of more GHG intensive products, such as synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

It also calls out the importance, on the “demand” side in agriculture, of “sustainable healthy diets” that “promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and wellbeing; have low environmental pressure and impact; [and] are accessible, affordable, safe, and equitable.” Those diets are defined as those featuring “plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable, and low-GHG emission systems.”

Such foods and such systems characterize the organic approaches that Beyond Pesticides promotes because they are safer than conventional agriculture and its products for both health and environment; they enhance soil health, with all the co-benefits that attend that, including increased carbon storage capacity; they do not rely on petrochemical inputs that have embedded GHGs; and they do not contaminate organisms (e.g., pollinators) and natural resources.

A critical aspect of the transition in food production must be the shift off of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and to organic regenerative production. Beyond Pesticides wrote, in October 2021, “All of the work done by Beyond Pesticides and others — on the importance of moving agriculture and land management systems away from conventional, chemical-intensive approaches (via synthetic pesticides and fertilizers) and to organic practices — happens within the meta-context of the climate emergency, and is not unrelated.”

The article discusses the “contributions” of conventional agriculture’s use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and of factory farms and CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) — which send large amounts of methane into the atmosphere — to the climate emergency. It also points, yet again, to the urgent need to eliminate fossil fuel–based pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture and land management, and put in place an urgent and strategic transition to organic practices.

On all fronts, across all sectors, and in every country on Earth: there is zero time to waste in making the transition off of fossil fuels. Secretary-General Guterres said it forcefully: “Choices made by countries now will make or break the commitment to 1.5°C. A shift to renewables will mend our broken global energy mix and offer hope to millions of people suffering climate impacts today. Climate promises and plans must be turned into reality and action, now. It is time to stop burning our planet and start investing in the abundant renewable energy all around us.”

Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/04/ipcc-report-now-or-never-if-world-stave-off-climate-disaster and https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sgsm21228.doc.htm

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2022) Legislation introduced by U.S. Representative Rodney Davis (R-IL) last week would roll back, preempt, and prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting policies that protect resident health and a community’s unique local environments from hazardous pesticides. The bill, H.R.7266, is a direct attack on the scores of local communities that have enacted common sense safeguards from toxic pesticides, and represents the pesticide industry’s response to the growing momentum of the pesticide reform movement. Health and environmental advocates are expecting Rep. Davis and his partners in the agrichemical industry to attempt to work the provisions of the legislation into the upcoming 2023 farm bill. The industry had previously attempted to work federal preemption into the 2018 farm bill, an effort that ultimately failed after massive pushback from health advocates, local officials, and Congressional allies.

Rep. Davis’ press release for the bill, in which he was joined with quotes from a range of agrichemical industry leaders, is titled “Davis Introduces Legislation to Prevent Liberal Local Governments from Banning or Restricting Pesticide Use,” striking a partisan tone. Caring about public and environmental health is typically not viewed as a liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican issue. Those monitoring local governments that enact pesticide restrictions do not see partisan motivations; these laws are borne out of concern for children’s health, pregnant women, workers at disproportionate risk, and the immunocompromised, many of whom come to local government meetings to share their stories of pesticide poisoning. Conversations in local communities focus on the potential contamination of drinking water, local recreational swimming areas in waterways, the parks in which residents walk their beloved pets, and stories of locals witnessing a steep decline in pollinators.

The decision to enact a local pesticide policy is one that comes from local community discussion. Yet, Rep. Davis’ bill could stop communities from exercising basic local governance to protect people and the environment. 

The bill would amend federal pesticide law by adding the following provision:

“(d) LOCAL REGULATION PROHIBITED – A political subdivision of a State shall not impose, or continue in effect, any requirement relating to the sale, distribution, labeling, application, or use of any pesticide or device subject to regulation by a State pursuant to this section or by the Administrator under this Act.”

This language is considerably more restrictive than the amendment Rep. Davis and the industry proposed under the 2018 farm bill. Under this new language, by prohibiting a community to “continue in effect” any requirement relating to pesticide use, the bill would overturn any existing restrictions already passed in local communities. With uncertainty over how broadly this bill would be interpreted, all local jurisdictions with pesticide reform policies, including those only applying to public properties, could be reversed with this legislation.  

While traditionally anathema to ideology of Rep. Davis and his colleagues, advocates warn this bill represents a massive federal “big government” overreach into local communities.

The impacts for public health and ecological stability would be devastating. Only state agencies and the federal government would be able to regulate pesticide use. With the vast majority of state agencies effectively acting as rubber stamps for pesticide approvals by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), local jurisdictions would be forced to follow the rulemaking of an agency that has been documented to be captured by industry interests.

Time and time again, EPA has shown itself to be willing to override its namesake mission to protect health and the environment at the behest of agrichemical industry interests. As dozens of local communities act to protect declining pollinator populations by limiting the use of bee toxic neonicotinoid insecticides, EPA is set to reregister them for another 15 years. While local communities across the country are eliminating the use of glyphosate due cancer concerns and legal liability over its health impacts, EPA has denied the chemical’s cancer links and worked hand in glove with agrichemical industry groups to defend its use and stop other countries from enacting bans or restrictions.

With new evidence continuing to emerge on the depths of agrichemical industry corruption within EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, it is little wonder that a large and growing swath of communities are enacting laws that eliminate nearly all synthetic pesticides registered by EPA in favor of organic and minimum risk products.

Scientific research backs up the assertion that preemption laws harm public welfare. The study, Anti-community state pesticide preemption laws prevent local governments from protecting people from harm, published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability and supported by the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, finds that state pesticide preemption laws “compromise public health and economic well-being” by preventing localities from enacting pesticide use restrictions on private property that are more restrictive than their state’s regulations. In the words of the authors, “By eliminating the ability of local governments to enact ordinances to safeguard inhabitants from health risks posed by pesticides, state preemption laws denigrate public health protections.”

The most frequent justification stated by preemption proponents is the desire for “economies of scale” to prevent a “patchwork” of legislation, which would centralize control and create a “predictable regulatory environment.” Rep. Davis’ press release is littered with similar statements. Based on evidence of industry influence over state policies, however, study authors hold the position that these justifications are a ploy for more perverse economic motivations. Namely, advocates say these motivations are to sell their toxic products, increase their stock, and award their highly paid executives.

According to OpenSecrets, the agricultural services/products industry represented one of the top five industries donating to Rep. Davis between 2019-2020, totaling $160,625 for that period.

As the pesticide and agrichemical industry begin their effort to roll back and preempt critical conversations in local communities around health and environmental protection, it is imperative that local advocates stand up for sensible pesticide reform. Should Congress pass legislation amending federal pesticide law, two bills, the Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA) and Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act (PACTPA) represent a stark contrast to the approach taken by Rep. Davis and his colleagues. SAPA would shift decision-making over allowance of bee-toxic pesticides to a group of independent experts without pesticide industry conflicts of interest. PACTPA would enact long-overdue structural changes to pesticide law, and critically, assert the rights of localities to enact local laws pertaining to pesticide use. Even more protective legislation is needed, however, to strike at the toxic core of federal pesticide law.

While the industry attempts to trample on the rights of local communities, we urge advocates at all levels of government to push back. Ask your elected Representative in Congress to support pollinators by cosponsoring Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA), and urge your Senators to co-sponsor PACTPA and reforms to the toxic core of FIFRA. Consider following up with a phone call directly to your elected officials to let them know why local rights over pesticide reform is important to you.

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

Source: Rep Rodney Davis press release, H.R.7266

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2022) Conventional apples sold at market and sprayed with synthetic fungicides may not only contain drug-resistant fungi, but function as a transmission reservoir and route to spread these dangerous pathogens, finds research published in mBio late last month by a team of researchers from India and Canada. As reports of fungal resistance rise, particularly in hospitals and among the immunocompromised, there is an urgent need to understand and address the root causes of these emerging disease threats. “When we look at human pathogens, we tend to look at what’s immediate to us,” said study coauthor Jianping Xu, PhD. “But we have to look at it more broadly. Everything is connected, the whole system. Fruit is just 1 example.”  

Researchers set out their research with the suspicion that stored fruits sprayed with synthetic fungicides were acting as a source and route of transmission for the deadly fungi Candida auris. This yeast is considered an “emerging fungal pathogen” by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and has increased its rate of infection significantly since its initial identification in the mid 1990s. The fungi has been found in every continent save Antarctica. It has proven to be particularly dangerous to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions, and can spread rapidly through hospital settings, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities.

To test their suspicions, researchers purchased 62 apples –10 from an orchard using conventional practices, 10 from an organic orchard, and the rest from a market. Only Red Delicious or Royal Gala apples were purchased for the study. Overall, eight (13%) of apples had the presence of C. auris on its surface. All of the isolates were found in stored fruits purchased at market, while those purchased directly from the orchards contained no pathogenic fungi.

Fungicides were found to be present on every apple that also contained C. auris, and included a range of different classes with varying modes of action. This included triazole fungicides (such as tebuconazole, difenoconazole, sulfentrazone, and flusilazole), methyl benzimidazole carbamates (such as carbendazim and thiabendazole), phthalimides like captan, pyridinecarboxamides like boscalid, aromatic amines like diphenylamine, the phenolpyrrole fludoxonil, and quinone outside inhibitors (like kresoxim-methyl and pyraclostrobin). (See Beyond Pesticides Pesticide Gateway for more information about each active ingredient). However, the presence of fungicides was generally evenly distributed between those found with and without drug-resistant pathogenic C. auris. Fresh fruit from neither conventional nor organic orchards contained C. auris, but only organic apples were free of any fungicide residue, while conventional apples were contaminated with two or three fungicides on each fruit. Further isolation and culture of C. auris apples found them to have reduced sensitivity to commonly found triazole fungicides.

“Fungicides used in agriculture may inadvertently select the drug-resistant fungi,” said study author Anuradha Chowdhary. Based on their results, the scientists conclude that stored apples sprayed with fungicides are acting as a reservoir and source of transfer for C. auris. Because the fungi was only found on stored apples, it is likely that there are multiple routes for C. auris contamination,  including the potential that pickers or packers within the supply chain handling the fruits transfer the fungus from their hands to the fruit. As the study also notes, “It is plausible that multiple practices, like cryopreservation and wax coating with additional fungicides during the storage of apples, may alter the myco-flora of apples’ surfaces.”

The rise of drug resistant human pathogenic fungus presents a serious threat to human health on a  global scale. However, a Freedom of Information Act request shows officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture working to downplay the role of synthetic fungicide use in chemical agriculture as a factor in the rise of drug-resistant fungal infections worldwide. Not only did USDA work to deny the truth on the ground, but efforts were also made to halt protective actions. Emails showed top level officials at industry trade group CropLife America urging USDA officials to “make certain” that the United Nation’s (UN) Codex Alimentarius, a set of international guidelines and standards established to protect consumer health, made no mention of how fungicides contribute to antibiotic resistance.

As the New York Times reported in 2019, “…the very existence of resistant infections is often cloaked in secrecy. With bacter[ial] and fung[al infections] alike, hospitals and local governments are reluctant to disclose outbreaks for fear of being seen as infection hubs. Even the CDC, under its agreement with states, is not allowed to make public the location or name of hospitals involved in outbreaks. State governments have in many cases declined to publicly share information beyond acknowledging that they have had cases.” In the context of the present study, the source of a pathogen resistant fungal outbreak in a hospital could conceivably be caused by the fruit served in the hospital cafeteria sourced through a global supply chain. Yet as the specter of a massive health threat looms large, officials in the U.S. appear to be working to keep residents in the dark.

Most disturbingly, it is not unheard of for pathogenic fungi to reach epidemic levels in mammals. Over the last ten years 90% of northern long-eared, little brown and tri-colored bat populations have been killed due to White Nose syndrome, caused by exposure to a pathogenic fungi known as Pseudogymnoascus destructans.

As prior research on the development of resistance in agriculture has discovered, the most straightforward solution is the most effective; the only true way to eliminate resistance is to stop using the material causing resistance to occur in the first place. Organically produced apples, purchased directly from the orchard, the study confirms, were the only fruit not to pose a risk from either pesticide exposure or pathogenic fungi. Whenever possible, shop with an eye toward the gold standard for food purchases–local and organic. By buying organic whenever possible, you’ll help support the agricultural system we must continue to adopt for the future of our health and the planet.

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

Source: American Society for Microbiology press release, mBio

(Beyond Pesticides, April 5, 2022) A meta-analysis by the Federal University of Technology – Paraná finds the herbicide 2,4-D causes indiscriminate harm, increasing the mortality rate among exposed animals. The severity of chemical exposure relies on species sensitivity, exposure rate, and lifecycle stage. However, commercial formulations of 2,4-D, commonly used in the environment, prompt a higher species mortality rate than technical (pure) 2,4-D alone. Like many other common herbicides such as glyphosate, 2,4-D has global uses that allow the chemical to accumulate in the environment, including soils, waterways, and tissues of non-target species. Therefore, meta-analyses like this help local and government officials make holistic decisions regarding environmental contaminants that incorporate conclusions from various studies.

Using the Web of Science and Scopus databases, researchers compiled various studies (or meta-analyses) on the lethality of 2,4-D in different animal species (e.g., vertebrates, invertebrates). Researchers evaluated each study regarding the mortality rate of control and experimental groups, animal sensitivity to chemical exposure during a specific life stage, chemical formulation (e.g., commercial or technical), and exposure routes causing mortality. The analysis demonstrates that vertebrates experience higher mortality rates from 2,4-D exposure, with fish and birds presenting the highest mortality rate. Regarding life stages, larval and adult animals exposed to 2,4-D are more susceptible to development/behavior changes resulting in mortality. Although oral and dermal (skin) chemical exposure negatively affects species’ health, exposure to 2,4-D from immersion in a contamination source (e.g., water) results in much more severe health outcomes. 

Current research describes a range of unacceptable hazards from 2,4-D exposure, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) finding that the chemical is a possible human carcinogen (e.g., soft tissue sarcoma and nonHodgkin lymphoma). Moreover, exposure to 2,4-D can cause neurotoxicities like the development of ALS and loss of smell, kidney/liver damage, and endocrine disruption. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds babies born near areas of high 2,4-D use, such as farming communities, have higher rates of birth abnormalities, respiratory and cardiovascular issues, and developmental defects. Although glyphosate replaced much 2,4-D herbicide use during the late 1990s early 2000s, increasing glyphosate resistance is shifting the market back to heavy 2,4-D use. However, 2,4-D has striking similarities to glyphosate with growing weed resistance to the chemical and its contribution to the growth of antibiotic resistance in human pathogenic bacteria. Scientists even noted 2,4-D’s similarities to glyphosate as the commercial formulation presented more severe health outcomes than the technical grade or pure chemical alone. Moreover, products containing both glyphosate and 2,4-D to combat growing herbicide resistance are becoming increasingly popular, as 2,4-D, like glyphosate, has become integral to genetically engineered crops. Considering the agricultural industry is now speeding toward multi-herbicide tolerant cropping systems, public and environmental health is a greater risk from chemical input threats from this cropping system.

This analysis is the first of its kind to evaluate 2,4-D’s mortality rate, rather than sublethal exposure rate, among various species. The difference in lethality between vertebrate and invertebrate species mainly stems from variances in life stages (e.g., larvae, adult) and exposure route (e.g., oral, dermal, immersion). Aquatic animals experience higher mortality rates from 2,4-D exposure as the chemical readily contaminates waterways (e.g., leaching and runoff). The commercial formula of 2,4-D has higher active substance absorption (water solubility), thus is highly soluble due to solvents in the formula increasing chemical mobility. Moreover, commercial 2,4-D decreases dissolved oxygen levels in waterways, causing asphyxia. Considering surfactants, solvents, and oils in the commercial formula can be lethal to various animal species, the combined impact of direct and indirect toxicity from exposure creates an environment that cannot sustain ecological development. Therefore, the chemical residues in waterways penetrate sensitive body parts like mucosal membranes and gills, especially in aquatic vertebrates (e.g., fish).

It is essential to understand the impacts of interactions with other environmental pollutants, especially in contaminated ecosystems like waterways. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for federal regulation that considers potential synergistic and additive threats to ecosystems and organisms. Government and health officials must address chemical pollution before similar declines in human general health, fitness, and well-being. Furthermore, climate crisis implications like melting glaciers present a new concern over the levels of chemical concentrations in waterways from DDT, its metabolites, and other persistent organic pollutants trapped in ice. Toxic pesticide use must end to protect the nation’s and world’s waterways and reduce the number of pesticides that make their way into drinking water. Replacing pesticides with organic, non-toxic alternatives is crucial for safeguarding public health, particularly in communities vulnerable to pesticide toxicity. Learn more about the hazards pesticides pose to wildlife and what you can do by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife program page. For more information about pesticide contamination in water, see the Threatened Waters program page and Beyond Pesticides’ article Pesticides in My Drinking Water? Individual Precautionary Measures and Community Action.

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2022) Recent actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) highlight the urgent need to prevent pesticides from further endangering crucial pollinators, including birds, bees, and bats.

Tell EPA To Ban Neonics and Protect Against Other Threats to Pollinators. Tell Congress To Insist that EPA Does Its Job.

Despite EPA’s own findings of evidence of serious threats posed by neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides to pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife, it issued interim decisions on these neonics in January 2020 that disregard the science on the pesticides’ impacts and it appears that the agency is prepared to finalize these registrations late in 2022. This would, barring further action, extend the use of these harmful compounds for 15 years. Now is the time to let EPA know that continued use of neonicotinoids is unacceptable.

Furthermore, building on a history of unenforceable and impractical pesticide label restrictions resulting in EPA findings of ludicrously small or no risk, the agency spun its approval of the continued use of the deadly organophosphate insecticide malathion as “protecting threatened and endangered species.” As the nation and world sit on the brink of biodiversity collapse and deadly pesticide-induced diseases, EPA actions continue to protect pesticide manufacturers instead of fulfilling its mission “to protect human health and the environment,” and to ensure that “national efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information.”

EPA appears to discount threats like the insect apocalypse, evidenced by a 75% decline in insect abundance, which threatens not only global ecosystems, but also food production that depends on animal pollination. As pesticides move through the food web, birds are also at risk. Bird numbers are down 29% since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962. Malathion poses a threat to 97 percent of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including Kirtland’s Warbler and Black-capped Vireo. Bats, who are valuable pollinators, insectivores, and seed dispersers, are at high risk from pesticide exposure.

To help avert ecosystem collapse, EPA must ban pesticides, including neonicotinoids and organophosphates, shown to imperil populations of insects and other pollinators.

Tell EPA To Ban Neonics and Protect Against Other Threats to Pollinators. Tell Congress To Insist that EPA Does Its Job.

Letter to EPA

Recent actions by EPA highlight the agency’s failure to prevent pesticides from imperiling crucial pollinators, including birds, bees, and bats.

Despite EPA’s own findings of evidence of serious threats posed by neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides to pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife, it issued interim decisions on these neonics in January 2020 that disregard the science on the pesticides’ impacts and it appears that the agency is prepared to finalize these registrations late in 2022. This would, barring further action, extend the use of these harmful compounds for 15 years. This is a crucial time to take action to stop neonicotinoid use.

Furthermore, building on a history of unenforceable and impractical pesticide label restrictions resulting in EPA findings of ludicrously small or no risk, the agency spun its approval of the continued use of the deadly organophosphate insecticide malathion as “protecting threatened and endangered species.” As the nation and world sit on the brink of biodiversity collapse and deadly pesticide-induced diseases, EPA actions continue to protect pesticide manufacturers instead of fulfilling its mission “to protect human health and the environment,” and to ensure that “national efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information.”

EPA appears to discount threats like the insect apocalypse, evidenced by a 75% decline in insect abundance, which threatens not only global ecosystems, but also food production that depends on insect pollination. As pesticides move through the food web, birds are also at risk. Bird numbers are down 29% since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962. Malathion poses a threat to 97 percent of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including Kirtland’s Warbler and Black-capped Vireo. Bats, who are valuable pollinators, insectivores, and seed dispersers, are at high risk from pesticide exposure.

To help avert ecosystem collapse, I urge you to ban, this year, neonicotinoids shown to imperil populations of insects and other pollinators.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators

Recent actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) highlight the urgent need to prevent pesticides from further endangering crucial pollinators, including birds, bees, and bats. I am writing to urge you to exert pressure on EPA to act in accordance with its mission to protect the environment and public health.

Despite EPA’s own findings of evidence of serious threats posed by neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides to pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife, it issued interim decisions on these neonics in January 2020 that disregard the science on the pesticides’ impacts and it appears that the agency is prepared to finalize these registrations late in 2022. This would, barring further action, extend the use of these harmful compounds for 15 years. Now is the time to let EPA know that continued use of neonicotinoids is unacceptable.

Furthermore, building on a history of unenforceable and impractical pesticide label restrictions resulting in EPA findings of ludicrously small or no risk, the agency spun its approval of the continued use of the deadly organophosphate insecticide malathion as “protecting threatened and endangered species.” As the nation and world sit on the brink of biodiversity collapse and deadly pesticide-induced diseases, EPA actions continue to protect pesticide manufacturers instead of fulfilling its mission “to protect human health and the environment,” and to ensure that “national efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information.”

EPA appears to discount threats like the insect apocalypse, evidenced by a 75% decline in insect abundance, which threatens not only global ecosystems, but also food production that depends on animal pollination. As pesticides move through the food web, birds are also at risk. Bird numbers are down 29% since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962. Malathion poses a threat to 97 percent of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including Kirtland’s Warbler and Black-capped Vireo. Bats, who are valuable pollinators, insectivores, and seed dispersers, are at high risk from pesticide exposure.

To help avert ecosystem collapse, please let EPA know that it must, this year, ban neonicotinoids shown to imperil populations of insects and other pollinators.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2022) According to reporting by E&E’s Greenwire, internal emails at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) show that career scientists at the agency expressed worry about pesticide-laced pet collars, such as the notorious Seresto flea and tick collars, but that EPA managers “instructed them to avoid documenting those worries in publicly accessible records.” The emails were released pursuant to a 2021 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuit, brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), that sought records of internal communications. The documents evidence staff concern about the collars that has not been a part of EPA’s public communications on the subject. EPA staff, in the emails, expressed a range of degrees of outrage at managers’ behavior and at the very registration of the product, given the significant harms.

Seresto collars are plastic pet collars embedded with pesticides designed to kill fleas, ticks, and lice; they contain the active ingredients flumethrin and imidacloprid. Flumethrin, a chemical in the pyrethroid class of synthetic neurotoxic insecticides, has been linked repeatedly to neurological issues, such as seizures and learning disabilities in children, to gastrointestinal distress, and to damage to nontarget invertebrates, according to EPA’s own analysis.

Imidacloprid is a commonly used pesticide linked to serious health and environmental decline. A neurotoxicant, endocrine disruptor, and immunosuppressant, the compound can have harmful reproductive impacts and is linked to cancer. It is toxic to birds, bees, and aquatic organisms, and persists in aquatic environments. Banned for outdoor use across the European Union, it is nevertheless allowed by EPA in in pet collars and other treatments. Consistent with EPA’s track record, the potential synergistic impacts of exposures to flumethrin and imidacloprid via the Seresto collars have not been evaluated. In 2020, Beyond Pesticides added to the litany of harms with its coverage of additional problems with pet flea treatments — the contamination of waterways in both England and the U.S.

In Spring 2021, Beyond Pesticides wrote about the collar’s link to nearly 1,700 pet deaths, as well as injuries to tens of thousands of animals and hundreds of people, and noted: “Numerous flea and tick prevention products (e.g., collars, topical treatments, sprays, and dusts) include pesticides such as tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP), propoxur, synthetic pyrethroids, and fipronil. A common trait among these pesticides is their toxicity, not just to dogs and nontarget organisms, but to humans, as well.” Advocates have warned about the toxicity of the pesticides embedded in such collars (and other pet treatments), which are a health threat not only to pets, but to humans and, especially, to children.

CBD notes that EPA has received more than 75,000 complaints about the collars, associating their use with problems ranging from skin irritation to death. Gizmodo puts the current count of complaints to EPA about Seresto, since 2012, at more than 86,000 — with 2,340 of those relating to pet deaths. CBD’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Burd, commented that — given EPA’s estimate of the ratio of pesticide incidents “in the real world” to complaints filed with EPA as roughly 5:1 — a sensible extrapolation is that many more pets wearing Seresto collars have been hurt or have died than are represented by reports filed with the agency.

EPA has, according to Greenwire, dragged its feet for years on action on various pet collars (and related products). The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has brought multiple suits related to these collars, starting in 2007, because of their harms to children and pets. In addition to the controversy surrounding the Seresto collar, EENews reports, TCVP — used in collars manufactured and sold by the Hartz Mountain Corporation — has been a concern. In April 2020, a federal appeals court judge ordered EPA to act on an NRDC suit to ban the use of TCVP after EPA had denied previous NRDC petitions that sought the same.

An NRDC statement simultaneously marked the legal victory and called out the agency for its failure to act on the science: “In 2016, EPA scientists finally acknowledged the danger this toxic chemical poses to children, but the agency then failed to remove the dangerous pet products from the market. It’s especially gratifying, on Earth Day, to have the court hold EPA accountable to its ‘core mission’ to ‘protect human health and the environment.” Yet this toxic compound is still allowed for use by EPA. As NRDC asserts, despite six other dangerous organophosphates once used in pet products having been removed from the market, “use of TCVP in pet flea collars is the last remaining residential use of this toxic family of chemicals.”       

CBD has filed a legal petition to ban the Seresto collar. CBD argues that the Seresto product should be cancelled because of its unreasonable risks to pets, human health, and the environment. CBD notes that, “No other pesticide product has been the subject of this many incident reports, according to a former pesticide researcher and policy analyst for the EPA.”

CBD attorney Hannah Connor remarked in July 2021 that if EPA “wants to show that it has truly recommitted to its mission of using the best available science to protect human health and the environment, then it must take swift action to cancel its approval of this troubling product.” In July 2021, EPA announced the opening of a 60-day comment period on that petition, which period ended in September 2021. EPA has said that it will respond to the petition after reviewing its evaluation of the product, but there has been no word as yet from the agency on the status of that evaluation.

Greenwire notes that EPA has been “vague” in its response to consumer concern about the Seresto collar. The agency said in a July 2021 statement that, “EPA understands and shares the public’s concerns about reported incidents with Seresto pet collars. The agency is working to gather information about these incidents and will use this information to determine whether these pet collars still meet the legally required safety standard for registration under FIFRA.” The sanguine tone of that announcement apparently belies what has gone on behind the scenes at EPA.

The released internal EPA emails demonstrate that career scientists and staffers inside the agency have pushed back internally with their concern and frustration about EPA’s handling of the complaints about Seresto and harms to pets, and about the very registration of the product. Among the discoveries in the documents were these:

• In response to a query (from a staffer at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) about use of Seresto collars on kit foxes in the southwest U.S., which asked who at EPA would be the best person to consult about it, an EPA scientist responded: “It depends if you want the real answer or just some talking points to cover our ass for doing nothing.”
  • One EPA staff member wrote, “Why is Seresto even registered? At the very least Seresto should not be used on the endangered San [Joaquin] kit fox” — to which a manager at EPA replied, “It would be inappropriate for you to respond in your official capacity and express your personal opinions.” The staffer fired back, noting that manager’s (and others’) previous directives to staff “not to express [their] concerns about Seresto in emails.”
• Another EPA staff member wrote, after seeing media articles that investigated the Seresto collar, “I hope this time someone can blow the lid off this travesty.”

Ms. Burd of CBD called the email exchanges “disturbing,” and said they raise further concerns about EPA’s scientific integrity and transparency. She commented, “You’d think the EPA would spring to action in response to these troubling reports. But these emails tell the story of an agency focused more on saving face than saving animals. . . . The heartbreaking tragedy is that behind each and every incident report is a story of very real pet suffering, from violent seizures, rashes, and hair loss to gastrointestinal problems and even deaths.”

In addition, Ms. Burd has pointed to a systemic issue with EPA’s pesticide incident reporting system — the lack of any mandate for follow-up action. Although there are, she says, tens of thousands of incident complaints on record, “There’s no automatic trigger for any action. It’s just like, okay, you told us, thank you so much, and that’s it. . . . Every time there’s an incident, it’s going into a black box.” This represents to her a bigger worry about EPA failure to report adverse pesticide impacts generally.

These internal email revelations are further and unfortunate evidence of the state of EPA function in carrying out its fundamental mission “to protect human health and the environment” — which for EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, would mean protection from the broadly damaging impacts of synthetic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides has chronicled EPA’s “capture” by industry influence and the corruption that has marked both agrichemical industry behavior and, occasionally, internal EPA actions, as well as specific instances of EPA failures, such as those (like the pesticide pet collars) that put children at risk, and those that continue to allow devastation of critical species (such as pollinators), critical ecosystems, and fragile habitats.

The public can learn more about keeping pets healthy through alternative management of pests with Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Our Companions Safe web page, which offers multiple strategies. One suggestion that stands out, for those who may want to continue having pets treated with flea and tick products, is to have that done at the veterinarian’s office, thus, not needing to keep and dispense them in the home, and then monitoring pets for any adverse reactions.

For more on EPA functioning and how to influence critical reforms to how the agency does — or does not — enact its mission, see Beyond Pesticides’ advocacy piece from November 2021, “EPA and Congress Must Act to Correct a Failed Pesticide Program.” Please consider taking to heart the reforms suggested, and contacting your U.S. Senators and Representative, as well as EPA directly, with your endorsement of them.

Sources: https://www.eenews.net/articles/fiery-emails-show-epa-turmoil-over-pet-collars-tied-to-deaths/ and https://gizmodo.com/seresto-flea-collars-linked-to-dog-and-cat-deaths-have-1848714360

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2022) Composts produced using traditional ecological knowledge create healthier, more fertile soil than industrial, chemical-based fertilizers, according to the findings of a recent study published in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. As the dangers posed by industrial agriculture become increasingly apparent, organic and traditional practices show a time-tested path toward a sustainable farming future. According to study author Seema Sharma, PhD, “The research was already there because the ancient people did their research long ago,” she said to EOS. “But when it comes to the scientific community, you need research that is in a peer-reviewed journal and then finally verified.”

The study focuses its comparison within the Kachchh district, a semi-arid farming area of Western India that experiences erratic rainfall and has higher salt levels in its soils than much of the rest of the country. Twenty farms were chosen based on their fertilizer management practices, split between farmers employing traditional composting techniques and those using chemical fertilizers. For the chemical farms, an initial application of animal-based manure was applied, and synthetic sources of nitrogen (urea) and phosphorus (ammonium phosphate) were then spread as a top dressing at a rate of roughly 60kg (132lbs)/ha approximately 20 days after sowing. Traditional farms utilized a compost known as Jivamrit-S (Jeevamrutha), comprised of cow manure, cow urine, jaggery (an unrefined cane sugar), gram flower, and soil that is then fermented in a compost pit. This material was applied once a week for the two weeks after planting, and subsequently watered in. Over the course of three years, farm soils were tested before, during, and after harvest.

The study measured five variables of the soils on the twenty farms, including water holding capacity, bulk density (an indication of how compact the soil is), electrical conductivity (a measure of salts in soil), soil organic matter, and pH. The maximum water holding capacity of traditional farms was on average higher (at 47.5%) than soils amended with chemical-based fertilizers (at 38%).  Bulk density recorded lower values in traditionally managed soils (1.04 grams per cubic centimeter) than those chemically treated (at 1.31 grams per cubic centimeter). Most unsurprisingly, traditional soils had lower levels of electrical conductivity (at 0.55 deciSiemens per meter) compared to those that applied salt-based, synthetic chemicals (at 0.69 deciSiemens per meter). Soil organic matter was higher in traditional soils (at 0.75% organic matter) than chemical amended soils (at 0.46% organic matter). pH tended to increase in soils that were chemically treated (averaging 8.1), while those amended with traditional composts recorded relatively stable soil pHs (averaging 7.3).

The study notes that traditional soils maintained their advantages over chemically treated throughout the course of the experiment, and even during a drought period in the middle of study period. “In the present scenario—where chemical fertilizers had already shown detrimental effects in the form of long-term soil fertility depletion, health concerns occurring due to chemical inputs to both the growers and consumers, environmental deterioration—ecologically sustainable agri-management systems are not a choice but a necessity,” the study reads.

A similar recent review of cropping practices in Chinese rice paddy farms also found a range of benefits conferred by traditional practices that were not seen under an industrialized, monoculture farming approach. By utilizing traditional techniques that integrate animals into rice farms, nutrient cycling improved, the animals reduced on-farm weed pressure, and total economic output increased by up to 7x in certain conditions. This study represented an “enhanced” version of the traditional approach utilized in this region, adding additional nutrients in the form of vegetable manures.

It is critical that more research be done on the current value of traditional cropping systems, so that modern scientific methods can be applied to further improve these approaches, say health and environmental advocates. They say this approach should form the foundation for future farming practices that are truly sustainable, providing an off-ramp from over-promised “silver bullet” solutions of the agrichemical industry—be they synthetic fertilizers, genetic engineering, toxic pesticide use, or the industry’s new focus on RNAi.

Dr. Sharma plans to conduct further research comparing the yields between farming utilizing traditional practices and those employing industrial approaches. “The farmers that I work with are now telling me that we have yields that are on par with the common system of chemical farming,” she told EOS. “But that study has to be done.”

For more information on the benefits of time-tested, traditional and organic practices, see Beyond Pesticides organic program page. Consider taking action today to ensure that organic maintains its separation from industrialized agriculture and continues its trajectory of continuous improvement.

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

Source: EOS, PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2022) An article by the Audubon Society covers ongoing advocacy to end pesticide spraying in wildlife refuges. Wildlife refuges act as a sanctuary, providing habitat and protection essential for the survival and recovery of species nationwide. However, portions of the wildlife sanctuary can have agricultural uses, allowing farmers to cultivate crops on various acres, subsequently applying pesticides. Pesticide spraying in or around wildlife refuges threatens the survivability and recovery of species that inhabit the area. Moreover, many of these pesticides are highly toxic to human and animal health. Analyses like these are significant, especially since the globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk. With the increasing rate of biodiversity loss, advocates say it is essential for government agencies to enforce policies that eliminate pesticide use in wildlife refuges. Ending pesticide applications in sanctuaries can protect the well-being of animals, humans, and the ecosystem. Hannah Connor, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), notes, “It’s not a huge economic driver of the refuge system, and it is truly problematic in terms of fulfilling its mission and goals[…]. That just means it should be a no-brainer to be able to look at what significant harms could befall wildlife from these practices on wildlife refuges and say: No more.”

To support the end of pesticide use in wildlife refuges, advocates refer to results from the Center for Biological (CBD) 2018 report, No Refuge. Pesticide use data obtained from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) public records via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) finds a 34 percent increase in pesticide use in commercial agriculture on national wildlife refuges. Many of these pesticides are highly toxic, with farmland in wildlife refuges experiencing an over 70% higher level of dangerous pesticide inputs. These pesticides include dicamba, 2,4-D, glyphosate, and paraquat, which are highly toxic to fish, amphibians, crustaceans, and other animals—causing everything from birth and reproductive defects to cancer.

The U.S. has 568 national wildlife refuges—from forests and wetlands to various waterways—all of which protect thousands of species, including over 200 endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) oversees refuge management and permits private farming on refuges to help prepare seedbeds to increase seed germination for native habitats and provide food for migratory birds and other species. However, the recent rise of industrial-scale commercial farming is now commonplace in wildlife refuges, exposing these sensitive habitats and their wildlife dependents to highly toxic pesticides that jeopardize abiding health.

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. Several studies document how exposure to these toxic chemicals can decrease health and survivability in a wide range of species. There are policies in place to protect wildlife from harm, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, which protects ecosystems on which threatened and endangered species depend. However, a 2013 report by the National Academy of Sciences detected shortcomings in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) evaluation and analysis of pesticides on endangered species, with the agency regularly disregarding the ESA’s requirement to confer with federal wildlife agencies on how to take precaution to protect threatened and endangered species from pesticide harms. Therefore, EPA, and other federal government agencies, including FWS, reformed the pesticide review process to meet the pesticide approval requirements for the ESA. 

Another concern for wildlife refuges involves crops genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate pesticide exposure. In 2012, Beyond Pesticides and other environmental groups, led by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Center for Food Safety (CFS), won a court battle to halt genetically engineered crops and related herbicide-tolerant herbicides on wildlife refuges in the southeast. This led to a grassroots campaign and public pressure from advocates and environmental groups, resulting in FWS’s decision to adopt a national phase-out of GE crops and ban neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticide use on national wildlife refuges. However, in 2018, FWS reversed the prohibition via a memorandum, which allows the refuge system to make decisions on GE crop and pesticide use on a case-by-case basis. GE crops perpetuate the use of harmful pesticides as many of these crops are resistant to the pesticides used on them, forcing farmers to use more chemicals to treat persistent pest issues.

This article highlights previous concerns of improper pesticide practices on farms in wildlife refuges. Specific to Key Cave, refuge biologist William Gates claimed farming within the refuge violated refuge-management law. Moreover, pesticides approved for use in wildlife sanctuaries lack proper buffers, including strips of vegetation to mitigate run-off into groundwater. Groundwater contamination in Key Cave is a major issue, threatening fauna, from birds to fish. Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routinely finds widespread pesticide contamination of surface waters throughout the U.S. waterways (i.e., river, streams, surface/groundwater. Scientists warn that pesticides pose a direct threat to both insect and non-insect wildlife that may absorb chemical vapors through respiration, dermal (skin contact),or orally via food.

However, Key Cave is not the only refuge area of concern as farmers spray over 363,000 refuge acres with pesticides, many of which are highly toxic. The five national wildlife refuges complexes with the most contamination from agricultural pesticide applications include the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex (California and Oregon), Central Arkansas Refuges Complex (Arkansas), Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Mississippi), West Tennessee Refuge Complex (Tennessee), and Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Tennessee). Although the FWS allows private farmers to use refuge areas for crops, 20 percent must remain unharvested. However, pesticide residues can remain on these crops, exposing migrating birds, pollinators, and other wildlife to chemical effects. Pesticide use in wildlife refuges is an ongoing issue as a federal judge dismissed an environmental lawsuit seeking to reinstate an FWS rule banning the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, genetically engineered (GE) crops, and adopted a precautionary approach to pest management.

According to a former refuge manager interviewed by Audubon, refuge officials knew little about pesticide application and the number of chemicals used in sanctuaries. Many farmers failed to implement various requirements, like buffers, to prevent waterway contamination. Thus, the anonymous refuge manager cautions, “The regional biologist told me that it was highly unusual for people to take this process very seriously[…]. There were many, many holes in the system.”

Environmental organizations CFS and CBD express concerns as, “[t]he use of harmful agricultural pesticides to grow commercial row crops such as corn and soybeans on national wildlife refuges—the only public lands where wildlife must come first—defeats the objectives of the Refuge System and poses a significant threat to the species that rely on these refuges and the habitats that they provide.”

Pesticide use should be phased out and ultimately eliminated to protect the nation’s and world’s wildlife and reduce the number of dangerous pesticides exposed to species in wildlife refuges. Beyond Pesticides has long fought against GE crops and pesticide use on refuges and advocated for federal regulations that consider all potential impacts of pesticides to ecosystems and organisms. There are blind spots that limit our ability to adopt widespread change that improves ecosystem health. Thus, it is vital to understand how pesticides can exacerbate biodiversity loss in wildlife sanctuaries, especially due to the increasing amount of dangerous pesticide use in these areas. However, advocating for local and state pesticide reform policies can protect wildlife from pesticide contamination. For more information on pesticide impacts on wildlife, visit Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife page.

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

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

Source: Audubon Society

(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2022) Plastic storage barrels contaminated with polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may be in violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), according to an open letter released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last month. Manufacturers, producers, processors, distributors, users, and those that dispose of fluorinated High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) containers or other similar plastics that form PFAS as a byproduct were notified in the letter of requirements under federal law. The notice comes two years after EPA was first alerted to the presence of PFAS in a mosquito pesticide used by the state of Massachusetts known as Anvil 10+10. “Today’s action will help ensure that responsible parties are held accountable for any future PFAS contamination affecting communities,” said Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Michal Freedhoff, PhD.

While the agency believes its letter represents progress, health advocates note that there has been no meaningful regulatory action from the agency on this issue. In January 2021, a year after receiving notice from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) on the presence of PFAS on Anvil 10+10, EPA confirmed the finding. At the time the agency did nothing, while acknowledging, “the need to provide guidance…” Even with the specific confirmation, EPA merely encouraged states with Anvil 10+10 stocks to “red tag that inventory and hold for now.”

EPA’s latest actions indicate that these barrels may violate TSCA, but provide a possible roadmap for manufacturers to achieve compliance. The agency indicates that its long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), released in 2020, does not provide an exemption for PFAS produced as a byproduct of plastic manufacturing. EPA indicates, “This means that the uses require notice to EPA via a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), EPA review of potential risks of this use under TSCA section 5, and a determination of whether (and under what conditions) such uses can continue.”

In August 2021, federal agencies acknowledged that the plastic HDPE storage barrels contaminating pesticides may also be used to store food products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a letter to plastic manufacturers warning them to stop fluorinating packaging after it has been molded or in the presence of water. It indicated that only certain gasses—fluorine and nitrogen—could be used during the fluorination process, and others like argon and oxygen could attach to carbon atoms and form PFAS.  

While both EPA and FDA appear to be strongly discouraging companies from continuing manufacturing processes that create PFAS contamination, the agency’s action has effectively no teeth as these contaminated products remain on the market. Federal agencies instead have continued along their post-cautionary approach to regulating, as Assistant Administrator Freedhoff noted, their effort is to have “responsible parties…held accountable for any future PFAS contamination affecting communities.” Health advocates note that it is not helpful to have a mechanism for recourse in the future when the contamination and poisoning is occurring today.

It is evident that EPA and other federal regulators have been well behind the curve on the dangers posed by PFAS compounds. Despite evidence on the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies sat by the sidelines as the plastics industry continued adding the material to new products. A study published in 2020 in Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts identified PFAS is hundreds of common products Americans are exposed to daily. “In addition to well-known categories such as textile impregnation, fire-fighting foam, and electroplating, the identified use categories also include many categories not described in the scientific literature, including PFAS in ammunition, climbing ropes, guitar strings, artificial turf, and soil remediation.” Downstream from these consumer uses, PFAS has made its way into our environment and our bodies. It has been found to be widespread in farm fields due to its presence sewage sludge, and has contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S.. After a three year legal effort by PEER,  EPA publicly released data on the range of sources and concentrations of PFAS in our environment, with PEER providing a startling interactive map with the data available for review.

These myriad sources of exposure have important implications for our health. A study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that 98% of Americans have some level of PFAS in their blood stream. With health risks including developmental, metabolic, cardiovascular, and reproductive harm, cancer, damage to the liver, kidneys and respiratory system,  as well as the potential to increase the chance of covid infection and severity, PFAS presents a chronic danger to Americans that demands immediate regulatory action.

In light of EPA’s insufficient response, at least 32 states are considering 210 potential laws to restrict PFAS in some way. Advocates are encouraged to contact their elected representatives and urge them to take meaningful action to eliminate sources of PFAS in food, farming, and our environment. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ previous articles on PFAS contamination in our Daily News Blog.

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

Source: EPA press release, E&E news
Photo credit: Richard Hurd

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2022) Last Chance This Spring To Tell the NOSB To Uphold Organic Integrity. Comments are due 11:59 pm EDT April 1 (No Fooling!)

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through April 1. April 1 is also the deadline for registering for the upcoming public comment webinar on April 19 and 21, which precedes the online meeting April 26-28—in which the NOSB deliberates on issues concerning how organic food is produced. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov.

As always, there are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong (KOS) and the Spring 2022 issues page, where you can find Beyond Pesticides’ comments on all issues facing the NOSB at this meeting. In the spirit of “continuous improvement,” we urge you to submit comments (please feel free to use our comments on the KOS page or use language below) that contribute to an increasingly improved organic production system. Here are some high priority issues for us:

• The NOSB must insist that the National Organic Program (NOP), which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) follow through with NOSB recommendations. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) established the NOSB to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on implementation of the act, with special attention to the National List of approved and prohibited substances. NOP has fallen behind in implementing the recommendations of the NOSB, which threatens organic integrity.
  • Organic consumers expect that organic farms will not destroy native ecosystems, so NOP must implement NOSB’s recommendation to change the current perverse regulation that incentivizes the immediate destruction of native ecosystems and conversion to organic production as a cheaper and faster option than transitioning existing conventional farmland over a three-year period.
  • Organic consumers expect that organic meat and dairy products will be produced without synthetic hormones, so NOP must—as recommended by the NOSB—take oxytocin off the list of allowed synthetics.
  • Now NOP has come to the organic community with a request for input concerning the priorities to be assigned to recommendations it has failed to complete. This is totally unacceptable. The organic community has spoken on these issues, but NOP has not done its job. It is improper—indeed, outrageous—for NOP to now pit segments of the organic community against one another. NOP must give higher priority to completing NOSB recommendations. It is NOP’s responsibility to just get it done.
• Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) is a quaternary ammonium compound (quat or QAC) that is being petitioned for use on raw organic poultry. The class of QACs includes several toxic sanitizers and disinfectants as well as the highly toxic herbicides paraquat and diquat. CPC is highly toxic, and poses a particular hazard to workers. CPC residues have been discovered on treated surfaces and poultry skin, exposing consumers to unlabeled pesticide residues. It is unnecessary in organic production, and the petition should be denied.
• The NOSB is considering a proposal limiting the use of highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers in organic production. This follows on recommendations by the NOSB in Fall 2021, prohibiting the use of stripped ammonia and concentrated ammonia as fertilizers in organic crop production. In recognition of the fact that their high solubility makes them inconsistent with organic production, which “feeds the soil, not the plant,” the Crops Subcommittee proposes to generalize the prohibition unless use is restricted to no more than 20 percent of the crop’s total nitrogen requirement. USDA has stated that it will not implement the prohibition of stripped ammonia and concentrated ammonia unless this proposal passes. The NOSB should pass this proposal to protect organic integrity.
• Biodegradable Biobased (Bioplastic) Mulch Film (BBMF) is under consideration for sunset this year. Although the NOSB will not vote on BBMF until the Fall 2022 meeting, this is part of a larger issue of the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plastic—and the microplastic particles to which it degrades—on human health and the environment. BBMF should not be relisted. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic production and handling—including packaging.

Submit Comments Now.

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

Thank you for keeping organic strong!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2022) Recent coverage by The Guardian of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) plan — to extend the registration of several demonstrably harmful neonicotinoid insecticides — compels Beyond Pesticides to identify, once again, the agency’s failures to enact its core mission. That mission is “to protect human health and the environment,” and to ensure that “national efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information.” EPA has undertaken a review of the registration of several members of the neonicotinoid (neonic) family of pesticides and, despite the agency’s own findings of evidence of serious threats to pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife, it issued interim decisions on these neonics in January 2020 that disregard the science on the pesticides’ impacts. EPA appears to be prepared to finalize these registrations late in 2022; this would, barring further action, extend the use of these harmful compounds for 15 years.

Neonics are used widely in the U.S., both on crops to kill sucking insects, and as seed treatments with the same goal for the developing plant. These insecticides are systemic compounds, meaning that once applied, they travel to all parts of a plant through the vascular system, and are then present in pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets. Non-target organisms — such as bees, butterflies, birds, bats, and other insects — feed and drink from those sources and are thus readily and indiscriminately poisoned. The compounds are highly mobile, seeping into groundwater and soils, where they persist, causing additional insect exposure to them, as well as soil and water contamination. Specific impacts of neonics have been covered extensively by Beyond Pesticides in recent years; some examples include reproductive harm to pollinators, negative effects on aquatic wildlife populations, and neonic lethality for bumblebees.

The specific members of the neonicotinoid family of compounds up for EPA review (and likely re-registration) are imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, dinotefuran, and acetamiprid. This class of chemicals targets acetylcholine (ACh) receptors in insects, and act as ACh agonists — triggering oxidative stress, reducing energy levels, and causing neurodegeneration, even at low levels of exposure. These impacts can impair cognition (including learning), behavior, vision, cellular energy supply, and sensory and motor functions, and can be lethal. This class of pesticides is broadly seen as a significant cause of bee losses (in both managed and wild populations), and broad pollinator decline and die-off.

Meanwhile, as Beyond Pesticides wrote in February 2020 in response to EPA’s January 2020 interim decisions, “With widespread pollinator declines linked to neonicotinoid insecticides since the mid-2000s, a growing understanding of the role these systemic insecticides play in the insect apocalypse, and similar declines in bird populations, the agency, according to advocates, has embraced not protection, but the destruction of the shared environment. While U.S. regulators continue to embrace chemical-dependency, Canada and the European Union acted decisively to eliminate neonicotinoids.”

In May 2020 comments to EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Beyond Pesticides added that in addition to the concerns about neonic impacts on pollinators, insects, aquatic life, and other organisms, “With emerging human health concerns being documented, we reiterate our appeal for the agency to adhere to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s (FIFRA) statutory mandate and withdraw the registration of these pesticides that clearly pose unreasonable adverse health and environmental effects.”

FIFRA is the federal statute that governs the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides; it stipulates requirements for the registration of any pesticide. Among those is the requirement that “using the pesticide according to specifications ‘will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,’” with such effects defined as “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” During the past couple of decades, with increasing industry influence on EPA (most dramatic, perhaps, during the Trump years), the agency’s priorities have increasingly “drifted” from the “unreasonable risk to man [sic] or the environment” portion of that FIFRA requirement, and toward consideration of the “economic costs” portion. Beyond Pesticides has covered this shift at EPA (and OPP in particular), which emanates from its reluctance to hinder corporate interests; learn more here, here, here, and here.

EPA released draft Biological Evaluations (BEs) for clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam in August 2021. (A BE is an EPA analysis of potential harmful impacts of a registered pesticide on any species federally listed, per the Endangered Species Act, as endangered or threatened, or on their critical habitats.) That BE found that “each of these chemicals is likely to adversely affect certain listed species or their designated critical habitats.” Beyond Pesticides wrote, of that BE, that “each neonic was found to adversely affect over 1,000 endangered species out of 1,821 listed under the law. Specifically, the neonics were found to adversely affect nontarget endangered species: imidacloprid impacted 1,445 species, clothianidin, 1,225, and thiamethoxam, 1,396. Harmful effects were not limited to a specific subgroup – dozens of species were affected within all groups, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, plants, and aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates.”

A reminder that rounds out the inanity of the neonic pesticide picture: there is evidence that neonics do not necessarily achieve the results that manufacturers promise. Research on soybean production, for example, has shown that neonic-treated soybean seeds provide negligible yield and economic benefit to the producer. John Tooker, an entomologist at Penn State University, offered this assessment: “These insecticides are not helping the productivity of crops on fields — it seems an amazing effort to blanket all these acres with something that doesn’t have a return on investment.”

Indeed, the actual utility of pesticides to achieve their purported goals is an under-recognized failing of EPA’s review of pesticide compounds for use; EPA ought to include a role for efficacy in the agency’s evaluation of pesticides. Beyond Pesticides further notes that EPA should recognize that the “putative benefits listed in its benefit assessments do not outweigh the ecological harm and existential threat these compounds pose to pollinators,” and that the additive harmful effects on aquatic life, wildlife, and human health should “further diminish the ratio of benefits in comparison to the extensive threats.”

EPA’s reluctance to take the necessary action — deregistration of these toxic and destructive compounds — shows up in many of its pesticide policies and decisions. In 2017, EPA proffered this punt on the need to protect pollinators, recommending that: “states and tribes develop pollinator protection plans and best management practices.” The agency’s 2020 interim decisions on the neonics listed above include proposals for what it calls “Actions to Protect Pollinators.” Those are:

• management measures to help keep pesticides on the intended target and reduce the amount used on crops associated with potential ecological risks
• requiring the use of additional personal protective equipment to address potential occupational risks
• restrictions on when pesticides can be applied to blooming crops in order to limit exposure to bees
• language on the label that advises homeowners not to use neonicotinoid products
• cancelling spray uses of imidacloprid on residential turf due to health concerns

Considered in the context of all the pollinator and insect devastation caused, and continuing to be caused, by use of these neonic compounds, these “protective actions” EPA proposes are remarkably insufficient. Largely, they rely on producer and operator compliance with vague “management measures” and timing of applications, and a recommendation for use of more personal protective equipment, as well as on homeowners’ voluntary decisions not to use these products.

These weak proposals are further evidence, in the view of Beyond Pesticides, of EPA’s abdication of its responsibility to enact its protective charge. As Beyond Pesticides wrote early in 2021, “While regulators in both Canada and the European Union have eliminated nearly all uses of neonicotinoids, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done little but shuffle around language on a pesticide label. . . . EPA . . . is unwilling to take the regulatory actions needed to protect all pollinators across the country.”

Nathan Donley of the Center for Biological Diversity notes that, although some states (such as Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts) have enacted some constraints on the use of neonics, EPA continues to “bend to pressure from farming groups and pesticide makers to perpetuate their use nationally.” He adds, in The Guardian’s reporting, “We are already seeing crashes in insect numbers and we don’t have another 15 years to waste. It’s frustrating to see the EPA go down this path. We really are at a crossroads — we can follow the science and the rest of the world or we can go out on our own and appease the chemical industry.”

After EPA’s August 2021 release of its Biological Evaluations on three neonics, environmental advocates were robust in their responses. The Center for Food Safety’s legal director, George Kimbrell, said that the analyses “confirm what scientists have told EPA and industry for over a decade: These extremely toxic pesticides are causing drastic ecological harm, both the collapse of bee populations [and] putting literally hundreds of endangered species at extinction risk across the country.”

The Center for Biological Diversity’s health director, Lori Ann Burd, issued extensive commentary after the BEs emerged: “Now the EPA can’t ignore the fact that these popular insecticides are wiping out our country’s most endangered plants and animals. Neonicotinoids are used so widely, and in such large quantities, that even the EPA’s industry-friendly pesticide office had to conclude that few endangered species can escape their toxic effects. . . . The EPA doesn’t need any more proof. It should ban neonicotinoids right now. We’re in a heartbreaking extinction crisis, and neonicotinoids are playing an outsized role in driving it. Pollinator populations are declining nationwide. . . . What will it take for the EPA to act on this information and ban these deadly chemicals?”

Demands to act on the neonic-induced catastrophe are rising. As Beyond Pesticides notes, “In 2018, more than two hundred scientists co-authored a ‘Call to restrict neonicotinoids’ on the basis of the bulk of evidence implicating neonicotinoids in mass pollinator and beneficial insect declines.” Advocates, including the Center for Food Safety and Pesticide Action Network North America, have filed lawsuits to get EPA to act protectively for pollinators.

As can happen, such pending decisions at EPA can have a stalling effect on action at the state level. State legislators and/or regulators who may be considering action on these toxic compounds may opt to “wait and see” what happens at the federal level. Beyond Pesticides encourages states to proceed with all haste to take action on neonicotinoids, particularly given the real possibility of their reregistration by EPA at some point in 2022. Every day these compounds are deployed means more death and destruction of pollinators and other organisms, and fragile habitats. As a part of a ban or restriction strategy, Beyond Pesticides advances a holistic strategy for land management that utilizes only organic-compatible materials.

Beyond Pesticides’ take on the registration of these neonics, and on the approach of EPA generally to pesticides, is this: “Ultimately, any action taken by the administration to limit one chemical or chemical class without a broad-scale reorganization of how EPA conducts its pesticide reviews is insufficient. Real reform is necessary to stop industry influence over American’s health, environmental safety, and the dwindling species whose protection are critical for our long-term welfare.” Neonicotinoids should be deregistered.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/08/us-epa-toxic-pesticides-paralyse-bees-insects

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2022) A range of essential oils can provide high levels of larvicidal and adulticidal activity against a commonly found species of mosquito, according to research published last week in Scientific Reports. The use of essential oils in mosquito management has generally been limited to personal protection, with synthetic pesticides often the first choice for vector control activities. This research highlights the potential role of these natural compounds to replace hazardous synthetics in managing larval sources and killing adult mosquitoes under last-resort scenarios.

The team of Egyptian-based scientists conducting the study purchased 32 different essential oils from a regional retailer in order to test them on both the larval and adult stages of Culex pipiens. C. pipiens, often referred to as the common house mosquito, is the most abundant mosquito in the Northern U.S., and is known to vector West Nile virus and Saint Louis encephalitis, among other diseases.

Larval efficacy was tested on the fourth instar larvae of C. pipiens, delivered through a mixture of the essential oil, water, and the solvent Tween-20, which contains the surfactant Polysorbate-20, used to emulsify the mixture. All oils tested had some level of larvicidal activity (between 60-100%). Researchers classified the oils into three different groups: highly, moderately, and least effective. Highly effective oils achieved 95-100% mortality over a 48-hour period, and included garlic (Allium sativum), dill (Anethum graveolens), tea plant (Camellia sinensis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), fennel flower (Nigella sativa), sage (Salvia officinalis), garden thyme (T. vulgaris), and sweet violet (Viola odorata). In the moderately effective group, Salai guggul (B. serrata), cumin (C. cyminum), wild tumeric (C. aromatic), garden cress (L. sativum), tea tree (M. alternifolia), black pepper (P. nigrum), and magnolia berry (S. chinensis) recorded 81-92% mortality over 48 hours. Of the 17 least effective oils remaining, sesame (S. indicum) and cannabis (C. sativus) exhibited the lowest mortality rates, at roughly 60% over a 48-hour period.

Researchers then tested the high larval efficacy group on adult mosquitoes, utilizing the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s bottle bioassay testing protocol. In a solution of 10% essential oil, mortality rates post treatment were 49% for garlic (Allium sativum), 88% for dill (Anethum graveolens),  64% for the tea plant (Camellia sinensis), 51% for fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), 93% for fennel flower (Nigella sativa), 44% for sage (Salvia officinalis), 72% for garden thyme (T. vulgaris), and 100% for sweet violet (Viola odorata).

In sum, the researchers note, “Camellia sinensis [tea plant] and F. vulgare [fennel] were the most potent larvicides whereas V. odorata [sweet violet], T. vulgaris [garden thyme], An. Graveolens [dill] and N. sativa [fennel flower] were the best adulticides and they could be used for integrated mosquito control… EOs could serve as suitable alternatives to synthetic insecticides because they are relatively safe, available, and biodegradable.”

The results of the study line up with research on the efficacy of essential oil-based sprays for adulticide applications. A 2019 study in the Florida Journal of Mosquito Control found the product Nature-Cide, containing .5% clove and .5% cottonseed oil to be more effective at managing adult mosquitoes that three of the most commonly used synthetic pyrethroid-based mosquito sprays.

A model approach to mosquito management is a science-based, and prioritizes preventive measures first and foremost. These measures include surveillance, monitoring, public education on eliminating breeding sites and personal protective actions, consideration of local ecology and habitat manipulation. While moving from hazardous synthetics to less toxic, natural and more readily biodegradable products like essential oils present a range of benefits, even these products should only be used based upon monitoring data. Applying any product with insecticidal activity presents risks to nontarget animals and plants in the environment. The use of larvicides should be governed by actions levels established based on prior monitoring data. Some communities, like the City of Boulder, Colorado, are working to limit their use of biological larvicides like bacillus thuringiensis by embracing ecological mosquito management — hiring wetland ecologists to analyze ecosystem health and its capacity to naturally address overabundant mosquito populations.

In the case of adulticides, even least-toxic products should only be considered as a last resort, under strict thresholds, and when the spread of mosquito-borne disease places public and animal health at imminent risk. Aerially applied mosquito adulticides in any form are excessively risky in exposures to people and nontarget organisms, are relatively ineffective in relation to those risks, and should never be considered as part of a sustainable mosquito management program.

For more information on safer mosquito management, see Beyond Pesticides program page. Specific recommendations for least-toxic repellents can be found here, and residents working to change their community mosquito management approach are encouraged to reach out to [email protected].

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

Source: Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2022) A study published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment warns that thawing of permafrost (a ground that remains completely frozen for two or more years) in the Arctic region can prompt the reemergence of greenhouse gases (e.g., methane and carbon dioxide), microbes, and chemicals (e.g., banned pesticides like DDT). Past research finds gases, microbes, and chemicals drift near the poles, becoming entrapped in ice under the accumulating snowfall. As the global climate continues to rise and the climate crisis worsens, studies like this show significant effects, as ice encapsulating these toxic chemicals is melting. Upon melting, some chemicals can volatilize back into the atmosphere, releasing toxicants into the air and aquatic systems, with the ensuing consequences. Microbes frozen for thousands to millions of years can also emerge from thawing permafrost, with unknown implications on human, animal, and ecosystem health. The melting permafrost is already beginning to impact infrastructure, creating sinkholes that damage roads, trees, and utility poles. Moreover, mixtures of chemicals, microbes, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in permafrost are difficult to assess. Therefore, studies like this highlight the need to evaluate the health and ecological effects of melting arctic permafrost (and glaciers) from anthropogenic (human)-induced climate change. [For related pieces, see Silent Snow: The unimaginable impact of toxic chemical use and DDT in Glacial Melt Puts Alaskan Communities at Risk.]

Approximately 1,700 billion metric tons of carbon, including GHGs like carbon dioxide and methane, are present in permafrost, over 51 times more than the amount of carbon released from 2019 fossil fuel emissions. The remaining organic matter, frozen in permafrost, will decay after thawing, further increasing atmospheric carbon emissions. Although current models predict an increase in carbon released from permafrost in the coming decades to hundreds of years, scientists lack knowledge on how much, how long, and the specific carbon source. Therefore, researchers in this study used ground, air, and satellite data to evaluate the effects of subsequent permafrost melting.

Using ground measurements, researchers can monitor changes in specific areas, while airborne and space-based (satellite) measurements monitor changes over broader areas. Airborne and ground measurements represent time-specific monitoring data, and satellite measurements monitor data continuously. Moreover, ground measurements mainly focus on microbial communities in thawing permafrost. Airborne measurements focus on GHG emission with satellite and airborne data mapping GHG hotspots. The combination of data forms a holistic (complete) overview of changes in the arctic region.

The study determines that Earth’s polar regions are warming the fastest, approximately two to four times faster than average, and these changes can have a cascading adverse impact on lower and higher latitudes. The scientists note that the polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) stabilize Earth’s climate and drive heat transfer, powering jet streams and other fluxes/currents. Researchers cannot identify specific microbes encased in permafrost, nor whether GHGs emissions will be gradual or rapid. Thus, polar warming has future consequences that threaten regular weather, climate, and chemical exposure patterns.

Many scientists consider Arctic environments “pristine,” void of direct chemical inputs from chemicals used in more temperate and industrial climates. However, the Arctic has become a sink for these toxic chemicals, as studies find evidence that airborne Arctic chemical concentrations are comparable to that of industrialized regions in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Additional investigations find the presence of chemicals and microbes in soil and ice samples taken from Arctic regions. The Arctic is highly susceptible to global pollution, as warmer air contaminated with industrial and agricultural chemicals from manufacturing regions move poleward toward cooler air. Environmental pollutants can condense into snowflakes high in the atmosphere and deposit onto the Arctic surface. Although deposition of these chemicals via long-range atmospheric transport and condensation are significant contributors to Arctic contamination, the chemical properties allowing these substances to persist in the environment so long are concerning. Some of these long-lived chemicals include regionally banned pesticides like DDT, heptachlor, and lindane, which are highly toxic to humans and animals, causing a range of adverse effects, from respiratory issues to nervous system disorders and birth deformities to various common and uncommon cancers. Although banned chemicals remain a global issue, as much of the developing world still report usage, banned/past-use compounds are not the only contaminants in the Arctic. Current-use chemicals like chlorpyrifos, dacthal (DCPA), and trans-nonachlor (a component of the banned insecticide chlordane) readily contaminate the arctic, and continued use will result in an increased probability of atmospheric transportation and deposition of chemicals on Arctic glacier tops via precipitation. According to Brettania Walker, Ph.D., toxics officer at World Wildlife Fund’s Arctic Program, “Not only is chemical contamination increasing in the Arctic but also modern chemicals are now appearing in many Arctic species alongside older chemicals, some of them banned for over [30] years.”

The climate crisis adds another level of concern, especially regarding passive pesticide and microbial exposure from snowmelt. Pesticide contamination is already an issue in the U.S., as results of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) and National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) show that pesticides and their breakdown products are present in all U.S. streams and widespread in groundwater throughout the country. For instance, a Chicago-based 2020 study shows black women who consume more tap water per day have higher bodily residues of the DDT metabolite (DDE). Permafrost and glacial melting will only add to water source contamination as volatile chemicals can enter waterways at the same concentration levels as before ice entrapment, even after several decades. Moreover, several banned chemicals are not soluble in water (e.g., DDT, lindane, chlordane) but bioaccumulate in the fatty tissue of many Arctic species, such as polar bears, seals, whales, and some fatty fish like salmon, herring, and catfish. The level of DDT in Arctic penguins’ blubber is similar to levels during initial banning more than 30 years ago. Unfortunately, some indigenous tribes in Arctic regions rely on these very mammals and fish for sustenance, and ingesting these pollutants is inevitable, putting their health at risk. Higher bodily concentrations of chemicals are evident in those who consume contaminated meat with associated health risks, including immune system disorder, increased susceptibility to disease, central nervous system disorders, learning disabilities among children, reproductive issues, and cancer. Studies find that adults and children who regularly consume fish from contaminated streams are at increased risk of cancer from dietary and cumulative exposure, in many cases above EPA thresholds.

This study adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating disproportionate warming in arctic regions. Arctic thawing has implications for carbon release and landscape changes that are difficult to predict, including alternations in arctic vegetation and density. The combination of data measurements (e.g., ground, airborne, satellite) can aid in monitoring the carbon system, from microbial decay of organic matter to volatilization of chemicals from permafrost and glacier ice. As global warming progresses, exposure concerns will increase significantly, especially for children who are more vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemical exposure. To mitigate the risks associated with chemical exposure from toxic pesticides, advocates say the manufacturing and use of pesticides need addressing, first and foremost. It falls to global leaders to curtail the continued manufacturing of chemical pollutants that readily contaminate polar regions. Recently, agrochemicals like pesticides and fertilizers overtook the fossil fuel industry as the leading contributor to environmental sulfur emissions. If pesticide use and manufacturing are amplifying the impacts of the climate crisis, advocates argue that it is essential to incite change by enhancing pesticide policy and regulation that eliminates use. The study concluded, “Scientific cooperation across diverse fields has already increased the modeling accuracy and data integration for carbon transport, permafrost thaw, and climate scenarios. However, further international collaboration, monitoring, and exploration is needed to determine the areas of greatest change. All efforts to quantify carbon release expand scientific understanding of complex, changing and emergent dynamics of a warming Arctic.”

Lack of adequate persistent pesticide regulations highlights the need for better policies surrounding pesticide use, especially when a toxic pesticide is banned for use in the U.S., but not for production and export to other countries. A switch from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis by eliminating toxic, petroleum-based pesticide use, building soil health, and sequestering carbon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that agriculture, forestry, and other land use contributes about 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, while organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters carbon in the soil. Learn more about how it is possible to sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions by switching to organic management practices by reading Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming. For more information about organic food production, visit the Beyond Pesticides Keep Organic Strong webpage. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure.

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

Source: Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, NASA

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2022) German cockroaches collected from U.S. residential homes have evolved resistance mechanisms so strong that many can consume ten times the pesticide required to kill a laboratory-susceptible strain and still not die. These are the findings of recent research published in the Journal of Economic Entomology, which focused on determining cockroach resistance levels to commonly used gel bait insecticides in infested Southern California homes. The findings underscore the importance of an integrated approach to cockroach management that recognizes and responds to pest ecology, rather than search for an ever-elusive silver bullet.

Researchers collected five different strains of German cockroaches from various locations around Southern California, two from public housing and three from apartment dwellers. All sites had long-standing cockroach infestations, with varying treatment histories that generally included significant use of common gel bait insecticides. Tests were conducted on male cockroaches as they are gregarious foragers and thus more susceptible to baited food; it was indicated that if an insecticide cannot kill a male, it is highly unlikely to kill a juvenile or female roach. A separate group of cockroaches reared in the laboratory and never exposed to insecticides was used as a baseline for comparison.

This never-exposed laboratory strain of roaches were then exposed to varying levels of commonly used bait insecticides, including fipronil, clothianidin, indoxacarb, abamectin, hydramethylnon, and deltamethrin. Researchers determined lethal doses (LD) that killed 50% of the laboratory strain, as well as the dose that killed 95%.

Scientists then exposed the residential strains to commercial products containing the insecticides listed above. Mortality was recorded 14 days after exposure. Responses varied significantly between different residential strains, and while all baits completed killed off the laboratory strain, no pesticide was able to achieve 100% knockdown across the board.

Referred to as “diagnostic doses,” each cockroach strain was then directly treated with three times the lethal dose that killed 95% (LD95) of the laboratory strain. With the synthetic pyrethroid deltamethrin, no cockroaches died at that dose. While a mere 0-3% of fipronil, 13-27% of clothianidin, and 13-63% of indoxacarb exposed roaches died at the 3 x LD95 rate. Only abamectin and hydramethylnon recorded high mortality rates from this exposure. Scientists then took it a step further and exposed the cockroaches to ten times the LD95. At this rate, upwards of 80% of deltamethrin-exposed roaches still lived, while with fipronil that rate killed off 20-70%. The clothianidin and indoxacarb exposed roaches exhibited a significant negative correlation between survival time after exposure to 10 x LD95 and mortality, while with those exposed to fipronil and hydramethylnon the correlation was insignificant. Scientists say this indicates that resistance is more physiological for the former products, while the insignificant correlation may indicate the development of cockroach aversion to the latter two baits.

Only abamectin exhibits a knockdown that would suggest a level of effectiveness in a cockroach infestation. However, researchers add caution to that finding by referencing a 2019 study that found rapid increases in abamectin resistance in field settings. In that study, roughly 10% of cockroaches in a certain site were resistant to abamectin. But after an application, the 10% that did not die were able to rapidly repopulate. These scenarios drive home the flaws in a product-centric approach to cockroach management.

In order to be successful, bait insecticides must consistently achieve knockdown rates near 100%. But as the present study shows, even doses ten times higher than what should successfully kill a cockroach can leave a breeding population to repopulate.  

In the 2019 study, researchers tested one active ingredient that was not tested in the present study: boric acid. No evidence was found that cockroaches have developed widespread resistance to boric acid, likely to due its mode of action.

In its powder form, boric acid can be placed along cracks and crevices that cockroaches walk on. It can dry out and desiccate insects, but is generally most effective once consumed, as it acts as an acute stomach poison. The product is found in some commercial pest products, formulated with a food attractant. The powdered form, however, can be more effective when used in proper context. Cockroaches are social animals that regularly groom themselves and each other. Leaving a thin line of boric acid for cockroaches to crawl over will get the boric acid on their feet, which they will subsequently groom off. Cockroaches groom by running their legs and antennae through their mouths, resulting in ingestion of the boric acid stuck to their feet. Young cockroaches feed off the waste material of older cockroaches, providing an add-on route of exposure to the original boric acid meal, and cockroaches generally eat other dead cockroaches, providing yet another route once the target cockroach is dead, making it an effective source-sink.

But even a product as effective as boric acid is unlikely to eliminate an infestation unless other approaches are also integrated. An approach that responds to pest ecology recognizes that pests, like all life, need food, water, and shelter to survive. Make sure food and water is never left out, and all surfaces are regularly clean/vacuumed. Cracks, crevices, and other entryways into one’s home or apartment should be completely sealed; consider products like doorsweeps and fine-meshed screens to further impede movement. 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, boric acid gels and dusts can be applied to manage the remaining infestation.

Think about this impact of these actions from the cockroach’s perspective. By monitoring with traps you’ve identified problem areas and the major sites of infestation in your home. By sealing up entryways, you’ve cut off the infestation from reinforcements. By impeding movement you’ve slowed down the ability of the remaining cockroaches to find new mates. By applying thin dusts of boric acid near where you’ve located the infestation, every movement is potentially deadly. By denying access to food and water, you’ve created a situation where the only food available will be boric acid bait poisons. Such as approach requires a bit more forethought, but is significantly more effective than one that focuses solely on chemical use while ignoring pest ecology.

For a step-by-step checklist and guide to take care of a German cockroach problem, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe entry on this atrocious pest.

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

Source: Journal of Economic Entomology

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2022) With a history of unenforceable and impractical pesticide label restrictions resulting in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings of ludicrously small or no risk, the agency is at it again with its latest announcement that spins its approval of the continued use of the deadly organophosphate insecticide malathion as “protecting threatened and endangered species.” This just the latest example of an irresponsible federal agency falling far short, as the nation and world sit on the brink of biodiversity collapse and deadly pesticide-induced diseases.

Tell EPA to protect endangered species. Tell Congress to make sure the Biden administration protects endangered species. 

The announcement follows the release of a final biological opinion by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which, according to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), “relies on scientifically unfounded assessment methods imposed during the Trump administration [and] stands in sharp contrast to the agency’s 2017 conclusion that 1,284 species would likely be jeopardized by malathion.” Meanwhile, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a sister agency to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, released an updated biological opinion that determined malathion and two other toxic organophosphate pesticides are causing jeopardy to virtually every endangered U.S. salmon, sturgeon, and steelhead species, as well as to Puget Sound orcas.

The current decision by EPA is a result of corporate and political intervention following the 2017 biological opinion by FWS. Dow AgroSciences—now called Corteva—asked the Administration to suspend the assessments. Then-acting Department of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt complied after becoming aware of the fact that the Service’s analysis had determined that malathion jeopardized the continued existence of 1,284 protected species.

Agency decisions like this call into question the Biden administration’s commitment to protecting the environment and human health. As stated by CBD’s Lori Ann Burd, “The Biden administration has squandered a historic opportunity to rein in the dangerous use of one of the world’s worst neurotoxic pesticides. By ignoring the best available science and choosing to rely on unenforceable promises of good behavior by the pesticide makers rather than real, on-the- ground conservation measures, the Biden administration is condemning wildlife to extinction with a wink and a nod. This decision to cave to powerful special interest groups will do far-reaching harm to our most endangered wildlife.”

The insistence that labeling restrictions can prevent harm to endangered species flies in the face of past experience, which has produced an insect apocalypse and extinction crisis. EPA must protect endangered species by banning the use of hazardous pesticides like malathion and other organophosphates.

Tell EPA to protect endangered species. Tell Congress to make sure the Biden administration protects endangered species. 

Letter to EPA Administrator and OPP

With a history of unenforceable and impractical pesticide label restrictions resulting in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings of ludicrously small or no risk, the agency is at

it again with its latest announcement that spins its approval of the continued use of the deadly organophosphate insecticide malathion as “protecting threatened and endangered species.” This just the latest example of an irresponsible federal agency falling far short, as the nation and world sit on the brink of biodiversity collapse and deadly pesticide-induced diseases.

The recent final biological opinion on malathion by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) relies on scientifically unfounded assessment methods imposed during the Trump administration and stands in sharp contrast to the agency’s 2017 conclusion that 1,284 species would likely be jeopardized by malathion. Meanwhile, the National Marine Fisheries Service has released an updated biological opinion that determined malathion and two other toxic organophosphate pesticides are causing jeopardy to virtually every endangered U.S. salmon, sturgeon, and steelhead species, as well as to Puget Sound orcas.

The current decision by EPA is a result of corporate and political intervention following the 2017 biological opinion by FWS. Dow AgroSciences—now called Corteva—asked the administration to suspend the assessments. Then-acting Department of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt complied after becoming aware of the fact that the Service’s analysis had determined that malathion jeopardized the continued existence of 1,284 protected species.

Agency decisions like this call into question the Biden administration’s commitment toprotecting the environment and human health. As stated by Lori Ann Burd of the Center for Biological Diversity, “The Biden administration has squandered a historic opportunity to rein in the dangerous use of one of the world’s worst neurotoxic pesticides. By ignoring the best available science and choosing to rely on unenforceable promises of good behavior by the pesticide makers rather than real, on-the-ground conservation measures, the Biden administration is condemning wildlife to extinction with a wink and a nod. This decision to cave to powerful special interest groups will do far-reaching harm to our most endangered wildlife.”

The insistence that labeling restrictions can prevent harm to endangered species flies in the face of past experience, which has produced an insect apocalypse and extinction crisis. EPA must protect endangered species by banning the use of hazardous pesticides like malathion and other organophosphates.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators

Please ensure that the Biden administration protects endangered species.

With a history of unenforceable and impractical pesticide label restrictions resulting in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings of ludicrously small or no risk, the agency is at it again with its latest announcement that spins its approval of the continued use of the deadly organophosphate insecticide malathion as “protecting threatened and endangered species.” This just the latest example of an irresponsible federal agency falling far short, as the nation and world sit on the brink of biodiversity collapse and deadly pesticide-induced diseases.

The recent final biological opinion on malathion by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) relies on scientifically unfounded assessment methods imposed during the Trump administration and stands in sharp contrast to the agency’s 2017 conclusion that 1,284 species would likely be jeopardized by malathion. Meanwhile, the National Marine Fisheries Service has released an updated biological opinion that determined malathion and two other toxic organophosphate pesticides are causing jeopardy to virtually every endangered U.S. salmon, sturgeon, and steelhead species, as well as to Puget Sound orcas.

The current decision by EPA is a result of corporate and political intervention following the 2017 biological opinion by FWS. Dow AgroSciences—now called Corteva—asked the administration to suspend the assessments. Then-acting Department of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt complied after becoming aware of the fact that the Service’s analysis had determined that malathion jeopardized the continued existence of 1,284 protected species.

Agency decisions like this call into question the Biden administration’s commitment to protecting the environment and human health. As stated by Lori Ann Burd of the Center for Biological Diversity, “The Biden administration has squandered a historic opportunity to rein in the dangerous use of one of the world’s worst neurotoxic pesticides. By ignoring the best available science and choosing to rely on unenforceable promises of good behavior by the pesticide makers rather than real, on-the-ground conservation measures, the Biden administration is condemning wildlife to extinction with a wink and a nod. This decision to cave to powerful special interest groups will do far-reaching harm to our most endangered wildlife.”

The insistence that labeling restrictions can prevent harm to endangered species flies in the face of past experience, which has produced an insect apocalypse and extinction crisis. EPA must protect endangered species by banning the use of hazardous pesticides like malathion and other organophosphates.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2022) A 2020 lawsuit related to pesticide drift was resolved on March 8, 2022 in San Joaquin (California) Superior Court with the finding that Alpine Helicopter Services, which specializes in pesticide applications for government and tourism entities, had violated pesticide drift laws and endangered public health and safety. The court further found Alpine liable for damage related to its actions, though penalties in the case, brought by California state prosecutors and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), have yet to be determined. The case exposes a handful of the many instances of pesticide drift, also known as “chemical trespass,” that occur every year in the U.S. In 2004, Beyond Pesticides covered the issue with Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass; its monitoring of drift issues is ongoing, as can be seen in its “Pesticide Drift” archives. The long history of nontarget exposure, contamination, and poisoning teaches that drift is a function of pesticide use, but not considered adequately by regulators who allow the marketing of poisons that are known to move through the environment uncontrolled. Cases like the Alpine case highlight a relentless problem associated with the daily use of pesticides.

Pesticide drift is any airborne movement of pesticides from the target application site to any unintended area; pesticides can drift, according to multiple studies, for as much as several miles. Drifting pesticides might be apparent as a cloud of droplets or vapor, as “dust” particles during application, or as a noxious odor that lingers after application. However, drift can also have no odor, be invisible, and persist for days. Drift can happen whether the application is via aerial or ground spraying, as well as from applications that volatize and move through air currents, exposing people, animals, crops, trees, and non-crop plants to the toxic chemical compounds — most typically, insecticides, herbicides, and/or fungicides. In addition, soil and water resources can become contaminated, as well as the very air that people and animals are breathing.

Pesticide drift can cause acute poisoning and/or chronic health impacts in farmworkers or anyone in the application area or working in nearby fields being treated. Included among those at high risk from drift are families of farmworkers who live near agricultural parcels. Yet, as in this subject litigation, it also happens in other settings. Schools, playground, recreational fields, and other facilities at which children are frequent visitors, have been affected by pesticide drift, which is all the more concerning because children have elevated vulnerability to chemicals, given their sizes and developmental stages.

This litigation charged Alpine with pesticides applications in four “spray drift,” or “chemical trespass” incidents. Three of those were in San Joaquin County; one was at a school (in 2017), another at a sports complex (2019), a third saw herbicides applied to nearly 5,000 acres of land, resulting in massive crop losses (2014), and a fourth occurred on a residential yard (2020). That sports complex was the San Joaquin County Regional Sports Complex in Stockton, a facility that serves environmental justice communities that already experience disproportionate exposure to, and impacts of, environmental pollution.

California officials registered their takes on the suit and the decision: DPR acting chief deputy director, Karen Morrison, commented, “The blatantly careless actions of Alpine threaten the health and safety of children and communities.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta commented, “Today’s decision is an important win for the many in our state who live and work in agricultural communities. Alpine’s careless approach to pesticide application is unacceptable.” According to Agri-Pulse, he also said that the decision ought to send a powerful message to agricultural enterprises that the state “will hold them accountable if they violate the law when using ‘toxic chemicals.’”

In 2018, the California DPR published its Pesticide Drift: Pocket Guide as a primer on pesticide drift, geared to the general public and those who may have experienced or witnessed this kind of chemical trespass. It notes that in California, not all drift is illegal, but that “Pesticide laws focus on spray drift that causes harm, or has the potential to do so. The law specifically recognizes that pesticides may drift but says that ‘substantial’ drift is not allowed. The law prohibits applications if there is a reasonable possibility of harm to people or property.” Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) created something similar in 2017: In Case of Drift: A Toolkit for Responding to Pesticide Drift. It had issued the 2004 report titled Chemical Trespass: Pesticides in our Bodies and Corporate Accountability.

A sense of the scale of pesticide applications — not all of which result in drift — can be gleaned from the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG’s) coverage of just one California county’s experience. Of course, Ventura County hosts a lot of agricultural activity, so is not representative of all U.S. counties. But EWG research found that, from 2015 through 2020, roughly 963 acres were sprayed with more than 9.1 million pounds of pesticides — an average of more than 1.5 million pounds annually. This chemical intensity happened in just one county.

Some pesticides are far more prone than others to drift: the herbicide dicamba has been the poster child for this scourge. It is extremely prone to drift in warm temperatures, and even more so, when it is mixed with glyphosate, another notorious herbicide. Dicamba, alone or paired with glyphosate, has been responsible for massive levels of damage to non–genetically modified crops (and other plants) that have no protection against the compound. As damage from dicamba has mounted, farmers have litigated left and right, legislators in the states have taken up measures to try to control the application (and therefore, the damage), and manufacturers are scrambling to keep the compound “palatable” to farmers. See more on dicamba here and here.

In a Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 National Pesticide Forum session titled “Fighting Chemical Trespass,” several victims of the phenomenon spoke about their experiences of damage to their farms, crops, livelihoods, and bodies. All of the participants suffered unwanted aerial spraying of their properties, and subsequent, lingering drift of the chemicals. (In one instance, inspectors found that pesticide residue levels were even higher seven days after the incident than at two days out, likely due to pesticide compounds that had landed on surfaces and then volatilized into the air.)

Two participants are organic farmers who could not sell their then-contaminated crops as organic, and one of them could not sell them at all because the compounds that were sprayed are illegal for use on food crops. That same farmer, who was formerly in robust health, has had massive chronic health consequences, is now legally disabled, and has acquired $100,000 in medical debt as a result of the chemical poisoning she endured across multiple incidents.

One of the farmers summarized that, as an organic producer, he has huge concerns about such chemical trespass — for the safety of the food he produces, for farmworker safety and health, for the health and integrity of pollinators and other organisms, and the surrounding environment, and of course, economic issues of lost production and income. Towering over the immediate financial concerns is that, once contaminated, a USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Certified Organic farm (or at least the affected parts) must exit the certification program for three years — a huge blow to a modest organic operation.

That same farmer contends that reform of drift policy at the state level — currently a kaleidoscope of varying, or no, regulations — is critical. He also suggests that organic farmers, in particular, secure personal liability insurance for any health/medical debt they might incur as the result of a drift or spray incident. Another farmer notes that there is a huge need for medical toxicology experts who can assist victims in the often-years-long process of discovery and documentation of evidence of the harms of the trespass incidents.

Most instances of chemical trespass are never litigated. When they have been, outcomes have been mixed, as evidenced here, here, here, and here. One of the real slogs for victims of drift is that the onus for proving what happened is entirely on them: getting inspectors out immediately, and subsequently, to validate and attach metrics to the damage, quantifying ongoing economic, health, and environmental damage, and more. Most people find these prospects entirely too daunting and expensive, and applicators and manufacturers are, thus, rarely held accountable.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) addresses the drift issue on its website, and assures the public that it “evaluate[s] potential for drift as a routine part of [its] pesticide risk assessments and [is] using new approaches for estimating drift impacts on communities living near fields where crops are grown, farmworkers, water sources, and the environment.” Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman notes, “It is rare, however, that EPA factors drift into its calculation of harm associated with pesticide use, and it is just as rare for those whose pesticide applications drift to be held accountable for the harm (short- and long-term) it causes.”

That same EPA web page also says the quiet part out loud: “As we assess new pesticides and re-evaluate older pesticides, we evaluate the potential for each pesticide to drift and strengthen labeling as needed.” Advocates say “strengthening labeling as needed” is a feeble solution to the problem. Indeed, the many lawsuits that attempt to hold applicators responsible for health, crop, and environmental harms caused by pesticide drift — and the far, far greater number of incidents that never get reported or litigated — do not tend to happen because the labeling on the pesticide containers is not quite “strong” enough. They more often happen because, as in this subject lawsuit, human negligence, indifference, or error — and the profit motive — are at work.

The nonprofit Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) describes the systemic situation well: “The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, is an appointed government agency that is charged with ‘protecting’ people and the environment. But instead, it operates more as an agency that regulates how much harm can occur before government action is required. The requirements of EPA testing, especially its lack of preventative measures, are alarming. In order to require testing of a new chemical, the EPA must first show the potential risk. No evidence of harm is interpreted as no harm, from their perspective. The problem with this way of thinking is that many of the harmful effects of chemical trespass are worsened through prolonged exposure and are often not immediately seen in testing. It’s a system designed to let corporations put toxins in our environment with no repercussions to them — but serious repercussions for people, communities, and nature.”

One genuine fix for the problem would be to deregister pesticides, such as dicamba, that are prone to drift. (Such action would be far more possible did industry not exert undue influence over EPA.) Another welcome development, surely, would be more and improved legal, medical, forensic, and technical supports for those who are exposed to chemical trespass (whether through drift or application to non-targets), at the federal and state levels. Beyond Pesticides, recognizing how vulnerable organic farms can be to impacts of these chemical trespass incidents, might recommend that USDA’s National Organic Program consider the issue of supports for organic farms in this unhappy “trespassed” circumstance. Ultimately, EPA must acknowledge the commonplace fact of drift and calculate the resulting exposure pattern and harm to people and property. If drift effects are fully calculated for their adverse impact, the “reasonableness” standard of allowable harm under EPA assessments is quickly exceeded. In this context, toxic pesticide use is unacceptable, especially given the availability and economic viability of organic practices.

Source: https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Helicopter-Company-Found-Liable-For-Illegal-16987408.php

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2022) Pest damaged plants release volatile chemical “scents” that alert other nearby plants of potential predators and give them time to prepare their defenses, according to research recently published in Plant Physiology by researchers at Tokyo University of Science. The findings have important implications for agriculture, including new practices that utilize this novel process. “The effective use of plants’ natural survival strategies in production systems will bring us closer to the realization of a sustainable society that simultaneously solves environmental and food problems,” says study coauthor Gen-ichiro Arimura, PhD.

Budding research conducted since the turn of the century has discovered and confirmed that plants can communicate through specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs).  These compounds, referred to by researchers as “infochemicals,” can act as airborne signals that an herbivore danger is in the vicinity. Not only can plants within the same species communicate, there is evidence that plants will react to infochemicals produced by different species the other plant cannot produce, and may never have encountered. A recent experiment found, for instance, that soybean plants grown near mint are better able to withstand pest pressure by “eavesdropping” on VOCs produced by mint. Likewise, corn and tomato plants grown near tobacco that has emitted the VOC β-ocimene have been shown to produce defenses that indirectly attract parasitic wasps.  

Authors of the current study suspect that plant defense responses to infochemicals produced by nearby plants is initiated by epigenetic changes. “Surrounding undamaged plants exposed to odors emitted from plants eaten by pests can develop resistance to the pests. Although the induction of the expression of defense genes in odor-responsive plants is key to this resistance, the precise molecular mechanisms for turning the induced state on or off have not been understood. In this study, we hypothesized that histone acetylation, or the so-called epigenetic regulation, is involved in the phenomenon of resistance development,” explains Dr. Gen-ichiro Arimura.

Epigenetic changes are those that turn on or off the expression of certain genes in response to external stimuli. To test their theory, researchers exposed thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), a small flowering plant in the brassica family often used as a model test organism, to the infochemical VOC β-ocimene. The tobacco cutworm (Spodoptera litura), a common moth pest, was subsequently introduced and allowed to feed on the thale cress.  Results showed that A. thaliana plants did not respond significantly to lower levels of β-ocimene, but did respond to a higher amount that would be equivalent to that emitted by other plants (such as lima beans, or cotton). At this level, tobacco cutworm larvae exhibited significantly lower weight gain than control plants unexposed to known plant infochemcials. This enhanced defense was sustained for a period of roughly five days, generally no longer than 10.

Gene sequencing and analysis was able to follow a trail of histone acetylation, an epigenetic modification that can activate or repress gene expression, and found increased expression of defense gene regulators after VOC exposure. Scientists were able to pinpoint certain plant enzymes as responsible for activation of plant defense mechanisms.

According to a Tokyo University of Science press release, researchers are “ecstatic” to find the connection to epigenetics. The authors indicate that the process has the potential to be applied to organic agricultural systems, increasing plant resiliency, and reducing dependence on hazardous pesticides.  

There is immense untapped potential in the natural processes occurring right under our noses in agricultural fields. While chemical-dependent industrialized agriculture focuses on simplifying the landscape with man-made synthetic chemicals that harm pest and predator alike, organic farmers and incentivized to leverage the work nature is already doing, subsequently growing a safer, more sustainable food crop. Take action today to ensure organic maintains its integrity and carries along the spirit of continuous improvement by submitting a comment to the National Organic Standards Board.

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

Source: Tokyo University of Science press release, Plant Physiology

Photo Source: Tokyo University of Science press release

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2022) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has authorized the “experimental use” and release of 2.5 billion genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes in Florida and California by the British-based firm Oxitec. While the goal of eliminating disease carrying mosquitoes is an important public health challenge, public opinion has been consistently against the use of these animals, with nearly 240,000 individuals opposing a pilot program in the Florida Keys. Health and environmental advocates have a range of concerns with Oxitec’s approach, including the size of its latest experiment, lack of publicly verifiable efficacy data, and availability of alternative management practices not requiring GE mosquitoes.

Oxitec began public releases of its GE mosquitoes at least a decade ago, when mosquito larvae were introduced in the Brazilian town of Itaberaba. The company has consistently angled to launch its mosquitoes in the United States under the claim that the animals will reduce numbers of Aedes aegypti, a highly problematic mosquito known to vector a range of diseases, including dengue, yellow fever chikungunya, and Zika. Research analyzing Oxitec’s proposals note that the risk of dengue and other disease from Aedes aegypti is low in the United States. In a recent study in Globalization and Health that reviews the U.S. government’s approval of the Florida Keys release, the author indicates the decision,  “…is as inappropriate as the decision to propose an area where there is no fire (and virtually no risk of fire) as the site of the field test of a product that is supposed to prevent fires and act as a fire retardant.” In this context, the importance of U.S. trials to Oxitec could be to encourage other countries with higher Aedes aegypti populations to embrace their new technology, as the decisions of U.S. regulators are often used as the basis for decisions made in other countries. This would position U.S. residents and local environments as variable in an experiment approved by EPA and conducted by a foreign company for foreign buyers.

Those opposed to the massive 2.5 billion mosquito release (which is now permitted in Monroe County, Florida and Stanislaus, Fresno, Tulare, and San Bernardino counties, California) say that it is too large, and that more limited testing in a controlled environment should be conducted first. “What we would have liked to have seen is something closer to what Oxitec and the U.S. Department of Agriculture did regarding their diamondback moth releases in New York state,” said JD Hansen of the Center for Food Safety to the San Bernadino Sun. “What the (department) did, in part at our urging, were tented trials: You have an enclosed environment where you try to replicate the environment you’re releasing the insect into, as much as you can, to see what happens.”

Oxitec’s technology breeds mosquitoes to include a genetic sequence that makes the mosquito dependent on the antibiotic tetracycline. Without tetracycline, mosquitoes will not develop into adulthood. The company releases male mosquitoes with this genetic sequence into the environment to breed with females. When it works correctly, the offspring produced will also have tetracycline dependency and not develop into adulthood.

A spokesperson for Oxitec told the San Bernadino Sun that it had reduced A. aegypti numbers in an area by 98%. But that claim is not publicly verifiable, as U.S. regulators permit companies to maintain their internal data as confidential business information. What publicly available data there is on GE mosquitoes do not indicate efficacy at that level. In 2012, confidential Oxitec documents obtained by the British group Genewatch UK showed that 15% of GE animals were able to survive to adulthood. This was because mosquitoes were being reared on canned chicken cat food that contained trace levels of tetracycline from its production process. In the context of the current proposed releases in agricultural areas of California, EPA’s authorization limits release within 500 meters of a wastewater treatment plant, orchard crops, and livestock facilities, but it still remains highly likely that low levels of tetracycline in the environment will be encountered.

The experience of the Cayman Islands provides the clearest indication of the program’s limited efficacy. After contracting with Oxitec for two years and releasing millions of GE mosquitoes, Cayman Island officials were set to renew their contract. But data from the trials indicated serious problems, leading the territory’s environmental health minister to tell the Edmonton Journal, “The scheme wasn’t getting the results we were looking for.” Briefing, documents again uncovered by Genewatch indicated “no significant reduction in the abundance of mosquitoes in the released area,” and further found that the number of biting, disease-spreading females had actually increased. Cayman Island Officials indicated concern that the approach could be spreading antibiotic resistance or make mosquito-borne diseases worse by lowering immunity. Tellingly, Oxitec’s failed proposed plan with the Caymans would have included supplemental use of mosquito adulticides, a practice the company claims the GE technology would eliminate.

Neither GE mosquitoes nor highly hazardous insecticides should be the primary line of defense against mosquito problems. Control of disease-carrying mosquitoes can be successful when emphasis is placed on public education and preventative strategies. Individuals can take action by eliminating standing water, introducing mosquito-eating fish, encouraging predators such as bats, birds, dragonflies and frogs, and using least-toxic larvicides like bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti). Community based programs should encourage residents to employ these effective techniques, focus on eliminating breeding sites on public lands, and promote monitoring and action levels in order to determine what, where, and when control measures might be needed. Through education of proper cultural controls, and least-toxic and cost effective biological alternatives, the use of risky toxic pesticides and experimental technologies like GE mosquitoes can be avoided.

For additional information and resources on least-toxic mosquito control alternatives, see Beyond Pesticides’ Mosquito Management program page.

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

Source: San Bernadino Sun, Globalization and Health, Regulations.gov

(Beyond Pesticides, March 15, 2022) Adding animal diversity to rice paddy farms reduces weed pressure, increases food production, and makes fertilizer use more efficient, according to a study published late last month in the journal eLife. As chemical-dependent, industrialized agriculture has spread across the world, local farmers are increasingly pressured into eschewing traditional agricultural practices in favor of monocultures in an attempt to meet the demands of global markets. This one-size-fits-all approach oversimplifies the interdependency within ecosystems, failing to incorporate the complexity of nature that many traditional and organic practices embrace. As the present study shows, research and investment into systems that promote natural diversity can provide insights that allow these approaches to leapfrog the chemical-dependent, monoculture paradigm of industrial agriculture.

Rice paddy fields are intentionally flooded, and crops are often grown in shallow water. In industrialized fields, monocultures of rice are planted out, and fertilizers and weed killers are applied at regular intervals. However, many traditional rice farmers around the world integrate aquatic animals into their paddies. In the present experiment, researchers conducted a 4-year long evaluation comparing the benefits of monoculture production against co-cultures of rice and aquatic animals. Co-culturing animals and rice differs slightly from traditional practices that incorporates the additional direct feeding of aquatic animals for market (in traditional practices, animals generally are not provided supplemental feed).

To compare the different systems, researchers established field plots with rice-carp, rice-crab, and rice-turtle co-cultures (these animals are widely eaten in rice-growing regions), as well as a rice monoculture. A mesocosm (an enclosed environment that examines natural processes under controlled conditions) experiment was also established with the same systems to evaluate nutrient efficiency. Animals in the diverse fields were introduced one week after rice transplant, provided with supplemental feed in the form of spent soybean residue (a waste product after soybean oil is extracted), and remained in the fields until rice harvest.

When compared to monoculture rice production, rice yield was on average 8% higher in the rice-turtle system, 9% higher in the rice-carp co-culture, and 12% higher for rice-crabs. Animal yields were 2.66, 0.85, and 0.56 metric tons per hectare for the rice-turtle, rice-carp, and rice-crab systems, respectively. Prior research conducted by the authors found that rice-turtle, rice-carp, and rice-crab systems increased total economic output by 710%, 205%, and 78%, respectively, over a monoculture rice system.

The diversified animal system also significantly lowered weed pressure on the farms in comparison to the monoculture fields. Weeds and other food (e.g., algae, plankton) from the paddy environment ended up comprising a significant portion of the aquatic animals’ food; for carp, crab, and turtle systems, 50%, 35%, and 16%, respectively. The researchers used no herbicide in any of the experimental plots, and there is evidence from the diverse plots that no herbicide use would be needed based on the weed pressure alleviated.

Diverse animal paddies also displayed faster rates of organic matter decomposition, indicating improved nutrient cycling. In the mesocosm experiments, feed that was not consumed by animals made its way into the crop, accounting for upwards of 30% of rice biomass. Compared to the monoculture fields, by the end of the experiment soil nitrogen content was higher in animal fields.

In aquatic rice cultures, the introduction of animals represented a multifunctional boon – reducing weed pressure, increasing nutrient recycling and availability, and subsequently yields. This process provided significant benefits to farmers, who received a higher price for their work. The authors note, “Although costs of the cocultures are higher than the costs of monoculture because of the feed input and increased labor required for the management of two species, net income was still higher for cocultures than for monocultures because of the higher prices of the products and the reduced use of fertilizers and pesticides.”

The forced simplicity of monoculture farming in a diverse and complex environment is ultimately unsustainable. It is common sense that clearing land of all flora and fauna and replacing it solely with human-focused crops leads to biodiversity decline and the loss of pollinators and other beneficial species, but scientific research has backed up these judgements. Agricultural soils under monocultures are not nearly as healthy as those that embrace diversity. Soil organic matter and nutrient cycling, critical for sustainable crop growth, is lower in monoculture systems by two to three fold, according to recent research.

The solution is as simple as the problem that was created. Adding back in plant diversity and moving from monoculture to multi-cropping systems produces higher biomass and seed yields, and reduces pest pressure and the need for pesticide use.

Organic agriculture provides the closest approximation to the sustainable food system the future requires. While organic has not yet eliminate monocultures, it requires farmers to maintain or improve soil health, which has the effect of encouraging practices that embrace natural diversity and complexity. Organic laws and rulemaking also support the concept of continuous improvement, incentivizing the development of safer and more sustainable practices once they become available. Naysayers of diverse organic systems point to yield gaps and cost, but fail to recognize the research and development gap between conventional and organic. As this study reveals, analysis of an enhanced traditional cropping system displays yield gains over an industrialized approach. With further research and development into traditional and organic cropping systems, the next agricultural revolution has the potential to be significantly more sustainable than the current paradigm.

For more information on the benefits of organic see Beyond Pesticides Why Organic webpage.

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

Source: eLife

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2022) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through April 1. This precedes the upcoming public hearing on April 19 and 21—concerning how organic food is produced. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov. For details on the all the issues of importance to organic integrity, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

The NOSB is responsible for guiding the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in its administration of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), including the materials allowed to be used in organic production and handling. The role of the NOSB is especially important as we depend on organic production to protect our ecosystem, mitigate climate change, and enhance our health

The NOSB plays an important role in bringing the views of organic producers and consumers to bear on USDA, which is not always in sync with organic principles. There are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Spring 2022 issues page. Here are some high priority issues for us:

Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) is a quaternary ammonium compound (quat or QAC) that is being petitioned for use on raw organic poultry. The class of QACs includes several toxic sanitizers and disinfectants as well as the highly toxic herbicides paraquat and diquat. CPC is highly toxic, and poses a particular hazard to workers. CPC residues have been discovered on treated surfaces and poultry skin, exposing consumers to unlabeled pesticide residues. It is unnecessary in organic production, and the petition should be denied.

The NOSB is considering a proposal limiting the use of highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers in organic production. This follows on recommendations by the NOSB in Fall 2021, prohibiting the use of stripped ammonia and concentrated ammonia as fertilizers in organic crop production. In recognition of the fact that their high solubility makes them inconsistent with organic

production, which “feeds the soil, not the plant,” the Crops Subcommittee proposes to generalize the prohibition unless use is restricted to no more than 20 percent of the crop’s total nitrogen requirement. USDA has stated that it will not implement the prohibition of stripped ammonia and concentrated ammonia unless this proposal passes. The NOSB should pass this proposal to protect organic integrity.

Biodegradable Biobased (Bioplastic) Mulch Film (BBMF) is under consideration for sunset this year. Although the NOSB will not vote on BBMF until the Fall 2022 meeting, this is part of a larger issue of the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plastic—and the microplastic particles to which it degrades—on human health and the environment. BBMF should not be relisted. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic production and handling—including packaging.

Please feel free to use the text above to highlight for the NOSB the concerns of these key issues.

>>Submit Comments Now.

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

Thank you for keeping organic strong!