(Beyond Pesticides, May 28, 2021) A report by the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concludes that scientific analyses by the agency were altered so as to favor top Trump administration officials’ policy choices in the 2018 reapproval of the highly toxic and problematic pesticide, dicamba. The report, “EPA Deviated from its Typical Procedures in Its 2018 Dicamba Pesticide Registration Decision,” was publicly released on May 24. It confirms aspects of what Beyond Pesticides and many others in the science, advocacy, public health, and environmental communities have been saying and reporting since 2016: the Trump administration executed a wholesale assault on scientific integrity in federal decision making.

In its research on the matter, the Inspector General’s office (OIG) reviewed EPA’s 2016 and 2018 decisions on dicamba’s registration, documentation that purported to support those decisions, and the concerns forwarded in the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and by many stakeholders. (See more in figure below.) It also reviewed EPA internal procedures and guidance on pesticide registration, and agency scientific integrity materials; interviewed career scientists and other agency staff; and communicated with EPA’s Scientific Integrity (Science Advisor) program staff.

As reported by The Hill, interviews and emails with multiple agency scientists and staff members reveal a host of concerning behaviors. One is that after a senior management review of the 2018 re-approval of dicamba (for use on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans), the assistant administrator’s office instructed scientists to use an outline it provided to them for rewriting an impact analysis document, including removal of several sections of the original document. One scientist asserted that senior management in OCSPP (EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention) told them to use industry-provided data — rather than EPA’s own data — for reported damage from dicamba. Yet another was a staff scientist’s claim that senior management and policymakers instructed that plant height (rather than the academic standard of “visual signs of plant injury”) should be used to measure dicamba’s effects. The OIG report concluded that such behaviors ultimately changed the scientific conclusions about dicamba’s use.

The OIG report concluded: “We found that the EPA’s 2018 dicamba pesticide conditional registration decision varied from the OPP’s [Office of Pesticide Program’s] written standard operating procedures, namely because EPA did not conduct the required internal peer review of scientific documents created to support the dicamba decision. . . . Senior leaders in OCSPP’s immediate office — specifically the former deputy assistant administrator, former deputy assistant administrator for Law and Policy, and former acting principal deputy assistant administrator (hereafter referred to as “senior management”) — were more involved in the dicamba decision than in other pesticide registration decisions. This led to senior-level changes to or omissions from scientific documents, including omissions of some conclusions addressing stakeholder risks” [emphasis by Beyond Pesticides]. The individuals in those specific EPA positions cited in the report included, respectively: Nancy Beck (former deputy assistant administrator, who previously served as a senior director at the American Chemistry Council—the trade organization for the chemical industry), Erik Baptist (former deputy assistant administrator for Law and Policy), and Charlotte Bertrand (former acting principal deputy assistant administrator).

The report continues: “In separate interviews, scientists from the OPP’s Registration Division, EFED [Environmental Fate and Effects Division], and BEAD [Biological and Economic Analysis Division] all described feeling constrained or muted in sharing their scientific integrity concerns with senior management during the dicamba registration process. The EPA’s actions on the dicamba registration left the decision legally vulnerable, resulting in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the three 2018 registrations for violating FIFRA by substantially understating some risks and failing to acknowledge others entirely.” (FIFRA is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the governing framework for registration and labeling of pesticides.)

Dicamba has been the subject of extreme controversy in recent years, with rampant reports of “peripheral” damage due to its strong tendency to drift and cause damage to nontarget plants. Midwestern states have been especially affected. Use of dicamba is also associated with harmful environmental/ecosystem and health impacts: it is toxic to birds, fish, and other aquatic organisms; it leaches into groundwater; and it plays a role in carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, hepatic and renal damage, and developmental effects, among other anomalies.

The Trump EPA’s actions on dicamba were part of a larger context and mission. The OIG report confirms what Beyond Pesticides and other advocates have maintained for years: the Trump administration’s EPA acted repeatedly in ways that ignored, contravened, or outright distorted science in service of political aims, and worked to hobble the agency’s ability to protect the environment and the public. This happened with dicamba, as the OIG report notes, but was not confined to that compound’s fate. A very small sampling follows.

That Trump administration’s launch — featuring the appointment of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator and a hiring freeze at the agency — was just the start. Out of the gates and in cahoots with the agrochemical industry, EPA reversed the agency’s own decision to ban use of the neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos on food, and sought to delay release of information showing that three organophosphate pesticides are highly toxic to endangered species. Mr. Pruitt vowed to slash EPA staff in half by 2020, and banned scientists funded by EPA from serving on its Science Advisory Board, making EPA more beholden to industry “science” and its priorities of “profit through pollution.” EPA sought, in 2017, to harness the flow of scientific information coming out of the agency by banning its distribution via social media, and instituting on staff scientists an “unspecified vetting process before sharing their work outside the agency” — a move that violated EPA’s own scientific integrity policy. The administration attacked scientists who identified problems with EPA’s regulation of pesticides. Trump’s EPA weakened protections of U.S. waterways and wetlands. At the eleventh hour, Trump’s EPA finalized its misnamed “transparency rule,” which in fact significantly restricted the scientific research EPA could use in developing regulations to protect human health.

To put arms around the breadth of the environmental damage the Trump administration had caused (with continued effect) during its tenure, The New York Times published — on President Biden’s Inauguration Day — its chronicle, “The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.” A number of items on the list note harmful pesticide-related actions.

EPA’s history with dicamba is convoluted; the OIG report provides a simple and useful timeline:

After the Ninth Circuit Court ordered the dicamba OTT (over the top, meaning for post-emergent use) registrations to be vacated, a mere four months later those dicamba uses were reregistered yet again by the Trump EPA, this time for five years. In a press release, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) wrote, “Just days before the November presidential election, the Trump EPA rushed to reapprove dicamba products for five years, and farmers and conservation groups were forced again to sue to challenge the approval. This is the third time the agency has registered these products, each time with additional restrictions that have failed to stem devastating drift.”

Stephanie Parent, an attorney for CBD and other plaintiffs in a lawsuit against EPA for that decision, commented on the OIG report in an email to Progressive Farmer and DTN, “[A]fter the Office of the Inspector General’s damning report on the EPA’s highly politicized, anti-science approach to fast-tracking the use of this harmful pesticide, the agency should cancel its recent approval, not try to defend it in court. The EPA knows that anything less is likely to result in yet another summer of damaged fields and lost profits for farmers choosing not to use dicamba.”

Progressive Farmer further reports that EPA is standing by the 2020 reregistration decision. In an emailed statement, an EPA spokesperson said, “The agency has responded to the Office of the Inspector General’s report and is implementing several actions to ensure that our pesticide registration decisions are free from political interference and that the agency’s scientific integrity policy is upheld. The agency looks forward to productive conversations with the Office of the Inspector General as we work to resolve this matter. EPA stands by its 2020 decision made with the input of career scientists and managers.”

From the report: “The EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy notes that the Agency’s ability to pursue its mission to protect human health and the environment depends upon the integrity of the science on which the EPA relies. Per the policy, the EPA’s scientists and managers are expected to represent Agency scientific activities clearly, accurately, honestly, objectively, thoroughly, without political or other interference, and in a timely manner, consistent with their official responsibilities. Additionally, scientists and managers are expected to follow federal and EPA transparency requirements, including documenting the formulation and execution of policies and decisions. For pesticide registration decisions, the OPP must review registrations and document its decisions.”

What this EPA OIG report portends for dicamba with the new Biden administration is unclear. Michal Freedhoff, principal deputy assistant administrator​ for OCSPP in the Biden administration, confirmed that the agency agrees with OIG’s conclusion that EPA mishandled the 2018 dicamba decision. He agreed that EPA should follow existing protocols and processes, and that senior managers must justify and document any changes they make, including the reasons for them. He commented in an internal response to the report, “This incident occurred despite the best efforts of OCSPP’s career scientists and managers to recommend a different approach that was scientifically, procedurally and legally sound.”

This is confusing at best. One the one hand, EPA is saying that the agency “mishandled the 2018 dicamba decision.” On the other, it appears to be standing by its 2020 anti-science decision to reregister the pesticide for OTT uses. Advocates say that what EPA ought to do is ban the use of this toxic pesticide entirely. Short of that, they say it should at the very least abide by the 2020 order of the Ninth Circuit Court to vacate the registrations of the OTT uses, given that their registrations violated FIFRA, thus reversing the Trump EPA’s 2020 ruling. Beyond that, advocates maintain that EPA should undertake a wholesale review of dicamba, using legitimate data sources and the analyses of career experts both within and without the agency to set new rules that would protect farmers’ crops, farmworkers, ecosystems, and human health.

In November 2020, Beyond Pesticides wrote about the need for an EPA (and agency administrator) that understands: “the relationship between a healthy environment and a healthy economy; disproportionate risk and environmental racism; the importance of standing up to polluting industries; the existential threats facing the country and the globe; the failure of risk assessment and unrealistic risk mitigation measures that poison people and the environment, and destroy life; and the need for meaningful results, rather than politically expedient compromises.” Implementing these understandings into EPA’s work, according to Beyond Pesticides, would remedy a great many wrongs done during the past four years and longer.

If it acts seriously on its campaign slogan that science must underpin federal policy and decision making, the Biden administration faces a legion of harmful decisions that must be undone. We must all insist that President Biden’s EPA restore the role of legitimate science in federal policy and rulemaking, and jettison agency rulings that arose out of the political and corrupt motivations of the last administration. Beyond Pesticides asks the public to contact elected U.S. Senators and Representatives, and President Biden, to insist on a precautionary and protective EPA.

Sources: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/555174-trump-epa-changed-scientific-analyses-pesticide-re-approval-watchdog?rl=1 and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-05/documents/_epaoig20210524-21-e-0146.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 27, 2021) Research by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) finds exposure to lindane and metalaxyl pesticides heightens thyroid cancer risk. Both incidents of non-aggressive thyroid tumors and advanced-stage thyroid cancer are on the rise. However, researchers speculate that environmental pollutants, such as pesticides, may contribute to this increase, especially considering the pervasiveness of pesticide exposure among the general population.

Globally, cancer is one of the leading causes of death, with over 8 million people succumbing to the disease every year. Notably, the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) predicts new cancer cases to rise 67.4% by 2030. Various environmental pollutants like pesticides have endocrine (hormone) disruption effects that promote higher instances of thyroid and reproductive cancers. Therefore, studies like these highlight the importance of understanding how pesticide use can increase the risk of latent diseases (e.g., cancers), which do not readily develop upon initial exposure. The researchers state, “More work is needed to understand the potential role of these chemicals in thyroid carcinogenesis.”

The European Union and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify more than 55 pesticide active ingredients as endocrine disruptors (EDs), including chemicals in household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotics (i.e., toxic chemical substances foreign to an organism or ecosystem). Past systematic research shows exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides can adversely impact thyroid hormone disruption and disease development. However, this study is the first to evaluate associations between occupational exposure to specific pesticides and the risk of thyroid cancer development.

Researchers gathered information on pesticide use and exposure via the Agricultural Health Study, a cohort of licensed pesticide applicators (mainly male) between 1993 to 1997 and 1999 to 2005. Exposure reports include 50 different pesticides, 44 of which researchers evaluated exposure for thyroid cancer risk. Using cumulative intensity-weighted lifetime exposure, scientists determined factors influence exposure measured in days. Researchers assessed thyroid cancer incidents among male participants during 2014/2015 and estimated hazard ratios and confidence intervals using Cox regression.

The study finds participants’ exposure to metalaxyl (benzenoid fungicide) and lindane (organochlorine insecticide) increases the risk of thyroid cancer. Exposure to high levels of carbaryl (carbamate insecticide) has an inverse association with thyroid cancer. Additionally, chlorimuron-ethyl (herbicide) has an inverse association with a common thyroid cancer subtype, papillary cancer.

It is no secret that specific endocrine-disrupting chemicals can induce changes in thyroid function, including pesticides like organochlorine, organophosphate, carbamate, and pyrethroid. Specific to thyroid function, pesticides can inhibit iodine uptake, binding to hormone receptors and transport proteins, and interfere with gene expression. However, impacts on the thyroid are not the only result of endocrine disruption. The entire endocrine system directly affects traditional endocrine glands and their hormones and receptors (i.e., estrogens, anti-androgens, thyroid hormones). Furthermore, endocrine disruption can negatively impact reproductive function, nervous system function, metabolic/immune function, and fetal/body development. NIH’s National Cancer Institute also finds many cancer-causing substances are endocrine disruptors. Moreover, 66 percent of all cancers have links to environmental factors, especially in occupations of high chemical use. Considering endocrine disruption has such close ties with hormone-related cancers like thyroid cancer, it is essential to avoid toxic chemical exposure to lessen potential cancer risks.

This study is the first to show a direct association between thyroid cancer—rather than function or disease—and specific occupational pesticides. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) are well-known persistent organic pollutants (POPs) banned by the Stockholm Convention treaty in 2001. OCPs, like lindane, are primary pollutants of concern (UNEP, 2009), as their persistence and toxicity have adverse effects on environmental and biological health. These pollutants have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. The U.S. was a signatory to the treaty, but U.S. Senate never ratified it, relegating U.S. officials to observer status.

While various POPs on the Stockholm Convention annex lists are no longer manufactured or utilized, lindane is an exemption, remaining active in pharmaceutical lice and scabies treatments. Metalaxyl is not a POP or banned chemical; however, extensive use of this fungicide has resulted in the primary fungi target (Pythium spp.) developing severe resistance. Additionally, a 2013 report found 117 pesticides, including metalaxyl, present in Long Island, New York’s drinking water. The chemical readily leaches, is highly soluble and persistent in water, and has links to acute toxicity, kidney and liver damage, and toxicity to birds. Metalaxyl alone was present 1,327 times in 546 different locations on Long Island. Lindane and metalaxyl can work together, or synergize, to produce a more severe, combined effect. Synergism is a common issue among pesticide mixtures and can underestimate the toxic impacts on human, animal, and environmental health. Hence, individuals encountering both chemicals, from pharmaceutical treatments and overapplication of chemicals to compensate for resistance, face elevated health risks.

The connection between pesticides and associated cancer risks is nothing new. Several studies link pesticide use and residue to various cancers, from more prevalent forms, like breast cancer, to rare forms like kidney cancer nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor). A past report using the same Agricultural Health Study (AHS) cohort demonstrates an association between non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lindane, establishing the chemical as carcinogenic to humans. Moreover, the same AHS cohort displayed higher thyroid cancer rates than the general population, especially regarding past use of atrazine (herbicide) and malathion (insecticide). Although this study finds that carbaryl has an inverse association with thyroid cancer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies the chemical as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Furthermore, the European Commission report on endocrine disrupting substances classifies carbaryl as a category one endocrine disruptor, the highest category ranking.

Despite the rarity of endocrine cancers, thyroid cancer is the most common type, occurring before 40 years old in >30 percent of patients. Furthermore, women are at a higher risk for thyroid cancer than men, and pesticide exposures can disproportionately impact one sex more than the other. Thus, study researchers advocate for the evaluation of thyroid cancer risk and chemical exposure between sexes.

There is a lack of understanding behind the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developing chronic illnesses that may be rare and disproportionately impact various populations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and cancer can help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that cause the disease.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms pesticides pose on human health, see PIDD pages on cancer (including thyroid), endocrine disruption, and other diseases. 

Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transitioning to organic. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. For more information on why organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Help Beyond Pesticides educate and build the movement that will bring long-needed protection to humans, animals, and the entire environment by attending the National Pesticide Forum June 1, 8 and 15. Cultivating Healthy Communities  brings together expert scientists, farmers, policymakers, and activists to discuss strategies to eliminate harms from toxic chemical use in favor of nontoxic organic solutions. The conference began with a pre-conference on May 24, launched on May 125, and continues every Tuesday beginning June 1, June 8, and ending June 15, 2021. Registration is open today and available through the webpage on this link. It starts with us. Upon registration, you will be able to view talks from the entire conference.

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

Source: Oncology Learning Network, Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, May 26, 2021) Coffee leaf rust, caused by a fungus that can devastate fields of coffee plants, and the coffee industry of entire countries, was recently detected on the Hawaiian Islands for the first time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted quickly to approve the emergency use of a synthetic fungicide, but new research conducted in the fungus’ home range shows the promise of a hyperparasite biocontrol.

Caused by the fungus Hemileia vastatrix, coffee leaf rust was first documented in its home range of Africa in the 1860s. By the later part of that decade, it had spread to Sri Lanka, and destroyed the country’s monoculture coffee plantations, which were subsequently replaced with tea cultivation. The disease has now been found in every coffee producing country, but up until late last year, it had never been seen on the Hawaiian Islands.

Thus, Hawaiian coffee farmers are rightly concerned about the disease. In response, EPA permitted the use of a product called Priaxor Xemium, a fungicide consisting of the active ingredients fluxapyroxad and pyraclostrobin, which has been linked to birth and developmental effects, and presents significant hazards to birds and aquatic organisms. “Hawai’i coffee growers now have an added method to combat the coffee leaf rust, which is extremely difficult to manage,” said Phyllis Shimabukuro-Geiser, chairperson of the Hawai’i Board of Agriculture. But while conventional chemical growers may opt to spray hazardous pesticides, organic farmers will look towards less toxic methods of management.

A new study published by a team of researchers from Sweden and Ethiopia shows promising indications for a biologically based approach to addressing H. vastatrix. Scientists began their investigation in Southwestern Ethiopia, the home range of Arabica coffee and its fungal disease. Sixty sites, consisting of 50 by 50m (164 x 164 ft) plots, were analyzed in the region over the course of three years. The sites varied in the level of management intensity, amount of shade provided the coffee plants, and the ecological characteristics surrounding the farmland.

Researchers aimed to catalog the interaction between H. vastatrix and another fungus known as Lecanicillium lecanii. L lecanii is considered a ‘hyperparasite,’ in that it is a parasite that attacks another parasite. Scientists know that the hyperparasite controls the rust fungus, but are not aware how widespread it is distributed, the conditions in which it thrives, and whether may be able to play a role in suppressing the rust in commercial production.

Results of the three-year study show that rust problems are enhanced during dry seasons, while the hyperparasite thrives in wet conditions. “We also found a slight variation in the environmental requirement of the rust and the hyperparasite. The rust can thrive in low moisture conditions whereas the hyperparasite favours areas characterised by moist and shaded habitats,” said Beyene Zewdie, PhD, study coauthor and researcher at Stockholm University to SciDev.Net.

The hyperparasite fared better at higher altitudes, while the rust thrived at lower altitude. And generally, shade grown coffee was able to provide a better habitat for the proliferation of the hyperparasite. “Coffee needs shade and growing the crop under shade could buffer the microclimate around the coffee shrubs,” Dr. Zewdie told SciDev.Net. “Shade also creates a conducive environment for the coffee leaf rust hyperparasite and we need to maximise this potential to make use of the capacity of the hyperparasite to suppress the rust in areas where the two interacting species co-occur.”

Scientists determined that prevalence of the rust fungus increased as management intensity increased. Less intensively managed coffee systems had higher abundance of the hyperparasite.

“The discovery of L. lecanii as a hyperparasite against the coffee rust fungus in a natural environment is a major breakthrough that may have a significant contribution in the management of the coffee leaf rust,” said Bernard Gichimu, PhD of Kenya’s University of Embu to SciDev.Net. “With climate change, the disease has become even more damaging … even in areas that were hitherto known to be less prone to the disease.”

Experts like Dr. Gichimu indicate that management with the rust fungus’ natural control organism could be the favored management method, as fungicides often fail to control the disease due to resistance or misapplication. Any fungicide will of course target both the rust fungus and kill its fungal hyperparasite. “Reduced use of fungicides will also reduce environmental pollution which will be beneficial to the non-target organisms and safe to both the farmers and coffee consumers,” Dr. Gichimu told SciDev.Net.

Previous research on organic coffee production determined that organic farms can foster a range of complex biological interactions that can help manage coffee leaf rust and other coffee plant pests. Rather than reaching for a bottle that would kill both pest and predator alike, all farmers in Hawai’i have the opportunity to show the world how the disease can be managed without toxic fungicides, by enacting preventive practices that increase the habitat conditions for pest predators.

For more information on managing pests through less toxic and biological means, join Beyond Pesticides National Pesticide Forum, which continues each Tuesday until June 15th. It’s not too late to register – visit Beyond Pesticides’ forum webpage to reserve your spot.

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

Source: SciDev.Net, The Maui News, Hawai’i Department of Agriculture, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment (peer reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, May 25, 2021) High levels of glyphosate in urine later in a pregnancy is significantly associated with preterm birth, according to recent research conducted by scientists at the University of Michigan. While awareness of the strong connection between glyphosate and certain cancers is growing among the public, the chemical’s link to adverse pregnancy outcomes is beginning to receive more attention. “Since most people are exposed to some level of glyphosate and may not even know it, if our results reflect true associations, then the public health implications could be enormous,” said senior author John Meeker, ScD, professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

This latest study is part of a cohort dubbed PROTECT (Puerto Rico Testsite for Exploring Contamination Threats), focused on investigating environmental exposures leading to preterm birth in Puerto Rico. Previous research indicates that Puerto Rico has some of the highest rates of preterm births in the United States, roughly matching Mississippi. With America’s abysmal track record for maternal care, preterm birth rates in these locations also represent the highest in the world.

In order to determine the association between glyphosate use and preterm pregnancy, pregnant women between the ages of 18 to 40 were recruited at local hospitals and clinics in northern PR at around 14 weeks pregnant. Study subjects did not have major preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, organ damage, or heart disease. Urine samples were obtained from the enrolled women roughly at weeks 18, 22, and 26 of gestation. These samples were tested for the presence of both glyphosate and its common breakdown component AMPA (Aminomethylphosphonic acid). Preterm births were defined in the study as delivery prior to the 37^th week of pregnancy.

Of the 247 women tested, glyphosate detection rates were roughly 78%, and AMPA was found in half of participants at each test. While associations were not found between glyphosate/AMPA levels found early in pregnancy and preterm birth, late term exposures differed. Detection of glyphosate during the last visit at 26 weeks was significantly associated with having a preterm birth – with data showing a roughly 67% increased odds with AMPA and 35% increased odds with glyphosate exposure.

Dr. Meeker indicates that the spark for this research came when seeing an advertisement for glyphosate after pulling out of a PR gas station. “I’m like, I’m wondering if we can measure its main chemical, glyphosate, in our participants. Maybe that’s high here,” Dr. Meeker said.

“Despite the potential for widespread exposure to glyphosate and AMPA, there is very little information regarding the health effects of exposure during pregnancy,” said study coauthor Monica Silver, PhD. “Ours is the first study to measure AMPA, and only the second to measure glyphosate in relation to birth outcomes.”

Beyond Pesticides reported on that prior research in 2017, in which 69 expectant mothers were tested and tracked. For that study, glyphosate was detected in 63 of 69 mothers, and women with higher levels were found to have significantly shorter pregnancies, and babies with lower birth weights. While studies are now findings concerning associations, there has been evidence of glyphosate’s impact on birth outcomes for decades.

In 2011, a report published by Earth Open Source sounded the alarm about the European Union’s knowledge of the associations between glyphosate and adverse birth outcomes. At the time, the data was limited to laboratory studies. Monsanto released a statement after the 2011 report was published, saying, “Based on our initial review, the Earth Open Source report does not appear to contain any new health or toxicological evidence regarding glyphosate.”

This highlights the weakness of regulations in both the EU and the U.S. While the laboratory evidence  (most often produced by the chemical manufacturers themselves) may indicate associations with birth defects, it is all too easy for regulators to hide behind risk and chance, and indicate that label changes will avert these dangers, or even that the risks are too low for any action at all. Even when strong epidemiological data is built, like it has now been for cancer effects, and is beginning to occur for birth defects, regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lean on risk calculations and shirk their responsibility to protect the public.

Recent research finds that pregnant women have over 100 chemicals detectable in their bodies, with 89% of the chemicals detected of unknown origin, or lacking adequate data. Such ubiquitous exposure to environmental chemicals should concern us all. But even more concerning are studies which are able to pinpoint the health effects of one particular chemical, and then link that chemical directly to an adverse outcome. Although additional data is always needed to firm up connections, and make the jump between associations and likelihood of causality, with the range of ever-present environmental hazards, advocates argue that it should be incumbent upon regulators to act quickly and embrace a precautionary approach.

In the absence of protective regulations from the widespread use of pesticides like glyphosate, US residents, particularly sensitive populations like pregnant mothers, are encouraged to take their own precautions. One important step can be switching to an all organic diet. Study after study finds that making that switch significantly reduces the levels of synthetic pesticides like glyphosate in the body.

For more information on the link between pesticides and our health, attend the first ever virtual National Pesticide Forum, starting today at 1pm ET. Today’s workshop “Protecting Children from Pesticides” will feature expert speakers, including Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP of New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Bertha Lewis of The Black Institute, and Maida Galvez, MD, of the Dept. of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, and Dept. of Pediatrics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, discussing the link between pesticide use and children’s health.  Click here to view the forum webpage and register now!

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

Source: University of Michigan News, Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, May 24, 2021) Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. In a recent article in Science, Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. According to the International Panel of Climate Change, agriculture and forestry account for as much as 25% of human-induced GHG emissions. The contribution of animal agriculture has been estimated at 14.5% to 87% or more of total GHG emissions. These estimates include emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ammonia. The carbon dioxide contribution largely comes from converting land from natural forest to pasture or cropland.

Tell EPA and USDA that “regenerative” agriculture must be organic.

“Regenerative” agriculture is widely considered to be a solution for reducing or even reversing these impacts. Unfortunately, a movement by promoters of chemical-intensive agriculture has fooled some environmentalists into supporting toxic “regenerative” agriculture. The so-called “regenerative agriculture” promoted by these groups ignores the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients as well as for the heat and energy driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception.

Regenerative agriculture must be organic.

Organic agriculture practices reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Reducing Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides. Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers in chemical-intensive agriculture is driving global nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions higher than any projected scenario, putting the world at greater risk of a climate catastrophe. According to research published by an international team of scientists in the journal Nature, failure to adequately address nitrous oxide emissions has the potential to impede the ability for the world to keep warming below the 2°C target established under the Paris Climate Agreement, necessitating further cuts in other greenhouse gasses.
 
A 2018 study from the University of Virginia and The Organic Center found that “reactive” nitrogen, in the form readily available to be taken up by plants, is conserved in organic systems. Jessica Shade, PhD of The Organic Center, noted that the research was “significant and timely because its findings show that many common organic farming practices—like composting and the use of manure fertilization in place of synthetic fertilizers—can recycle reactive nitrogen that is already in the global system, rather than introducing new reactive nitrogen into the environment, and thus have a much smaller environmental impact.”

Organic practices sequester carbon. Organic systems sequester significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere into on-farm soil carbon. A report from the Rodale Institute expounds on these benefits. It reads, “Simply put, recent data from farming systems and pasture trials around the globe show that we could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term ‘regenerative organic agriculture.’ These practices work to maximize carbon fixation while minimizing the loss of that carbon once returned to the soil, reversing the greenhouse effect.”

Organic practices preserve natural lands and biodiversity. Natural forests are more effective than tree plantations in sequestering carbon. Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, which also reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides. Organic farms are required to “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife, as required by § 205.200 of the regulations and per the § 205.2 definition of Natural resources of the operation.”

It is crucial, as we move forward with a plan to harness agriculture in the fight against climate change, that we not be misled into promoting the same practices that have created the problem. As aptly stated by Jeff Moyer of the Rodale Institute, “We believe that in order to be regenerative, you have to start by being organic. It’s a little disingenuous to say you can regenerate soil health and sequester carbon and still use nitrogen fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. What you’re really saying is equivalent to saying ‘I want to be healthy as a person, but I still want to smoke cigarettes.'”

Tell EPA and USDA that “regenerative” agriculture must be organic.

Jeff Moyer, the CEO of Rodale Institute, and others will discuss regenerative organic agriculture at the National Pesticide Forum, starts this week with a pre-conference session on Monday and runs every Tuesday for a month after that. Schedule won’t work for you? No worries, sessions will be available on demand for your viewing convenience. Register now. 

Letter to Biden Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy, Climate Ambassador John Kerry, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and EPA Administrator Michael Regan:

I am concerned that “regenerative” agriculture, which is widely considered to be a solution for reducing or even reversing climate change, will have negative impacts if not properly defined. Unfortunately, a movement by promoters of chemical-intensive agriculture has fooled some environmentalists into supporting toxic “regenerative” agriculture. The so-called “regenerative agriculture” promoted by these groups ignores the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients as well as for the heat and energy driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception.

The climate crisis and the devastating decline in biodiversity are escalating as a result of uncontrolled and unnecessary reliance on toxic chemicals. These threats to life require a meaningful holistic strategy to end our fossil fuel dependence and use of materials that release harmful levels of noxious gases (including greenhouse gases). The current carbon market proposals fall short.

The lack of a holistic approach allows continued disproportionate hazards to people of color and communities living near toxic sites. Alongside proposals to replace the combustion engine with electric vehicles, agriculture must—across the board and on an expedited five-year schedule—shift to organic practices. Organic practices both sequester carbon and eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Importantly, the data show that organic agriculture now operates without sacrificing productivity or profitability. While the vested economic interests in the petroleum and chemical industry cling to the status quo, there are good jobs and money to be made in a green economy.

We need a national plan to shift to 100% organic farming. Organic land management is more effective at reducing emissions and sequesters carbon in the soil. There is already a national program for certifying farms that meet organic standards. Organic operations must “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.”

Undefined “regenerative” agriculture falls short by ignoring the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health and ecosystem services caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients and for the heat and energy-driving chemical reactions. 

We need a national land management plan.  Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, reducing dependence on petroleum-based pesticides, and is more effective in sequestering carbon. Biodiversity buffers against damage from climate change—for example, by protecting shorelines from storm damage.

Preserving natural lands and transitioning farms to organic production should be the cornerstones to combating climate change. I urge you to incorporate into a holistic approach, at the very least, the provisions included in the following:

*Climate Stewardship Act of 2019.

*The Agriculture Resilience Act of 2020.

*A pledge to conserve at least 30% of U.S. land and ocean by 2030 and 50% by 2050.

*The Resolution on a National Biodiversity Strategy.

*A $30 billion fund dedicated solely to fund the transition to organic agriculture, with a goal of achieving 100% organic farms by 2026.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2021) Do those ideas scratch your curiosity, science, policy, agriculture, and/or activist itch? Great — because the 2021 Annual National Pesticide Forum, Cultivating Healthy Communities: Confronting Health Threats, Climate Disasters, and Biodiversity Collapse with a Toxic-Free Future — begins very soon, so it is time to register!

Cultivating Healthy Communities is a singular opportunity to learn from top experts and connect with kindred people from all over the U.S. (as well as with some international participants). During plenary sessions, presenters will share their understandings and ideas about the problems we face, and about urgently needed strategies and solutions to solve them. The workshop sessions will be interactive, providing attendees the chance to interact with one another and presenting experts.

This annual National Pesticide Forum conference is convened, in 2021, by Beyond Pesticides and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai’s Institute for Exposomic Research. (“Exposomic” references the multitude of environmental factors to which an individual is exposed, and which can have effects on health.)

If you are groaning or rolling your eyes at the thought of yet another conference, know that Cultivating Healthy Communities is not one of those events (think old school, boring, and expensive, with airless event rooms, annoying name tags, bad food, and droning presenters). Nope. Cultivating Healthy Communities is the real deal for real people who care about the state of our world because it is:

• DIVERSE: covering very broad content, with diverse speakers from many backgrounds, areas of expertise, and lived experiences
• DIGITAL: nearly anyone can attend
• DOABLE: more convenient and accessible than ever before, it is configured for just one short evening session plus one afternoon a week for four consecutive weeks

The task of this gathering of minds and hearts and experience is defining meaningful solutions and a collective strategy for achieving them. (Note that this task cannot be achieved without you!)

How it all works. The Forum starts Monday, May 24 with a pre-conference session, Pesticide Literacy 101, that will usher participants into the framework of the conference through an overview on pesticides’ health and environment impacts, regulation, individual protections, communication about pesticide-related issues, and advocacy for more-protective policies. The conference proper begins the following afternoon (Tuesday, May 25) and continues for four consecutive Tuesday afternoons (May 25–June 15).

As for conference cost: note that donations are requested, but not required. To ensure that everyone who wants to participate is able to do so, we are offering low-cost and complimentary registration options to those who are experiencing financial hardship. Registration information for Cultivating Healthy Communities is found here.

Plenary and panel sessions launch each afternoon’s program, followed by several hour-long workshop options; each day’s program concludes with an integrative, half-hour session, including Biodiversity as the Context of Life, Modern Life and the Threat to the Future, Understanding the Urgency for Nontoxic Practices, and Moving Policy Change to Sustain Life.

The Content. Cultivating Healthy Communities offers a broad, holistic look at pesticide issues, with topics geared toward nearly every cohort: advocates, scientists and researchers, farmers and food system people, policymakers, communicators, and others. A quick sampling of just some session topics includes:

May 25:

• Protecting Children from Pesticides
• Transforming Agriculture for an Organic Future
• Climate Action for a Livable Future

June 1:

• Gardening in Partnership with Nature, Ecosystems, and Soil Biology
• Farmworker Communities on the Front Line
• Protecting Waterways and Agents of Global Change

June 8:

• Biodiversity and Local Farming
• Managing Our Communities Without Toxic Chemicals
• Practical and Holistic Approaches to Land Management

June 15:

• Cutting-edge Science: Environmental Contaminants
• Local Food System/Hubs/Food Sovereignty
• Challenging the Status Quo with Science and the Law

The people. Presenters — more than 80 of them — come from the worlds of public health and medicine, research and academia, agriculture and food systems, environmental justice and equity, journalism, nonprofit advocacy, and government. Passionate without exception, these presenters will provide information and perspective that will explain the many threats we face — grave ecosystem decline, the climate crisis, compromised health status and rising disease incidence across the globe, and shocking biodiversity loss. Beyond that, presenters — and attendees — will discuss tools for holistic thinking about these issues, and for robust solutions that are effective and focused on eliminating disproportionate harm to various societal cohorts, whether identified by race, gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic means, or other attributes.

Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides, and Sarah Evans, PhD, MPH, Assistant Professor of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, kick off the event on May 25. Representative Joe Neguse of Colorado (of the U.S. House of Representatives) closes the conference with his address, Moving Policy Change to Sustain Life. In between, presenting experts include (partial list):

• Lil Milagro Enriquez (Mycelium Youth Network)
• Carey Gillam (U.S. Right to Know; The Monsanto Papers)
• Tyrone Hayes, PhD (Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley)
• Bertha Lewis (The Black Institute)
• Tom Lovejoy, PhD (Amazon Biodiversity Center; UN Foundation; Environmental Science & Policy Department, George Mason University)
• Jeff Moyer (Rodale Institute)
• Chip Osborne (Osborne Organics)
• Heather Spalding (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association)
• Shanna Swan, PhD (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race)
• Ling Tan (Safe Grow Montgomery)
• Leonardo Trasande, MD (NYU Grossman School of Medicine)
• Frederick vom Saal, PhD (University of Missouri-Columbia)

Why Cultivating Healthy Communities: Confronting Health Threats, Climate Disasters, and Biodiversity Collapse with a Toxic-Free Future right now? Because the acute and existential environmental and health challenges we are confronting demand urgent solutions. Fundamental to those is the elimination of petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers, and the transition to regenerative organic land management and use of nontoxic materials that stop the harms from toxic chemical production, use, and disposal. This is the only long-term way to protect children and families, workers of all stripes, ecosystems, pollinators, and the rich diversity of organisms essential to life. The pandemic has demonstrated dramatically that ensuring a healthy and functional future for all, and for our planet, will require protecting those most vulnerable to health and environmental hazards, and remedying the disparities that underlie such vulnerabilities.

Defining meaningful solutions and a collective strategy is the charge of the Forum. We come together to empower effective action. You are part of the solutions! Whatever your interest — public health, food systems and sovereignty, pollinators and biodiversity, the climate emergency, water and soil quality, environmental justice, organic agriculture, scientific integrity and environmental regulation, or local, regional, or national advocacy — scratch that itch! Join us for this unique event and in this critical work: register now for Cultivating Healthy Communities!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2021) Beyond Pesticides and Friends of the Earth (FOE) collaborated to analyze herbicide products at two of the most popular home and garden retailers, Home Depot and Lowe’s. This new Commercial Herbicide Analysis highlights the adverse health and environmental effects of widely available toxic pesticides while encouraging retailers to expand on—and consumers to use—safer, least/non-toxic pesticide products.

According to Akayla Bracey, Beyond Pesticides’ science and regulatory manager and lead researcher on the review, said, “People generally aren’t aware that the pesticides widely available in garden retailers like Home Depot and Lowe’s are a threat to health and the environment, and that there are safer products that are available and used in organic land management.”

“Many herbicides that are widely available at home and garden stores are associated with a range of toxic impacts on human health and the environment, including harm to bees and other pollinators. To meet growing consumer demand for safer and more environmentally friendly products, home and garden stores must commit to phase out the most toxic products from their shelves and to increase the number of organic and safer alternatives that they offer,” says FOE senior staff scientist Kendra Klein, Ph.D.

Friends of the Earth composed a comprehensive list of products sold by Home Depot and Lowe’s by browsing online and local stores. Furthermore, the organization allowed each retailer to review and edit the list. Beyond Pesticides evaluated active ingredients in all products and performed a toxicity analysis using available epidemiological and laboratory and studies.

The analysis, conducted by Beyond Pesticides, reveals that approximately half of all Home Depot herbicide products (24 of 51) and Lowe’s herbicide products (23 of 40) contain ingredients considered Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HPPs). The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FOA) classifies HHPs as “pesticides linked with a high incidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment.” The following active ingredients pose the most harm to human, animal, and ecosystem health, including cancer, reproductive harm, neurotoxicity, and hormone (endocrine) disruption: glyphosate, 2,4-D, dicamba, mecoprop, and pendimethalin. Of these five chemicals, all but dicamba are classifiable as HHPs. Only 29 percent of Home Depot (15 of 51) and 17 percent of Lowe’s (7 of 40) herbicide products qualify as least toxic or organic.

Many individuals are unaware of what chemicals are in the products they use, let alone their chemical effects. Conventional commercially available herbicides contain chemicals where studies find exposure can cause preventable diseases. Some of these diseases include asthma, learning disabilities, birth and reproductive abnormalities, endocrine and immune system disorders, brain and nervous system disorders, and several types of cancer. “Pesticide exposure can promote the development of various diseases, many of which are co-occurring…These links to diseases support an urgent need to shift to toxic‐free practices and policies,” Warren Porter, Ph.D., Beyond Pesticides board member and professor emeritus of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Moreover, pesticide resistance among plants and insects is increasing along with genetic engineering of pesticide-tolerant crops. These instances have implications for rising levels of pesticide applications to eliminate pests. However, the solution is not to spray more toxic chemicals. We must educate consumers and encourage companies to protect people and pollinators by rejecting toxic products and expanding safer options.

To view the analysis visit, https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/pesticide-gateway/commercial-herbicide-analysis

See Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes webpage and Products Compatible with Organic Landscape Management.

Help Beyond Pesticides educate and build the movement that will bring long-needed protection to humans, animals, and the entire environment by attending the National Pesticide Forum this spring. Cultivating Healthy Communities will bring together expert scientists, farmers, policymakers, and activists to discuss strategies to eliminate harms from toxic chemical use in favor of nontoxic organic solutions. It begins with a pre-conference session on Monday, May 24, and continues every Tuesday beginning May 25, June 1, June 8, and ending June 15, 2021. Registration is open today and available through the webpage on this link. It starts with US.

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

Source: Beyond Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, May 19, 2021) Last week Health Canada quietly announced its intent to cancel all remaining registrations of the brain-damaging insecticide chlorpyrifos. The decision by Canada’s federal pesticide regulators comes shortly after a U.S. federal court gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a 60-day deadline to make a final decision on whether to amend or cancel the chemical’s registration. With Europe and now Canada eliminating use of this hazardous insecticide, advocates are urging that the Biden Administration, under EPA administrator Michael Regan, finally puts an end to the decades of harm caused after chlorpyrifos was first registered in 1965.

Up until recently, Canada and the U.S. had relatively similar provisions regulating chlorpyrifos use. Officials in both countries eliminated homeowner use, and tightened up on agricultural uses in the 2000s and early 2010s, requiring additional personal protective equipment and drift mitigation measures.

However,  Health Canada  began to look at significant restrictions on chlorpyrifos in 2019, when it proposed eliminating a range of uses that threaten environmental health. Under its draft decision, regulators planned to eliminate all uses except for mosquito control, structural pest control, outdoor ornamentals, and greenhouse ornamentals. Certain agricultural uses were provided an extended phase-out period with additional risk mitigation measures.

Meanwhile, throughout the late 2010s, EPA set out to defend chlorpyrifos use. Former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt reversed a pending order during the Obama Administration that would have cancelled chlorpyrifos, raising serious concerns around conflict of interest with the pesticide’s primary registrant, Dow Chemical. Lawsuits continued to work their way through the courts, but by the end of 2020, EPA proposed a reregistration of chlorpyrifos with risk mitigation measures health experts regarded as wholly inadequate. The agency proposed label amendments, additional personal protective equipment, and limited, additional drift mitigation measures.

Health Canada published its draft decision at the end of 2020, and indicated that it was subject to further review based on the results of its human health risk assessment, which had yet to be completed. As part of that review the agency requested a “data call-in,” indicating that in order to maintain the registration of the chemical, its manufacturers needed to provide regulators with specific studies or information on certain health impacts. According to a release published by Health Canada last week, chlorpyrifos manufacturers “failed to satisfy the data requirements.” As a result, regulators decided to cancel all remaining uses, including those they had considered retaining at the end of last year. Under the cancellation, final retail sales will stop in December 2022, and remaining agricultural uses have a December 2023 cut-off date.

As Canada cancels and phases out chlorpyrifos, EPA has less than 60 days to make a final decision whether to continue to allow uses of the chemical. As it stands, chlorpyrifos is currently allowed on a range of food crops, from almonds, to apples, broccoli, cucumbers, onions, peppers, strawberries,  and walnuts. Fruits and vegetables are part of a healthy diet, but the cumulative levels of chlorpyrifos on food products and in our environment pose significant risks to health, particularly children with developing bodies. And within that group, the children of farmworkers are likely to be the most at risk, given the numerous routes of potential exposure (from family members returning home from work, from air in an agricultural region, as well as in food and water).

The range of food products chlorpyrifos is allowed on underlines the importance of choosing organic whenever possible. Consumer choices in the marketplace can make a big difference. Feeling public pressure, the insecticide’s main registrant, Corteva (formerly DowDupont) announced that it will stop producing the chemical.

Concerned U.S. residents are strongly encouraged to let EPA know what they think about the continued allowance of this highly toxic product. As the agency deliberations during its 60-day deadline, EPA needs to know that the public is paying attention to its decision, and will hold the agency accountable to the science. But while EPA will be making a decision on chlorpyrifos, its important to let the agency know that other neurotoxic chemicals should be next on the chopping block. Take action today to tell EPA to follow Health Canada’s lead by banning all chlorpyrifos use, and follow up by cancelling other neurotoxic pesticides.

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

Source: Health Canada

(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2021) Organic meat is far less likely to be adulterated with multi-drug resistant bacteria (MDRB) than conventional meat, according a study published earlier this month in Environmental Health Perspectives. The research by experts at John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the latest news on the health and safety benefits of choosing organic, which prohibits the regular use of risky antibiotics, for one’s food purchases. Scientists indicate that contaminated foods pose serious dangers for consumers, public health, and the economy at large. “The presence of pathogenic bacteria is worrisome in and of itself, considering the possible increased risk of contracting foodborne illness,” senior author Meghan Davis, PhD, associate professor at the Bloomberg School said. “If infections turn out to be multidrug resistant, they can be more deadly and more costly to treat.”

To determine the level of contamination in various packaged meats, scientists turned to the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), a collaborative program between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For a five year period spanning 2012-2017, NARMS collected meat products (chicken breast, ground beef, ground turkey, and pork chops) from 19 different U.S. states. Within each state, NARMS selected a random food retailer within 50 miles of their lab and collected 40 samples each month. In sum, 39,349 meat samples were analyzed for the study, encompassing 216 conventional meat processors, 123 processors that split their operations between organic and conventional, and 3 fully organic processing facilities. Roughly 8% of tested samples were organic, while the rest were conventional.

Of the nearly 40,000 samples analyzed, 1,422 (3.6%) were contaminated with MDRB. Organic meats had 29 of their 3,235 samples contaminated (.9%), while with conventional produce 1,393 out of 36,114 samples (3.9%) contained dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria.

This translates to organic certified meats being 56% less likely to be contaminated with MDRB. A deeper look into the data shows overall contamination lower at facilities that split conventional with organic production, when compared to those that only process conventional meats. Conventional meats from pure conventional facilities were likely to be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria roughly a third of the time (34.1%), while conventional meats from split facilities only had a roughly one in four chance (24.1%). “The required disinfection of equipment between processing batches of organic and conventional meats may explain our findings of reduced bacterial contamination on products from facilities that process both types of meats,” Dr. Davis notes.

Organic is not safer by chance, but by design. Organic standards, governed by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, were crafted with the goal of protecting public health and ecosystem services. Organic standards prohibit the use of antibiotics in poultry after their second day of life, and in mammals after the mother’s third trimester. Organic certified meats are also required to follow a stricter processing protocol, and in split operations organic meats cannot be processed on the same equipment as conventional meats without first undergoing cleaning and disinfecting.  

In addition to food safety, past studies have found organic meats and other animal products to be more nutrient dense than its conventional counterparts. A 2016 study found 50% higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and lower concentrations of saturated fat in organic meat when compared to conventional. This is due in large part to the way the animals are raised. Organic livestock are often reared outdoors and provided grass fodder, which have higher levels of healthy omega-3s, as opposed to grains, which have less.

In addition to improved nutrition and lower bacterial loads, organic products contain far fewer amounts of toxic pesticides and other chemicals. A study published in July of last year found that conventional milk contained a range of hazardous materials – from growth hormones, to antibiotics, and pesticides – that are not found in organic milks.

Time and time again, studies have found that switching from a mostly conventional to all organic diet makes significant changes in the amount of pesticides one is exposed to. That’s because organic agriculture doesn’t allow any toxic synthetic pesticides to be used on certified organic foods.

But organic isn’t perfect. Watchdog organizations have cited many organic producers for conditions similar to those seen in ‘factory farms’ under conventional production practices. There are also concerns over USDA’s rulemaking backlog, which have delayed the implementation of regulations that would improve the public and ecological health profile of organic practices.  

Despite these shortcomings, organic remains far and beyond the better choice over conventionally produced foods. Organic standards are crafted with input from organic consumers and other stakeholders, and intended to be continuously improved upon. That’s why it’s critical for consumers to stay engaged in the rulemaking process. Raise your voice as an organic consumer by letting USDA know it must follow and implement the recommendations of the expert, independent National Organic Standards Board in order to maintain organic integrity. For more ways that you can get involved in protecting and improving organic practices, see Beyond Pesticides Keeping Organic Strong program page.

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

Source: John Hopkins University Hub, Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2021) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has less than two months to decide whether to cancel or modify its registration of the brain-damaging organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos, following a decision from a federal appeals court. The ruling comes after more than a decade of delay from the federal agency tasked with protecting public health and the environment from the hazards of chemicals like chlorpyrifos. The decision now falls to the Biden Administration’s EPA Administrator Michael Regan, after the previous administration reversed a proposal to ban agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos in 2017. Most residential uses of the chemical were banned in 2000. 

Tell EPA to ban chlorpyrifos and other neurotoxic pesticides.

The target of action by which chlorpyrifos and many other pesticides kill is the nervous system. It is not surprising, then, that pesticides also target the nervous system in humans. They are particularly hazardous to children, who take in greater amounts of pesticides relative to their body weight than adults, and whose developing organ systems are typically more sensitive to toxic exposures.

The body of evidence in the scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine systems, even at low exposure levels. Several pesticide families, such as synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates, and carbamates, are also known to cause or exacerbate respiratory symptoms like asthma. The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote, “Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems.”

In deciding whether to ban chlorpyrifos, a dangerous, proven neurotoxicant that has dire impacts on children, EPA’s action to allow its continued use would be a failure of both its protective mission and ethics. Further, it would be an environmental justice failure, given that risks of exposure fall disproportionately on low-income African American and Latino families, including farmworker families, who are at the greatest risk of harm. The ban on chlorpyrifos will be an important first step in eliminating neurotoxic pesticides.

Chlorpyrifos is a poster child for the problems with federal pesticide regulation, but chlorpyrifos is just one of numerous organophosphate class chemicals remaining on the market. These WW2-era nerve agents are relics of the past, that have no place in 21st century agriculture and should have already been eliminated from use. And beyond the organophosphates lie a number of other insecticides that the chemical-intensive farming will utilize as toxic substitutes. This toxic treadmill, with the increased use of bee-toxic neonicotinoid and highly hazardous synthetic pyrethroids, becomes a Faustian bargain for farmers who rely on toxic chemicals that are harmful to health and the environment.

The court set a hard deadline on the agency, which the judges appeared to indicate was particularly lenient given the circumstances. EPA now has 60 days to either modify the food tolerances (allowed levels of the chemical on food) of chlorpyrifos and publish a finding that the new tolerances are safe for infants and children, or revoke all tolerances. The agency must also determine whether to modify or cancel registration of the chemical for food use under federal pesticide law.

For these reasons it is critical that the need to eliminate this particular chemical be seen as an indictment of chemical-intensive farming as a whole. It is not acceptable to repeatedly weigh the evils of one hazardous chemical or another when other systems exist that do not rely on these products. Organic farming eliminates highly toxic synthetic pesticides in favor of practices that enhance biodiversity, soil health, and climate resilience. Like the move away from fossil fuel dependent energy and toward renewable systems, organic practices will be the future of farming in the 21st century.

Tell EPA to ban chlorpyrifos and other neurotoxic pesticides.

Letter to EPA Administration Michael Regan

The federal appeals court has given EPA less than two months to decide whether to cancel or modify its registration of the brain-damaging organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos. The ruling comes after more than a decade of delay from the federal agency—yours—tasked with protecting public health and the environment from the hazards of pesticides. The decision now falls to you, as the Biden Administration’s EPA Administrator, after the previous administration reversed a proposal to ban agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos in 2017. Most residential uses of the chemical were banned in 2000.

Chlorpyrifos and many other pesticides kill by targeting the nervous system. It is not surprising, then, that pesticides also target the nervous system in humans. They are particularly hazardous to children, who take in greater amounts of pesticides relative to their body weight than adults, and whose developing organ systems are typically more sensitive to toxic exposures.

The body of evidence in the scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine systems, even at low exposure levels. Several pesticide families, such as synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates, and carbamates, are also known to cause or exacerbate respiratory symptoms like asthma. The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote, “Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems.”

In the upcoming decision, EPA’s action to allow its continued use of chlorpyrifos—a dangerous, proven neurotoxicant that has dire impacts on children—would be a failure of both its protective mission and ethics. Further, it would be an environmental justice failure, since risks of exposure fall disproportionately on low-income African American and Latino families, including farmworker families, who are at the greatest risk of harm. The ban on chlorpyrifos will be an important first step in eliminating neurotoxic pesticides.

Chlorpyrifos is a poster child for the problems with federal pesticide regulation, but chlorpyrifos is just one of numerous organophosphate chemicals remaining on the market. These WW2-era nerve agents have no place in 21st century agriculture and should have already been eliminated from use. Beyond the organophosphates lie a number of other insecticides that the chemical-intensive farming will utilize as toxic substitutes. This toxic treadmill, with the increased use of bee-toxic neonicotinoid and highly hazardous synthetic pyrethroids, becomes a Faustian bargain for farmers who rely on toxic chemicals that are harmful to health and the environment.

The court set a hard deadline for the agency, which the judges appeared to indicate was particularly lenient given the circumstances. EPA now has 60 days to either modify the food tolerances (allowed levels of the chemical on food) of chlorpyrifos and publish a finding that the new tolerances are safe for infants and children, or revoke all tolerances. The agency must also determine whether to modify or cancel registration of the chemical for food use under federal pesticide law.

For these reasons it is critical that the chlorpyrifos story be regarded by EPA as an indication of the failure of chemical-intensive farming as a whole. It is not acceptable to repeatedly weigh the evils of one hazardous chemical or another when other systems exist that do not rely on these products. Organic farming eliminates highly toxic synthetic pesticides in favor of practices that enhance biodiversity, soil health, and climate resilience. Like the move away from fossil fuel dependent energy and toward renewable systems, organic practices will be the future of farming in the 21st century. Please ensure that EPA reviews all pesticides in light of these larger considerations.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2021) In a prime example of cart-before-the-horse, greenwashing, or perhaps “beewashing,” a British company has badly missed the mark in its latest attempt to market a product while “doing good” and generating goodwill with customers. As The Guardian reports, Marks & Spencer, the giant United Kingdom (UK) retailer, is releasing 30 million managed honey bees into rural British landscapes in what the company is promoting as an effort to support biodiversity and the beekeeping sector. However, according to experts and environmental advocates, unleashing that many honey bees may well actually harm both wild native bees and honey bees themselves. Critics of the move say this means that wild bees will likely face fiercer competition for already inadequate food sources. Beyond Pesticides adds that these honey bees have been dispatched to the same pesticide-contaminated habitats in which existing bee populations of all kinds face harmful exposures — exacerbating issues surrounding pollinator decline rather than solving them.

Marks & Spencer’s Twitter marketing promotes the project in this way: “Did you know that bees contribute to a third of the food we eat? At M&S, we’re introducing more than 30 million bees to our Select Farms to help protect the future of these all-important pollinators and the planet.” The plan behind the hype is that M&S, having placed some 1,000 hives on 25 farms, will soon have a new product — “single-estate honey” — to market to consumers who may think this is a “virtuous” product.

In its blog, M&S adds to the cachet by noting that the bees are housed in “cedar beehives, many made in the 1930s, with plenty of nectar nearby.” It adds, “Because we’ll be harvesting honey from different farms with natural biodiversity, each crop will have its own unique flavour. Better yet, the hives do good for the environment, since bees are natural pollinators and allow nature to do its work. Our work with honey bees is only part of the story, though — as part of our Farming with Nature project, we’re encouraging pollinator diversity and promoting natural habitats across our farms.”

In fact, M&S is unlikely to be doing either of those things: managed honey bees do not contribute to biodiversity (see more below), and at least some of the “natural” habitats the company claims to promote through this effort are likely subject to the use of pesticides in one or more forms. Though the UK has acted more protectively than the U.S., neonicotinoid pesticides continue to show up in UK honey despite a partial ban.

Worldwide, 75% of crops depend on pollination by insects or other creatures. In the UK, honey bees are responsible for pollination of roughly a third of crop production; however, wild pollinators supply critical services that contribute to pollination and productivity. Honey bees are one of more than 270 species of bee in the UK — many of which are in significant decline. According to recent research, a steep global drop in bee species has been chronicled: approximately 25% fewer species were reported from 2006 through 2015 than was the case prior to 1990.

Reaction in the UK advocate community to the M&S announcement has been swift and scathing. Gill Perkins, chief executive of the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, commented: “This is greenwashing or beewashing at its most blatant.” Matt Shardlow, head of the conservation group Buglife, says, “They are actually ending up doing something that may damage the environment. There are not enough wild flowers to support the populations we’ve got. It’s about creating a better countryside for pollinators, not chucking more pollinators out into the countryside.”

Siting 30 million European honey bees across the M&S host farms is, according to ecologist Steven Falk, “not natural at all — it’s farming,” adding that the company has gotten this “horribly wrong. . . . There’s growing evidence if you saturate the landscape with honeybees, it has a profound impact and puts pressure on the wild pollinators.” This view is supported by 2019 French research demonstrating that the global spread of the European honey bee via managed bee farming/leasing pits wild native bee populations against the “intruders,” resulting in bee biodiversity losses.

In addition, managed honey bees tend to pollinate a narrow range of plants with “showy” flowers. Native wild pollinators pick up a lot of the slack, and are, according to researchers, twice as effective as honey bees in the pollination of certain crops, such as strawberries, tomatoes, almonds, coffee, and oilseed rape. The Guardian reports that this is because honey bees collect “damper” pollen that adheres to their bodies, whereas wild pollinators tend to collect drier pollen that is more liberally shed onto flowers. Introducing millions of managed honey bees can alter ecosystems and habitats because of their selective pollination habits, according to Mr. Shardlow of Buglife.

M&S’s honey bee project might be regarded, at best, as evidence of the company’s poor knowledge and/or poor judgment. Indeed, University of Sussex Professor Dave Goulson, PhD had this to say on Twitter: “Just adding more honeybees is not the answer to declining pollinator numbers! Come on @marksandspencer, do your homework.” Beyond Pesticides asserts that a far better gesture would have been investments in ridding the British countryside of pesticides that harm pollinators, restoring native habitats, and installing and supporting widespread, appropriate foodstocks (plants) for pollinators, such as bumblebees, red mason bees, and hoverflies.

Marks & Spencer defends its bee program, saying it is only one facet of its Farming with Nature project, which the company says is expected to boost pollinator diversity. A M&S spokesperson commented: “It is designed to help our Select Farmers become more resilient to the biggest environmental challenges they face and champion the uptake of nature-friendly farming practices. We are committed to sustainable farming that safeguards wild pollinators, including bumblebees and solitary bees, so we have placed our honeybee hives in very carefully selected areas, in small groups and more than two miles apart to avoid over-populating a particular area. None of our honeybees are imported. We’re discussing how to develop the project with the Bumblebee Conservation Trust and we’re also in conversation with Buglife — we’re hoping to work closely with them to nurture all British pollinators.”

The bigger picture that M&S appears to be missing is this: changes to one or more elements of an ecosystem can easily upset ecological balance and ecosystem function. The introduction of many millions of honey bees could be such a destabilizing element. Beyond Pesticides has covered the significant and additive stress on wild bees from both food scarcity and pesticide exposure. Predicted increased competition for appropriate food sources, on the part of wild bees and other native pollinators, is one expected impact of the M&S honey bee project.

Pesticide use is also a harmful stressor on wild (and all) bee populations, as well as on other wildlife, and is at least a partial cause of bee and other pollinator declines. Adding all those managed honey bees to 25 farm ecosystems does little to improve the lot of any bees; it does mean that millions more bees, both honey bees and wild bees, may be exposed to toxic pesticides, causing more devastation to bee populations.

Bringing more pollinators to live on or near pesticide-contaminated “killing fields” — or attracting them via planting food-source plants — does not address the base problem, which is pesticide use in land management. Pesticides are used on agricultural fields, and on seeds and crops grown in them; residues from spraying can drift to other areas and settle on soil and vegetation (including pollinator food sources), and contaminated water runoff can end up in drainage ditches and waterways that are favored by some flowering species. These chemicals are also used in non-agricultural areas for turf management, such as in public parks, greenspaces, golf courses, and other recreation or open spaces that may have pollinator-friendly vegetation (whether intentionally planted or “volunteer”). Direct exposures to pesticides, and/or indirect exposures through feeding from contaminated plants, exacerbate the negative impacts of these chemicals on pollinator populations. Opportunities for pollinator exposure to chemical pesticides can be rife.

Beyond Pesticides captured the bigger picture well in its introduction to its 2017 annual Pesticide Forum, Healthy Hives, Healthy Lives, Healthy Land: “Complex biological communities support life. With this understanding, we advocate for practices and policies that are sustainable and regenerative, create resiliency, and nurture healthy interactive organisms in the web of life. We rely on the best independent scientific knowledge available, recognize uncertainties when they arise, and choose the path that is most protective of health and the environment. The decline of pollinators is a clarion call to action, as it reflects a regulatory system that is out of touch with the effects of turning habitat into pesticide-laden killing fields, poisoning our waterways, and destroying ecological balance.”

Beyond Pesticides has written that “Pollinators are a bellwether for environmental stress as individuals and as colonies.” Pesticides play a role in the so-called insect apocalypse, in colony collapse disorder, and in plunges in insect biodiversity, all of which signal that ecosystems and their species are in dire shape. Fundamental to changing this trajectory is the elimination of chemical dependency in all land management‚ through a rapid transition to organic practices. Organic regenerative agriculture and organic land management practices not only proscribe the use of toxic chemicals, but also, nurture healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity.

Protection of species — whether bees, other pollinators, or wildlife — cannot be achieved without correction of the underlying agricultural and land management dependency on pesticides. Ultimately, the widespread adoption of organic management systems is necessary to protect biodiverse ecosystems and their inhabitants.

Meet with beekeepers, scientists, and advocates at the upcoming Cultivating Healthy Communities Forum, starting May 24 and 25, and running every subsequent Tuesday until June 15. Registration options are available for every budget, including a no-cost option. See here for a complete program and schedule of events.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/16/marks-spencer-honeybee-project-threat-biodiversity-conservationists-aoe

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 13, 2021) Scientists are advocating for stricter pesticide bans to lower deaths from deliberate pesticide ingestion. The request for this toxic pesticide ban follows a University of South Australia study detailing discrepancies in World Health Organization (WHO) classifications of pesticide hazards that rely on animal rather than human data.

Previous studies demonstrate an increased risk of developing depression, especially among agricultural workers and landscapers who use pesticides. Acute exposure to chemicals, including organophosphate and carbamate pesticides, tends to put farmers at greater risk of suicide than the general population. This research highlights the significance of assessing pesticide toxicity and health effects using human data rather than animals to understand health effects resulting from pesticide exposure. Society tends to rank mental health risks second to physical health. However, pesticide poisonings account for one in five suicides globally. Therefore, it is vital to address the accessibility and necessity of conventional pesticide use to safeguard human well-being, especially in countries lacking adequate chemical regulations. The study’s scientists note, “The human data for acute toxicity of pesticides should drive hazard classifications and regulation. We believe that a global benchmark for registration of pesticides should include a less than 5% case fatality after self-poisoning, which could prevent many deaths and have a substantial effect on global suicide rate.”

Researchers studied a cohort of 34,902 patients (age 11 and up) with possible or known self-poisonings from nine hospitals in rural Sri Lanka. All patients were a part of a South Asian Clinical Toxicology Research Collaboration. Research assistants identified ingested pesticides using historical or physical evidence, as well as blood sample analysis.

From 2002 to 2019, 2,299 (6.6 percent) patients died from pesticide ingestion, with researchers identifying 23,139 specific pesticides among all patients. Although fatalities from pesticide ingestion vary, the highest fatalities occur with paraquat ingestion, 41.8 percent. The most toxic pesticides before 2011 include paraquat, dimethoate, and fenthion, two of which are currently available for use in the U.S. but banned in Sri Lanka. However, post-2013, after Sri Lanka banned the three pesticides, profenofos, propanil, fenobucarb, carbosulfan, and quinalphos, began causing the most deaths—7.2 to 8.6 percent). Deaths from pesticide poisonings are in decline. 2013 to 2019 saw a 3.7 percent death rate compared to 10.5 percent from 2002 to 2006. Although researchers largely attribute the decline in deaths to pesticide bans, there is a modest decline in mortality from non-banned pesticide poisonings.

Individuals suffering from pesticide exposure face a disproportionate risk of developing various health adversaries, including impaired neurological function leading to psychiatric disorders. Exposure to agricultural pesticides puts farmers at six times greater risk of exhibiting depressive symptoms, including chronic anxiety, irritability, restlessness, and sadness. Pesticide exposure from farms or commercially-managed fields threatens residential (non-occupational) populations living nearby who are more likely to have high depressive symptoms. Exposure to organochlorines and fumigants (gaseous pesticides) heighten an individual’s risk of depression by 90% and 80%, respectively. Organochlorines are a chemical of concern as it induces a myriad of health problems, including reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, cancer, and fetal defects. Though the U.S. bans the use of many organochlorines, these chemicals can still expose individuals to volatile concentrations as they are highly persistent in the environment. Fumigants are a human health concern as many fumigants are gases that can cause acute toxicity upon inhalation and ingestion. Linear models reveal an association between lifelong pesticide poisoning episodes and the increased risk of developing mental disorders among tobacco farmers. Tobacco farmers using organophosphate pesticides have a higher prevalence of minor psychiatric disorders. Organophosphates are a family of insecticides derived from World War II nerve agents. They are cholinesterase inhibitors, meaning that they bind irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme.

Depression symptoms are of concern among individuals, whether pesticide exposure is occupational and residential. Annually, only half of Americans with depression diagnosis seek treatment for symptoms. Untreated symptoms of depression can increase the risk of suicide, a severe sign of depression. Furthermore, some studies find treatments for depression (i.e., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) from acute pesticide poisoning increase the risk of suicide. Hence, pesticide exposure can exacerbate suicidal thoughts and pesticide provocation as a suicide agent. A study published in the WHO Bulletin found that people storing organophosphate pesticides in their homes are more likely to have suicidal thoughts as the exposure rate is higher. The study found an association between suicidal thoughts and ease of household pesticide accessibility. Geographic areas with the most home storage of pesticides also have the highest levels of suicidal ideation throughout populations. WHO scientists recognize pesticide self-poisoning is one of the most significant global methods of suicide as increases in pesticide toxicity makes them potentially lethal substances. Robert Stewart, Ph.D., a researcher for the WHO Bulletin, stated that: “Organophosphate pesticides are widely used around the world. They are particularly lethal chemicals when taken in overdose and are a cause of many suicides worldwide.” With that in mind, researchers say it is vital to recognize how pesticide exposure and accessibility can influence mental illnesses. 

To address health issues regarding pesticide poisoning incidents, health care providers must have sufficient information on signs and symptoms of chemical exposure. Often, farmers, landscapers, and other individuals encountering chemical exposure through ingestion, inhalation, and skin (dermal) contact are unaware of the non-physical side effects. Considering depression related to acute pesticide exposure may persist long after initial exposure, those working with toxic pesticides must have adequate protective equipment to minimize exposure. Therefore, government agencies need to assess the provocation of psychiatric disorders accompanying acute and chronic pesticide exposure to protect human health.

This study finds that WHO needs to address discrepancies in hazardous pesticide classifications to ensure pesticides are not a means of purposeful death. There was a decrease in pesticide poising deaths from non-banned pesticides. However, that does not mean these pesticides do not pose any other chronic health effects that could exacerbate psychiatric disorders. For instance, all five current-use pesticides associated with pesticide poisoning deaths in Sri Lanka produce neurotoxic effects that can impact psychiatric disorders. Profenofos (organophosphate), propanil (anilide), fenobucarb (carbamate), carbosulfan (carbamate), and quinalphos (organophosphate) all impact acetylcholinesterase activity in the brain, producing depression-like symptoms. Hence, exposure to these chemicals remains just as much of a risk.

Although Sri Lanka banned the top three most toxic pesticides used for purposeful ingestion, paraquat and dimethoate remain EPA registered for use in the United States. A Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) report notes a 37 percent increase in pesticide use on commercially managed lands, like wildlife sanctuaries, from 2016 to 2018. Paraquat use increased by 100 percent, despite links to a plethora of health effects, including Parkinson’s disease and other neurotoxic disorders, cancer, reproductive dysfunction, kidney/liver damage, and birth/developmental abnormalities, as well as adverse impacts on animals and the ecosystem. The common agricultural pesticide, dimethoate, is highly toxic. Exposure can cause neurotoxicity, cancer, kidney/liver effects, reproductive dysfunction, birth/developmental abnormalities, and endocrine disruption. Similar to paraquat, this pesticide also adversely impacts animals and the ecosystem.

This study is not the first to support a call to enact toxic pesticide bans. A WHO-funded study detailing such a ban can reduce annual suicides in developing countries by 28,000 people. Furthermore, it is less costly to rid of pesticides than to treat pesticide-mediated mental health disorders. This ban will be essential in many Asian countries like China and India, where pesticide-assisted deaths make up 30 percent of suicides. Sri Lanka is one of the first countries to plan on banning chemical fertilizer over human health concerns and have already banned some highly toxic pesticides still of use in other nations currently. Following Sri Lanka’s pesticide ban 20 years ago, suicide rates fell 75 percent. Therefore, global leaders and health officials should follow suit and reassess pesticide toxicity classifications to curb exposure and restrict access to toxic chemicals. The study concludes, “A global strategy that reclassified all the more toxic class II agents as highly hazardous and region-wide bans would prevent most circumvention and be a highly effective means of reducing suicide rates throughout the Asia-Pacific region.”

Mental health is just as—if not more–important than physical health, and studies such as these highlight the importance of knowing pesticide implications beyond physical ailments. Through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD), Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on body burdens, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Farmworkers and farmworkers’ children encounter pesticide exposure at increasingly higher levels than the general population. Thus, these groups of people also experience disproportionate effects of pesticide exposure on their health. Therefore, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides and protect the people who help put food on our table every day. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for widespread chemical-intensive agricultural and residential practices. Given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and agro-industry workers alike can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among adults (3rd for adolescence) in the U.S., with more than 34,000 individuals take their own life every year. Suicidal thoughts and behaviors are dangerous and harmful and therefore considered a psychiatric emergency. An individual experiencing these thoughts should seek immediate assistance from a health or mental health care provider. If you or someone you know is in an emergency, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or call 911 immediately.

Help Beyond Pesticides educate and build the movement that will bring long-needed protection to humans, animals, and the entire environment by attending the National Pesticide Forum this spring. Cultivating Healthy Communities will bring together expert scientists, farmers, policymakers, and activists to discuss strategies to eliminate harms from toxic chemical use in favor of non-toxic organic solutions. It begins with a pre-conference session on Monday, May 24, and continues every Tuesday beginning May 25, June 1, June 8, and ending June 15, 2021. Registration is open today and available through the webpage on this link. It starts with US.

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

Source: University of South Australia, The Lancet

(Beyond Pesticides, May 12, 2021) Earlier this year, a team of scientists solved an ecological mystery that had persisted for decades. Throughout the southeastern United States, bald eagles and other top-level avian predators were experiencing mass deaths from a disease known as vacuolar myelinopathy (VM), a neurological ailment that causes lesions in affected animal’s brains. Scientists identified the source of the exposure as a cyanobacteria growing on an invasive weed, but up until now, did not know how the bacterium caused disease. Now, scientists have determined that the chemical bromine, likely introduced by brominated herbicides in attempts to manage the invasive species, is the trigger for the production of the cyanobacteria’s neurotoxin.

In the mid-1990s, over 70 bald eagles died in Arkansas’s DeGray Lake over the course of two years. The event was the largest mass mortality of eagles recorded. Scientists identified the disease as vacuolar myelinopathy, and through the course of several years were able to determine that the disease generally affected birds in the built environment, near artificial bodies of water with high levels of aquatic plant life. Waterfowl and other bird species were found to develop lesions in lakes where there was an ongoing VM outbreak.

Evidence built that hydrilla (Hydrilla verticullata) a common invasive submerged aquatic plant found throughout the U.S. was part of the problem. In particular, scientists were concerned with a cyanobacteria called Aetokthonos hydrillicola, found to be growing on the backside of the plant. To determine how the bacterium caused the disease, researchers cultured it in the lab (after significant trial and error), and exposed birds under controlled conditions. But they found that exposed birds did not develop the lesions characteristic of VM. Scientists subsequently considered that it may be an environmental factor resulting in the changes to the cyanobateria when submerged in water.

A. hydrillicola was then observed under an advanced imaging process, which detected the presence of metabolites containing bromine atoms. The presence of bromine was the key to the mystery – the process scientists had used to culture the bacteria in the lab did not contain bromine. When they added it to the medium, A. hydrillicola began to produce a potent neurotoxin.

Researchers have subsequently found evidence that the toxin produced by the bacteria can lodge itself in an animal’s gut, and move up the food chain. This bioaccumulation poses significant hazards– not only to birds of prey, but potentially many animals up the food chain.

Most sources of bromine in a freshwater ecosystem are likely to be added by humans. Flame retardants and other industrial compounds like coal and fracking pollution can contain bromine. But one of the most likely sources is the pesticide diquat dibromide. Pesticide products containing diquat dibromide are often applied in attempts to manage invasive hydrilla. However, the quick spreading nature the plant is almost certain to leave many behind to recolonize man-made freshwater lakes and ponds.

As the study suggests, “Benefits and risks of using any bromide-containing chemical control agents within VM reservoir watersheds need to be reassessed.” The mystery is a posterchild for how counterproductive and difficult it can be to determine non-target effects of pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides has covered a range of ways in which pesticides can cause unintended effects that spread across ecosystems with deleterious trophic cascades. The use of a bromide-based product, intended to kill a plant that harbors a bacterium that, in the presence of bromine, produces a lethal neurotoxin is far beyond the scope of any risk assessment conducted by pesticide regulatory agencies.

While it may be tempting to excuse regulators for that oversight, this is simply another instance in a long line of “big mysteries” that are ultimately linked to pesticide exposure – from pollinator declines to the death of coniferous trees throughout the U.S.

The findings highlight to importance of integrating alternative assessments into pesticide regulation. There are non-toxic, biological controls for hydrilla that are working well and do not required a brominated pesticide. Triploid sterile grass carp, which have a lower risk of escape and reproduction, are being used successfully to control hydrilla in many VM reservoirs, according to the study. When viable alternatives exist for a given use that do not necessitate the application of hazardous pesticides, an alternative assessment would reject the registrations of these risky and unnecessary products in favor of safer practices.

We can change the way toxic pesticides are allowed onto market and manage pest problems without unnecessary hazards through dedication and education. Join Beyond Pesticides for a discussion around many of these themes at the upcoming, first ever virtual National Pesticide Forum, starting May 24^th and 25^th, and running every subsequent Tuesday until June 15^th. Registration options are available for every budget. See here for a complete program and schedule of events.

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

Source: Science (article), Science (peer reviewed study)

(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2021) Last week, multinational agrichemical company Bayer Cropscience lost its bid to overturn a 2018 ban on bee-toxic neonicotinoids throughout the European Union. The ruling from the European Court of Justice rejected all grounds on which the company filed its appeal, noting, “It must be held that the arguments put forward by Bayer CropScience cannot, in any event, succeed.” In denying the appeal, the court ruled Bayer responsible for paying its own legal fees, as well as the fees of environmental organizations that intervened to defend the ban.

Environmental groups are applauding the ruling, as it reinforces several important aspects of the EU’s pesticide policy that favor greater public health and environmental protections. In an interview with EURACTIV, policy officer Martin Dermine at Pesticide Action Network Europe notes that the decision provides more leeway for pesticide regulators to consider new scientific evidence on pesticide hazards. “More than that,” he told EURACTIV, “the Court confirms the definition of the precautionary principle:  in case of doubts on the toxicity of a pesticide, the European Commission is entitled to ban it.”

Pesticide regulators in Europe began restricting neonicotinoids in 2013, when a continent-wide moratorium was put in place based upon evidence that neonicotinoids were contributing to declines in pollinator populations. The original ban applied only to flowering crops, but was expanded in 2018 to include a prohibition on all outdoor uses of the three most commonly used neoncotinoids – clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid. To make its determination, EU regulators analyzed over 1,500 studies from academia, beekeeper associations, agrichemical companies, farmer groups, nongovernmental organizations, and national regulators, and concluded that neonicotinoids should be severely restricted in order to protect honey bees and wild pollinators.

While Europe unwinds the use of bee-toxic pesticides and has further pledged to halve its use of pesticides by 2030 in order to protect pollinators and biodiversity, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done less than the bare minimum to protect pollinators from neonicotinoids and other  hazardous pesticides. As the EU was issuing its first moratorium, EPA was denying a petition by beekeepers to recognize that honey bees face an “imminent hazard” from the continued use of neonicotinoids. As the EU was expanding its moratorium, EPA was being cited by internal watchdogs for its failure to provide basic oversight of voluntary state pollinator protection plans the agency claimed would be adequate to protect bees without regulatory intervention.

Although much of the problem lies with EPA’s consistent reticence to use the tools at its disposal to protect health and the environment, a significant amount of blame for the lackluster U.S. response to the pollinator crisis lies with the underlying federal statute governing pesticide registration and use. FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, does not embrace a precautionary approach to pesticide regulation. Instead, the risk-based assessments of FIFRA place the onus on those harmed by pesticide exposure to prove their case. With most of the science justifying pesticide approvals in the U.S. conducted by the pesticide industry and much of it under lock and key by EPA as “confidential business information,” the regulatory process is both unwieldly and time consuming. As a result, EPA prefers to  negotiate a “voluntary cancellation” of hazardous pesticides with manufacturers, rather than expend the resources and time associated with an onerous regulatory process subject to industry litigation. 

Beyond Pesticides has documented numerous instances over the years where EPA has thrown precaution to the wind and allowed substances with questionable safety records to be sold to consumers. From systemic insecticides to nanotechnology, genetically engineered (GE) plants dependent on pesticides, antibiotics in agriculture, inert ingredients and wood preservatives, the sum of problematic areas for our health and safety feed into an urgent call to embrace a precautionary approach in the U.S.

The EU high court ruling underscores the value of the natural world. “The Court of Justice has reaffirmed that protecting nature and people’s health takes precedence over the narrow economic interests of powerful multinationals,” said Greenpeace legal strategist Andrea Carta to Reuters.

In light of legal limitations and lackluster regulatory decisions, U.S. residents are encouraged to support an approach to pest management that does not rely on highly toxic pesticides. By forgoing the use of toxic synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, genetically engineered seeds,  sewage sludge and other unnecessary hazards, and working with natural systems, organic practices represent a truly sustainable path forward for public health and ecological stability. But in the U.S., even these standards are under attack by the same forces pushing toxic products in chemical farming. Help stand up for organic integrity by urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to complete rulemaking on materials and standards allowed in organic production.

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

Source: Reuters, EURACTIV

(Beyond Pesticides, May 10, 2021) USDA is dragging its heels in completing rulemaking recommended by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)—including recommendations passed as early as 2001 and including those concerning both materials and organic practices. This threatens organic integrity and public trust in the process governing the USDA organic label. When the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) was passed in 1990, supporters had grave mistrust of the commitment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—a department that had embraced chemical-intensive agriculture and promoted the dependence on pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Therefore, Congress built into the law protections by assigning a major role for the NOSB—an advisory board comprised of representatives of all the stakeholders including producers, processors, retailers, certifiers, consumers, scientists, and environmentalists. Not only must the NOSB vote on allowed synthetic materials used in organic production, but USDA must also consult with the NOSB on all aspects of the National Organic Program (NOP). 

Tell USDA that NOSB recommendations must be proposed as regulations.

Crucial to organic practices, and written into OFPA, is the concept of continuous improvement. The importance of this concept is most apparent in materials review, which includes a sunset provision that requires all synthetic materials used in crop and livestock production and non-organic ingredients used in processing to be re-considered every five years. If organic producers no longer need those materials or new issues of concern have been identified, they should no longer be allowed. However, continuous improvement extends to all aspects of the organic program, including regulations governing organic practices. 

USDA has had difficulty with the concept of continuous improvement because it requires flexibility that is unusual in regulatory programs across government. The biggest obstacle, according to USDA, is the Office of Management and the Budget (OMB). Ever since the Reagan administration, regulatory review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) has prevented agencies from promulgating new regulations based on new science and technologies that are more protective of health and the environment—the argument being that it causes economic dislocation for the regulated industry. OIRA acts as a gatekeeper to new regulations and has generally resisted changes to the status quo—even in regulations designed to adapt to new science and technology.

Immediately following his inauguration, President Biden issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the heads of all executive departments and agencies to produce recommendations for improving and modernizing regulatory review, with the goal of promoting public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations. This Executive Order reverses the historical trend of status-quo regulatory reviews required by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that typically support vested economic interests of polluters (e.g., petroleum-based pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers). Instead, the President’s EO, Modernizing Regulatory Review, sets the stage for the adoption of agency policy across government to seriously and with urgency confront the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and disproportionate harm to people of color communities (environmental racism). It allows—even promotes—the policy of continuous improvement.

NOP’s list of NOSB recommendations includes those on which USDA has refused to take action as well as those which have lingered for years. USDA has refused to prohibit the use of sodium nitrate, carrageenan, inulin-oligofructose enriched, Turkish bay leaves, and whey protein concentrate as recommended by the NOSB. It has failed to act on recommendations to examine individual non-disclosed “inert” ingredients. It has closed consideration of several practice standards and let others languish. If the EO has any meaning, then USDA must act to bring these recommendations to the regulatory arena, where the public may provide comments and they can be evaluated against the new criteria of the EO, as well as the old criterion of continuous improvement.

Tell USDA that NOSB recommendations must be proposed as regulations.

Letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

 Congress built into the Organic Foods Production Act a major role for the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)—an advisory board comprised of representatives of organic stakeholders, including producers, processors, retailers, certifiers, consumers, scientists, and environmentalists. Not only must the NOSB vote on the allowance of synthetic materials used in organic production, but USDA must also consult with the NOSB on all aspects of the National Organic Program (NOP).

Unfortunately, USDA still fails to complete rulemaking recommended by the NOSB—including recommendations passed as early as 2001 and including those concerning both materials and organic practices.

Crucial to organic practices is the concept of continuous improvement. The importance of this concept is most apparent in materials review, which includes a sunset provision that requires all synthetic materials used in crop and livestock production and non-organic ingredients used in processing to be re-considered every five years. If organic producers no longer need those materials or new issues of concern have been identified, they should no longer be allowed. However, continuous improvement extends to all aspects of the organic program.

USDA has had a difficulty with the concept of continuous improvement because it requires flexibility that is unusual in regulatory programs. The biggest obstacle, according to USDA, is the Office of Management and the Budget (OMB). Ever since the Reagan administration, regulatory review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) has prevented agencies from promulgating new regulations. OIRA acts as a gatekeeper to new regulations and has generally resisted changes to the status quo—even in regulations designed to adapt to new science and technology.

Immediately following his inauguration, President Biden issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the heads of all executive departments and agencies to produce recommendations for improving and modernizing regulatory review, with a goal of promoting public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations. This Executive Order reverses the historical trend of status-quo regulatory reviews required by OMB that typically support vested economic interests. Instead, the President’s EO, Modernizing Regulatory Review, sets the stage for the adoption of agency policy across government to seriously and with urgency confront the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and disproportionate harm to people of color communities (environmental racism). It allows—even promotes—the policy of continuous improvement.

NOP’s list of NOSB recommendations includes those on which USDA has refused to take action as well as those which have lingered for years. USDA has refused to prohibit the use of sodium nitrate, carrageenan, inulin-oligofructose enriched, Turkish bay leaves, and whey protein concentrate as recommended by the NOSB. It has failed to act on recommendations to examine individual non-disclosed “inert” ingredients. It has closed consideration of several practice standards and let others languish. If the EO has any meaning, then USDA must act to bring these recommendations to the regulatory arena, where they can be judged by the public against the new criteria of the EO, as well as the old criterion of continuous improvement.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2021) Soil health is one of the linchpins on which the food production that sustains human life — as well as biodiversity, pollinator health, and carbon sequestration — depend. A recent meta-review of nearly 400 studies finds that, in 71% of the cases reviewed, pesticides kill or otherwise harm soil invertebrates that contribute mightily to soil health. In their paper, “Pesticides and Soil Invertebrates: A Hazard Assessment,” published in Frontiers in Environmental Science in early May, the researchers write, “A wide variety of soil-dwelling invertebrates display sensitivity to pesticides of all types . . . [These results] support the need for pesticide regulatory agencies to account for the risks that pesticides pose to soil invertebrates and soil ecosystems.” Beyond Pesticides, which has long reported on impacts of pesticides on soil health, concurs with that conclusion, and adds that the real solutions to noxious pesticide impacts lie in the adoption of  regenerative organic approaches to all land management because they obviate any need for petroleum-based toxic chemical controls.

The term “pesticide” can refer to myriad kinds of chemical treatments — including antimicrobials, disinfectants, rodenticides, and others — but in the agricultural and land management realms, primarily means insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. These are used intensively in conventional, chemical-intensive (i.e., non-organic) agriculture to kill off insect pests, weeds, and fungal infestations, respectively. As the study paper notes, pesticides enter soils when they are applied to flora or to soils themselves (as sprays or drenches, or in granular form), but they also contaminate soil in the form of seed coatings. In addition, soils can be contaminated by pesticide runoff from treated fields, and through drift of aerially applied compounds to non-target areas. Beyond Pesticides recently wrote about the extent of pesticide contamination of U.S. farmland, including how residues of these compounds can persist in soils, even after transition to organic management, for decades.

The researchers’ broad conclusions include: (1) insecticides have greater negative impacts on invertebrates in soil than do herbicides or fungicides; and (2) nevertheless, herbicides and fungicides do have many negative effects, but show more variance across different pesticide classes and studied taxa than do insecticides. The study also notes that research studies on pesticide impacts often “use a narrow range of surrogate species that are easy to rear, identify, or study, while smaller and more cryptic organisms are rarely analyzed. In some cases, the organisms that are the most extensively studied are known to be less sensitive to pesticides than other organisms, suggesting that we have limited knowledge of the extent of harm caused by pesticides.”

Healthy, living soils contain a universe of organisms, including many invertebrates, that provide critical services: they decompose biomass and cycle nutrients, maintain soil structure, hold carbon, and support ecosystem equilibrium by controlling pests and diseases, and making nutrients available to biota. Such organisms include earthworms, ground-nesting bees, beetles, ants, springtails, termites, millipedes, and others. The declines in such terrestrial invertebrate populations have been attributed in large part to agrichemical (synthetic pesticide and fertilizer) pollution and habitat loss. Invertebrates that are harmed, or killed, by pesticides are thus compromised in their ability to deliver those soil and ecosystem services. Such extreme loss of these organisms is also devastating to biodiversity.

In a recent Daily News Blog, Beyond Pesticides covered research that showed that the pivot in agriculture from “older generation” pesticides (e.g., organochlorines, organophosphates, and carbamates) to newer compounds, such as pyrethroids and neonicotinoids, is significantly responsible for invertebrate (and plant) population declines. The blog entry noted, “Invertebrates and plants are vital for ecosystem function, offering various services, from decomposition to supporting the food web. Furthermore, invertebrates and plants can act as indicator species . . . that scientists can observe for the presence and impact of environmental changes and stressors. Therefore, reductions in invertebrate and plant life have implications for ecosystem health that can put human well-being at risk.”

This subject study (“Pesticides and Soil Invertebrates: A Hazard Assessment”) was conducted by researchers from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Friends of the Earth, and the Department of Entomology at the University of Maryland, College Park. This is the first comprehensive review of the impacts of pesticides on soil invertebrates; it focuses on invertebrates that spend at least some stage of their development in soil and are not target species of pesticide applications. The study evaluated 275 different taxa (or combined taxa) of such organisms, and 284 discrete pesticide active ingredients (or unique mixtures thereof). In doing so, it used data related to nine different endpoints: mortality, biochemical biomarkers, behavior, reproduction, growth, structural changes, richness and diversity, abundance, and biomass. This methodology meant that the study ultimately analyzed 2,842 separate “tested parameters, measured as a change in a specific endpoint following exposure of a specific organism to a specific pesticide.”

As mentioned, research results indicate that 71% of the tested parameters showed negative effects from pesticide exposure; 28% showed no significant impacts, and the remaining 1% showed positive impacts. Sorted by pesticide type, 75% of parameters were negatively affected by insecticides, 63% by herbicides, 71% by fungicides, and 56% by pesticide mixtures. Impacts of such mixtures yielded varying results based on type: of the 49 mixtures evaluated, insecticide mixtures negatively affected tested parameters 84% of the time, herbicide mixes 62%, fungicide mixes 39%, and cross-category pesticide mixes 50% of the time. 

Among the more concerning specific results of the research are those for earthworms: 84–90% of tested parameters in them were negatively affected by the most-studied classes of insecticides, and some herbicides and fungicides (amide/anilide herbicides and benzimidazole fungicide) were especially harmful. This is disturbing because earthworms are a keystone species. They play a huge role in soil health: they increase aeration of soil, boost water infiltration and retention, reduce soil compaction, stimulate microbial activity, transform decaying material and minerals into usable forms and cycle nutrients, increasing soil fertility. In addition, they are an important menu item and part of the food chain for birds, frogs, snails, moles, foxes, snakes, and turtles, among others.

Study co-author and Senior Researcher at CBD, Nathan Donley, PhD, commented, “Beetles and springtails have enormous impacts on the porosity of soil and are really getting hammered, and earthworms are definitely getting hit as well. A lot of people don’t know that most bees nest in the soil, so that’s a major pathway of exposure for them. It’s not just one or two pesticides that are causing harm, the results are really very consistent across the whole class of chemical poisons.” He added, “The level of harm we’re seeing is much greater than I thought it would be. Soils are incredibly important. But how pesticides can harm soil invertebrates gets a lot less coverage than pollinators, mammals and birds — it’s incredibly important that changes.”

The researchers conclude that pesticide use is a serious threat to soil invertebrates and the essential ecosystem services they provide. They assert that soil organisms ought to be included in any risk assessment for a pesticide that could potentially contaminate soils, and that mitigation of such risk must be done in a way that “will specifically reduce harm to the soil organisms that sustain important ecosystem services. The United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] does not have sufficient testing requirements or tools in place to quantify risk to soil dwelling organisms. The European honeybee is the only terrestrial invertebrate included in mandatory ecotoxicological testing of pesticides. The practice of using the honeybee as a surrogate underestimates harm to many taxa and often results in narrow efforts to mitigate pesticide impacts solely to honeybees and other pollinators, not soil organisms.”

Nathan Donley, PhD commented: “It’s crazy to have a single species that may never come into contact with soil in its entire life as a proxy for every terrestrial invertebrate out there. You might as well use a fish.” Matt Shardlow, head of the conservation group Buglife, commented: “The answer is clear here — the distribution of outcomes in published studies is massively weighted on the negative side. The high level of negative effects on reproduction across the board is one of the most concerning results [the researchers] highlight. We all want fertile agricultural soils, but this shows that the pesticides we are applying are assaulting the fertility of the animals that live in the soil. If we want to protect healthy soils, we do need to take soil organisms into consideration when deciding if a pesticide is safe to use.”

An important sidebar: Dr. Donley will be a speaker at Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 National Pesticide Forum, Cultivating Healthy Communities: Confronting Health Threats, Climate Disasters, and Biodiversity Collapse with a Toxic-Free Future. Co-author of this subject study, he is also a former cancer researcher at the Oregon Health and Science University, and is a current senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, where his work focuses on U.S. pesticide policy and regulation.

Beyond Pesticides would readily argue that, given the myriad harms they cause, including the harm to invertebrates demonstrated in this research, pesticides are incompatible with healthy soil ecosystems — yet EPA is failing to attend to the dire impacts of pesticides on the soil organisms that ensure that health. We recently wrote: “To prevent a future void of vital invertebrate and plant species critical to biodiversity and food production, global leaders must examine the necessity of pesticide use. More than ever, individuals must connect with their local, state, and federal elected officials to demand that we protect insect populations. . . . Solutions like regenerative organic agriculture and organic land management curtail the need for toxic pesticide use.”

The public has an important role to play in reducing pesticide harms. Learn about what to do as an individual and with the community to support biodiversity, eliminate pesticides in lawn and garden maintenance, create pollinator-friendly landscapes, use pollinator-friendly seeds, and support the growth of organic agriculture. Beyond individual, it is critical to contact elected officials at every level — local, state, and federal — to insist on more-protective regulation of pesticides. Contact us for help with advocacy on this, and any pesticide-related issue.

Sources: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.643847/full and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/vital-soil-organisms-being-harmed-by-pesticides-study-shows

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2021) Nearly half of all breakdown products (transformation products) from four common-use environmental pesticides produce stronger endocrine (hormone) disrupting (ED) effects than the parent compound, according to new research published in Environment International. Over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts—from chemicals in plastics to cosmetic/personal care products—are commonly present in water bodies, food commodities, and human blood/urine samples. These toxicants can alter hormone metabolism, producing endocrine-disrupting effects that put the health of animals, humans, and the environment at risk.

Many ecological and health risk assessments for pesticides focus on the effects of parent chemical compound products, overlooking the potential impacts of transformation products (TPs). Therefore, studies like these highlight the need to assess the implications of TPs to safeguard human, animal, and environmental health. The researchers note, “Since an increasing number of pesticide TPs have been detected in various environmental media, a more comprehensive understanding of the ecological risk of pesticide TPs is imperative for risk assessments more extensively and regulatory policy-making on pesticide restriction in the future.”

Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotics (i.e., chemical substances like toxic pesticides foreign to an organism or ecosystem), including pesticides, bisphenols, phthalates, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and heavy metals. Past research demonstrates exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can alter the natural hormones in the body responsible for conventional fertile, physical, and mental development. Numerous studies confirm the effect chemical compound exposure has on human health. However, there is a lack of research regarding the effects of breakdown products or metabolites that these chemical compounds create.

Researchers selected four widely used pesticides—pyriproxyfen (Pyr), malathion (ML), benalaxyl (BX), and fenoxaprop-ethyl (FE)—and their 21 transformation products to evaluate for endocrine-disrupting effects. Using in vitro and in silico approaches, researchers assessed estrogen receptor α, glucocorticoid receptor α, the mineralocorticoid receptor, and hormone levels in H295R cells to determine ED impacts.

The results reveal that 50 percent of TPs exhibit more powerful endocrine-disrupting effects than their respective parent compound. Pyriproxyfen (Pyr) and 5 of its TPs, one TP of malathion, one TP of benalaxyl, and two TPs of fenoxaprop-ethyl exhibit the most effects on estrogen, mimicking the binding activity of the hormone to its receptor. Malathion and its TPs, and two Pyr TPs, have weak impacts on glucocorticoid activity via hydrogen bonding. Lastly, all chemical displaying endocrine-disrupting effects increases hormone secretion and gene expression in H295R cells responsible for sex hormone production (estrogen/androgen).

Clean air, water, and healthy soils are integral to ecosystem function, interacting between Earth’s four main spheres to support life. However, toxic pesticide residues are pervasive in the ecosystem, frequently detectable in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. These pesticide residues undergo hydrolysis, photolysis, oxidation, and biodegradation to break down into various transformation products that are just as ubiquitous as their parent compound. For instance, 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide biomarker (includes parent compound and metabolites) in their body. The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse health effects (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.) on the environment, including wildlife, biodiversity, and human health. Therefore, exposure to pesticides and their TPs can elicit adverse health effects, including impacts on the endocrine system.

The European Union and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify more than 50 pesticide active ingredients as endocrine disruptors (EDs), including chemicals in household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Research demonstrates endocrine disruption is prevalent among many pesticide products like herbicides atrazine and 2,4-D, pet insecticide fipronil, and manufacturing by-product dioxin (TCDD). These chemical ingredients can enter the body, disrupting hormones and causing adverse developmental, disease, and reproductive problems. The endocrine system consists of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal, and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone, and adrenaline). These glands and their respective hormones guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Endocrine disruption is an ever-present, growing issue that plagues the global population. Hence, advocates maintain that policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure.

This study is one of many to recognize that pesticide breakdown products are just as, or even more, toxic than their parent compounds. Globally, pyriproxyfen (Pyr) is widely used for mosquito control and the only pesticide that the World Health Organization (WHO) approves for controlling mosquitoes in drinking water containers. However, almost all seven TPs of Pyr generate estrogen-disrupting activity in the blood, kidneys, and liver. Malathion is a popular insecticide that inhibits acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activities in the nervous tissue. Inhibition of AChE can cause a buildup of acetylcholine (a chemical neurotransmitter responsible for brain and muscle function). This chemical buildup can lead to acute impacts, such as uncontrolled, rapid twitching of some muscles, paralyzed breathing, convulsions, and, in extreme cases, death. However, the inhibition AChE is non-specific, making dispersal of malathion a severe threat to wildlife and public health. Hence, the study finds two TPs of malathion to have endocrine-disrupting effects on gene expression, hormone secretion, and glucocorticoid metabolism (carbohydrates, proteins, fats). The rapid degradation of pesticide fenoxaprop-ethyl produces two highly toxic TPs that upregulate gene expression 5.8 to 12-fold and have a greater impact on estrogenic activities. Lastly, the primary TP of benalaxyl persists longer in the environment than the parent compound, acting antagonistically toward estrogen receptor α and upregulates gene expression 3-fold. The four pesticides in this study are not the only chemicals of concern; many other pesticides also produce toxic breakdown products. Numerous banned pesticides, older pesticide compounds, newer pesticide compounds, and chemical manufacturing by-products create toxic TPs that contaminate the body and ecosystem.

Banned insecticide DDT, and its major metabolite DDE, remain in the environment decades after use ended, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding chemical concentrations that exceed acceptable levels. Although DDT and DDE dissolve into body fat and linger for many years, DDE remains in the body longer. A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) investigation finds DDE contaminates the bodies of 99 percent of study participants. As in endocrine disruptor, exposure to DDT increases risks associated with diabetes, early onset menopause, reduced sperm count, endometriosis, birth abnormalities, autism, vitamin D deficiency, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, and obesity. However, studies find that DDE is even more toxic than its parent compound. This metabolite can produce multi-generational health effects on obesity and diabetes and uniquely augmenting multi-generational breast cancer occurrences. Some older generations of pesticides, including organophosphates like malathion, originate from the same compounds as World War II nerve agents (Agent Orange), producing adverse effects on the nervous system. Triclosan, an antimicrobial pesticide product banned from many products, persists in the environment and produces carcinogenic breakdown products like chloroform and 2,8-dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,8-DCDD).

“Newer generation” of chemicals, including glyphosate and neonicotinoids (neonics), are fast-acting, with quick breakdown times, thus less likely to readily accumulate. However, studies find lower concentrations of these chemicals are more toxic than their older counterparts, requiring several kilograms less. Therefore, the breakdown products of these chemicals can produce similar or more severe toxicological effects. Studies indicate that herbicide glyphosate transforms into toxic metabolic AMPA, which alters gene expression. Furthermore, neonic metabolites, such as desnitro-imidacloprid and descyano-thiacloprid, are more than 300 and ~200 times toxic to mammals, respectively, than the parent compound imidacloprid. According to the U.S. Geographical Survey, these metabolites readily contaminate streams. Thus, experts warn that these breakdown products may morph into new forms of chlorinated disinfection byproducts (DBPs)—with unfamiliar/undiscovered health risks—during routine water treatment (chlorination) processes.

Pesticides and their TPs can promote higher acute and sublethal toxicity levels, which can cause chronic effects on species abundance and biodiversity. Various past and present pesticide products act similarly to other environmental contaminants, and individuals can encounter these substances simultaneously. Often, these chemical contaminants work together or synergize to produce a more severe, combined effect. Synergism is a common issue among pesticide mixture and can underestimate the toxic impacts on human, animal, and environmental health. Therefore, current ecological and human health risk assessments vastly underestimate hazardous effects from pesticide residues, metabolites, and other environmental contaminants.  

Lack of efficient pesticide testing fails to evaluate the impacts of breakdown products as many studies merely assess the effect of parent products. With newer generations of pesticide products having faster breakdown times and increased toxicity, breakdown products will pose a real problem for future ecosystem and human health. As has been previously stated: “[Beyond Pesticides] has long been critical of EPA’s risk assessment process, which fails to look at chemical mixtures—including inert ingredients—and synergistic effects in common pesticide products. Additionally, lack of awareness on specific health endpoints (such as endocrine disruption), disproportionate effects to vulnerable population groups, and regular non-compliance with product label directions hinder accurate risk assessments. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real-world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.”

The study’s authors conclude, “ [I]t is urgent to pay more attention to the TPs in the process of environmental risk assessment of pesticides, and the profound findings of the endocrine-disrupting effects from pesticide TPs provided in this current study would be beneficial to further risk assessment and regulatory improvement of pesticide use.”

It is essential to understand the effects that endocrine-disrupting pesticides and their breakdown products may have on the health of current and future generations. There is a lack of understanding behind the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Therefore, lawmakers and regulators should consider taking a more precautionary approach before introducing these chemicals into the environment. With far too many diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, reducing pesticide use is a critically important aspect of safeguarding public health. Learn more about the effects of pesticides on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, supporting a shift away from pesticide dependency. This database is a fantastic resource for additional scientific literature, documenting elevated rates of Endocrine Disruption, Cancer, and other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides. Beyond Pesticides believes that we must mitigate the impacts pesticides and their metabolites pose on human and animal health. Learn more about pesticides, their metabolite, and inert ingredients by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, What Is a Pesticide? 

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is buying, growing, and supporting organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticide metabolites in urine drop greatly when switching to an all-organic diet. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Adopting regenerative-organic practices and using least-toxic pest control can reduce harmful exposure to pesticides. Given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and agro-industry workers alike can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Help Beyond Pesticides educate and build the movement that will bring long-needed protection to humans, animals, and the entire environment by attending the National Pesticide Forum this spring. Cultivating Healthy Communities will bring together expert scientists, farmers, policymakers, and activists to discuss strategies to eliminate harms from toxic chemical use in favor of non-toxic organic solutions. It begins with a pre-conference session on Monday, May 24, and continues every Tuesday beginning May 25, June 1, June 8, and ending June 15, 2021. Registration is open today and available through the webpage on this link. It starts with US.

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

Source: Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, May 5, 2021) As periodical cicadas begin to emerge throughout the central and eastern United States, many may be tempted to put a halt to their noisy mating calls by reaching for a spray bottle of pesticide. But besides violating local noise ordinances, cicadas are relatively harmless and play a critical ecological role. Environmental organizations are urging U.S. residents and communities not to spray cicadas with pesticides, noting that pesticide hazards will last longer than Brood X cicadas.  

Reports indicate that pesticide applicator groups and businesses agree that there is no need to spray for periodical cicadas. “We really want people to understand and know that pesticides are not the answer, which sounds really funny coming from a pest control company,” Frank Meek, a manager at Orkin, told CNET. “Pesticides are not the thing to use on this insect. They don’t work for it, and it’s a waste of product, and it’s a danger to the environment just to spray down because you’re afraid of the cicadas.”

But while environmental groups and frontline applicators are working to educate the public over the futility of spraying, pesticide manufacturers like Ortho are encouraging homeowners to spend their money on highly toxic and unnecessary pesticides. “Ortho Bug B Gone advertises killing cicadas using the active ingredient bifenthrin, known to cause an array of serious health and environmental impacts,” said Bonnie Raindrop, coordinator for the Maryland Smart on Pesticides Coalition. “With over 99% inert ingredients, it can include other pesticides and chemicals that have greater environment and health risks than the main active ingredient, including the forever chemical PFAS, which was recently found in mosquito control products used in Maryland and Massachusetts. [The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]  EPA said any level of PFAS is of toxicological significance.”

While bifenthrin and its class of synthetic pyrethroids pose significant dangers to the environment and human health, and have been linked to developmental problems in young children, there is growing evidence that inert ingredients are causing just as much harm, or more harm than the active ingredients in pesticide products. These toxic pesticide products can remain in the environment for months – longer than Brood X stays above ground this year.  

Periodical cicadas grow up to roughly one inch in size, and have red eyes, a black thorax, and wings with orange veins. Periodical cicadas may have either a 13 or 17 year life cycle. The current Brood X, nicknamed “The Great Eastern Brood,” is the largest 17 year cicada brood, and last emerged in 2004. Cicadas spend most of their lives underground feeding on sap from tree roots. Prior to emergence, nymph cicadas will construct tunnels to prepare to emerge once temperatures have hit 64 degrees Fahrenheit. After emerging, nymphs find a location to molt one last time, shedding their exoskeleton and turning their attention to finding a mate. The loud noises produced by cicadas are solely from males, whose mating calls can reach 100 decibels. Cicadas live short lives, and most will die off by mid-July. After mating, females will seek out young trees to lay their eggs. These eggs will then hatch, and the nymphs will again bury underground to begin the cycle anew.

From the description of the cicada life cycle we can find a multitude of reasons why they should not be blanket sprayed with toxic pesticides:

• Cicadas emerge in very large numbers, and provide an abundant food source for local wildlife (and even humans!). Spraying for cicadas could put your own health at risk, and is likely to harm nontarget species as well as those that feed on contaminated cicadas.
• Cicadas dig small tunnels that help aerate soil and cycle nutrients.
• Although pesticide manufacturers are fearmongering over cicada damage to trees, they provide an important ecological role by pruning weak branches.
• When cicadas die, they release vital nutrients back into the soil, acting as a fertilizer.
• Killing cicadas will simply speed up their death before they can fulfill their biological purpose and die naturally.

Although concerns over how cicadas impact trees are overblown by the chemical industry, those with young or valuable fruit or nut trees may want to consider protecting them prior to the Brood X emergence. But protecting trees doesn’t mean spraying toxic pesticides. Cicada control netting (such as this product) have holes that can exclude cicadas from trees without any other unnecessary hazards.

“In a world where so much of the soundscape is dominated by human activity, it can be humbling to be drowned out by these strange and amazing creatures,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides. “Let’s recognize and respect the splendor of this rare event by not spraying toxic pesticides, and simply letting Brood X be.”

If your neighbors or community plan to spray for cicadas this year, educate them on the folly of that approach, and reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] to let us know. For more information on the hazards pesticides pose to wildlife, our environment, and ourselves, see Beyond Pesticides wildlife program page and the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 4, 2021) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has less than two months to determine whether cancel or modify its registration of the brain-damaging, organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos, following a decision from a federal appeals court last week. The ruling comes after more than a decade of delay from the federal agency tasked with protecting public health and the environment from the hazards of chemicals like chlorpyrifos. The decision now falls to the Biden Administration’s EPA Administrator Michael Regan, after the previous administration reversed a proposal to ban agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos in 2017. Most residential uses of the chemical were banned in 2000.  

“The EPA has had nearly 14 years to publish a legally sufficient response to the 2007 Petition,” reads a 2-1 opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. “During that time, the  EPA’s  egregious  delay  exposed  a  generation  of  American  children  to  unsafe  levels  of  chlorpyrifos.”

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that is currently registered for use on a range of food crops, golf courses, and for public health mosquito control (in cases of mosquito-borne diseases). It is highly acutely toxic, causing numbness, tingling sensation, in-coordination, dizziness, vomiting, sweating, nausea, stomach cramps, headache, vision disturbances, muscle twitching, drowsiness, anxiety, slurred speech, depression, confusion and in extreme cases, respiratory arrest, unconsciousness, convulsions, and death. Chronic low-level exposure to the chemical through food residue and other sources is particularly dangerous for pregnant mothers and their children. In utero exposures to chlorpyrifos can impair a child’s learning ability and increase risk of developmental delays, ADHD, and is associated with IQs that are up to 7 points lower than those with little or no chlorpyrifos exposure.  

EPA has known for decades about the dangers posed by chlorpyrifos use. In 2000, the agency negotiated an agreement with Dow AgroSciences to eliminate all residential uses of the insecticide due to risks to children, permitting use only by certified applicators. However, because the agency allowed other uses to continue, U.S. residents have been chronically exposed to chlorpyrifos residue on food for nearly two decades. In 2007, a lawsuit launched by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) urged EPA to cancel all remaining agricultural uses of the insecticide. It took nearly a decade for a response. The Obama Administration EPA provided one at the end of its term (only after pressure from the courts), but did not finalize the decision, ultimately leaving it to the next Administration to make a determination.  

In 2016, Scott Pruitt became EPA administrator under President Trump, and reversed the order, rejecting the conclusions of the agency’s own scientists and raising serious concerns around conflict of interest with the pesticide’s primary registrant, Dow Chemical. The next several years saw a flurry of activity in the Courts, Congress, and individual states. Lawsuits were launched to challenge EPA’s decision, U.S. Representative Nydia Velásquez (D-NY) introduced The Ban Toxic Pesticides Act, H.R.230, Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) introduced the Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2019, S921,  and the states of Hawaii, California, Maryland, and New York initiated state-level restrictions on chlorpyrifos use. In early 2020, Corteva (DowDuPont) provided notice that it would stop producing chlorpyrifos by the end of the year.

Despite all of these actions, one of the final acts of the Trump Administration EPA was to propose reregistering the insecticide with very few changes to its use patterns. But as the 9^th Circuit Judges note in their ruling that EPA never truly responded to the 2007 petition initiated by health advocates. Its denial of that petition and rejection of the petitioners’ objections were, according to the court, “…just one more attempt at delay…” The court notes that despite EPA studying chlorpyrifos for over a decade, the agency has not been able to conclude that current uses meet statutory requirements that the chemical is not causing harm to public health or the environment. “Yet, rather than ban the pesticide or reduce the tolerances to levels that the EPA can find are reasonably certain to cause no harm, the EPA has sought to evade, through one delaying tactic after another, its plain statutory duties,” the ruling reads.

The court set a hard deadline on the agency, which the judges appeared to indicate was particularly lenient given the circumstances. EPA now has 60 days to either modify the food tolerances (allowed levels of the chemical on food) of chlorpyrifos and publish a finding that the new tolerances are safe for infants and children, or revoke all tolerances. The agency must also determine whether to modify or cancel registration of the chemical for food use under federal pesticide law.

Chlorpyrifos is a poster child for the problems with federal pesticide regulation. Despite overwhelming data, including evidence that the original research EPA relied upon the register the chemical was flawed, the material has been permitted to remain in regulatory limbo. The weakness of federal statutes allowed the Obama EPA to delay and kick the can to the next administration. And an industry-friendly EPA was able to keep the product on the market decades after data supporting the elimination of its use had been established.

Moreover, chlorpyrifos is just one of numerous organophosphate class chemicals remaining on the market. These WW2-era nerve agents – relics of the past, and according to advocates, have no place in 21^st century agriculture and should have already been eliminated from use. But Beyond even the organophosphates lie a number of insecticides that the chemical-intensive farming will utilize other toxic substitutes. This toxic treadmill, with the increased use of bee-toxic neonicotinoid and highly hazardous synthetic pyrethroids, becomes a Faustian bargain for farmers who rely on toxic chemicals that are harmful to health and the environment.

For these reasons it is critical that the elimination of any one particular chemical be seen as an indictment of chemical farming as a whole. It is not acceptable to constantly weigh the evils of one hazardous chemical or another when other systems that do not rely on these products exist. Organic farming eliminates highly toxic synthetic pesticides in favor of practices that enhance biodiversity and soil health. Like the move away from fossil fuel dependent energy and toward renewable systems, organic practices will be the future of farming in the 21^st century.

Get prepared for our organic future by learning more about the benefits of organic agriculture. Attend Beyond Pesticides first ever Virtual National Pesticide Forum, starting May 24 and 25, and running each Tuesday until June 15. You’ll hear from those on the cutting edge of organic practices, such as Jeff Moyer, CEO at Rodale Institute, which showed through a 30 year trial the multitude of benefits organic systems provide for the economy, health, and the environment.

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

Source: Associated Press, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco

(Beyond Pesticides, May 3, 2021) Hazardous disinfectants are not necessary for protection against COVID-19, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is agreeing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seems to now agree, but has not changed it recommendations and listing for the public. Since last March, EPA has recommended disinfectants on List N for protecting against exposure to surfaces that would spread the virus causing COVID-19. Beyond Pesticides has evaluated the disinfectants, categorizing them as materials to seek out or to avoid. More recently, we evaluated the available evidence and recommended that schools and other institutions concentrate on providing adequate ventilation and protection from airborne virus.

Tell EPA to remove risky disinfectants from its recommended list.

EPA’s List N contains products containing toxic chemicals such as chlorine bleach, peroxyacetic acid, alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides, didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, and other “quats,” sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione, and hydrochloric acid. In addition to their outright toxicity, some of these can also trigger asthma attacks. Now, EPA has recognized this evidence and offered revised recommendations, stressing the need to avoid airborne transmission and stating in an infographic that the risk of contracting disease by touching contaminated surfaces is low and that disinfectants can trigger an asthma attack. However, List N remains as a resource for avoiding COVID-19. This confusion and misrepresentation of safety must stop.

As stated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on April 5,

People can be infected with SARS-CoV-2 through contact with surfaces. However, based on available epidemiological data and studies of environmental transmission factors, surface transmission is not the main route by which SARS-CoV-2 spreads, and the risk is considered to be low. The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 is through exposure to respiratory droplets carrying infectious virus. In most situations, cleaning surfaces using soap or detergent, and not disinfecting, is enough to reduce risk. Disinfection is recommended in indoor community settings where there has been a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 within the last 24 hours. The risk of fomite transmission can be reduced by wearing masks consistently and correctly, practicing hand hygiene, cleaning, and taking other measures to maintain healthy facilities.

Tell EPA to remove risky disinfectants from its recommended list.

Letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan

I am writing to ask you to revise your advice on disinfectants based on the revised assessment by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the risk of COVID-19 from surface contamination (fomites) compared to respiratory exposure. I applaud EPA’s new infographic, which de-emphasizes the use of disinfectants, identifying hazards of disinfectants and the efficacy of cleaning with soap and water.

However, List N, which lists 529 products, many of which present respiratory hazards without distinguishing them from less hazardous products, is still the list to which websites and agencies refer. In view of the statements in the infographic—”In most situations, cleaning is enough to reduce risk,” and “Disinfectants can trigger an asthma attack”—EPA must evaluate substances on List N and remove the hazardous products or identify their hazards for those who consult the list.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2021) A bioinformatics tool developed by researchers from the University of Turku in Finland indicates that “54% of species in the core human gut microbiome are sensitive to glyphosate.” This tool may help predict which microbes in the human gut could be negatively affected by exposure to the ubiquitous herbicide. Because damage to the gut biome is linked to a variety of diseases, this information could prove critical in recognition of the role(s) glyphosate may play in the development of human diseases. Published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, the researchers’ paper states, “The widespread use of glyphosate may have a strong effect on gut microbiomes as well as on human health.” Beyond Pesticides has long reported on the relationship between glyphosate and human health, including potential effects on the human gut microbiome.

Used in multiple herbicide formulations, glyphosate has become widely known as the active ingredient in Bayer/Monsanto’s Roundup®, the most-used herbicide worldwide. The pervasiveness of glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) use in agriculture, and of Roundup in particular, is due largely to their pairing with genetically engineered (GE) seeds for soy, canola, and corn crops. In many regions, these GE seeds — engineered to resist the glyphosate that is then applied to the crop — dominate.

Farmers have been persuaded by industry that their crop plants will be protected from applications of the herbicide, and that competing weeds will be taken down; for a couple of decades, this more-or-less worked. But more recently, and inevitably, as so much of the agricultural landscape has been drenched in GBHs, weeds are rapidly developing resistance to glyphosate. This has not dampened industry’s enthusiasm for these products; rather, companies are doubling down on chemical solutions.

Very recently, in covering a Tufts University scientific literature analysis, Beyond Pesticides wrote: “Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate use has put animal, human, and environmental health at risk. . . . The chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93% of all U.S. endangered species, with specific alterations [in] microbial gut composition.” In June 2020, we wrote: “Gut microbiota plays a crucial role in lifelong digesti[ve], immune, and central nervous system regulation, as well as other bodily functions. . . . With prolonged exposure to various environmental contaminants [such as glyphosate or other pesticides], critical . . . changes may occur in the gut microbes, influencing adverse health outcomes.”

Glyphosate’s mode of action — the subject of this research — is this: it targets and inactivates an important enzyme in what is called the “shikimate [metabolic] pathway” in plants. That enzyme is EPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase), which synthesizes three amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan, essential to building proteins. This pathway is not found in animal cells, and so, does not exist as a direct vulnerability to glyphosate in human cells — thus, claims that glyphosate has no health impacts on humans.

There is ample evidence that this industry claim is false, not least among which are:

• the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) 2015 finding that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen
• numerous lawsuits against GBH manufacturers for individuals whose exposures led to cancer diagnoses, particularly of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, with some great successes to date
• research that implicates glyphosate in distorting DNA function and links exposures to several chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease)

Impacts of glyphosate on the human gut microbiome represent another pesticide assault on human health. Because the biome harbors between 10 and 100 trillion symbiotic microbes, glyphosate ingestion (via residues on consumed food, primarily) may well have effects on some of those bacteria, according to the subject study. The human gastrointestinal tract and its digestive processes (aka, the “gut”) mediate the function of several systems. Dysfunction of the gut microbiome is associated with a host of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, some cancers, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, asthma, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as allergies, autism, depression, obesity, and other disorders or syndromes.

Figuring out what the effects of glyphosate may be is not easy; understanding which microbes in the gut may be vulnerable to glyphosate is a first step that these Finnish researchers have tackled. Their new tool may yield additional evidence that the notion that glyphosate is “safe for humans” is bunk.

The researchers write, “Glyphosate is proclaimed safe for humans and other nontarget organisms because the shikimate metabolic pathway, inactivated by glyphosate, is not present in vertebrates. However, until recently, the presence of the shikimate pathway and diversity of EPSPS in many microbes have largely been ignored. As microbes are ubiquitous, associated with virtually all higher organisms, and essential in maintaining fundamental organismal functions, predicting the consequences of glyphosate use via its potential effects on the microbiome is challenging. The first step toward a more comprehensive understanding of how glyphosate affects higher organisms and biotic interactions involving microbes is to survey microbe susceptibilities to glyphosate.”

The researchers’ bioinformatic method categorizes EPSPS enzymes into four classes, each of which has a different sensitivity to glyphosate, with one of the four classes being particularly vulnerable. The scientists believe that this classification of organisms (by type of EPSPS enzyme) will help evaluate which species are sensitive, or resistant, to glyphosate. The team has already assembled a data set of EPSPS enzymes from thousands of species, including 890 from bacterial species in the human gut microbiome; this is expected to be very helpful in future assessments.

Among the bacteria in the more “vulnerable” categories are: Bacteroides vulgatus, Bifidobacterium adolescentis, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus buchneri, Escherichia [E.] coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Bacteroides fragilis, and Bifidobacterium longum. Researchers expected E. faecalis, L. buchneri, and S. aureus to be resistant to glyphosate’s MO (modus operandi), but found, instead, that they were quite sensitive to it. They theorize that factors other than the EPSPS sensitivity to glyphosate may be at work, potentially including a role for surfactants or other adjuvant or non-active ingredients in GBHs. Beyond Pesticides has written about the unsavory per se and synergistic impacts of so-called “inert” ingredients in glyphosate formulations.

In addition, the co-authors suggest that glyphosate may impact other metabolic pathways (beyond the Shikimate), positing that the mitochondria electron transport chain appears sensitive to the compound. They write, “Even in glyphosate-resistant species, the interference of the herbicide on mitochondrial metabolism may induce oxidative stress and lead to toxic effects.”

Beyond direct effects of glyphosate on the Shikimate pathway in some bacteria, the researchers hypothesize that chronic exposures to the herbicide could lead to the dominance of resistant strains in bacterial communities. They also suggest that some glyphosate-vulnerable bacterial strains could become resistant to glyphosate through “accumulation of mutations in the EPSPS domain or acquisition of a resistance gene via horizontal gene transfer.” Any of these, if found to be valid, could have huge implications for human gut health.

Glyphosate has been the subject of massive controversy, about its safety for humans, non-human organisms, and ecosystems — not to mention the hegemony of Bayer/Monsanto in its control of extraordinarily high percentages of the seed market for corn, soy, and cotton. (As of 2018, more than 90% of these crops in the U.S. were planted with the company’s GE seeds). All those seeds require use of Roundup, of course. Science and environmental advocates have noted the multiple risks the use of glyphosate represents, while industry and big agriculture sometimes minimize or deny those impacts, and even dismiss or distort the science. Those interested might check out Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption on glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36^th National Pesticide Forum.

Beyond Pesticides has reported on EPA’s (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s) ongoing failures to protect people and the environment from GBH compounds. One obvious bit of evidence is that the presence of glyphosate in human bodies has risen dramatically during the past three decades. Research out of the University of California San Diego found that, between two data collection periods (1993–1996 and 2014–2016), the percentage of people testing positive for the presence of glyphosate (or its degradates) in their urine rose by 500%, and levels of the compound spiked by 1,208%. With increasing use of GBHs during the past decade, that penetration in human bodies has likely continued to rise. In its Gateway on Pesticide Hazards database, Beyond Pesticides lists glyphosate as having endocrine, reproductive, neurotoxic, hepatic, renal, developmental, and carcinogenic effects on human health.

Beyond Pesticides strongly advocates for a comprehensive policy approach that eliminates not only glyphosate, but all hazardous pesticides registered by EPA, with allowances for limited use of organic-compatible products as a last resort. We also urge communities to work with municipalities, counties, school districts, and other entities to ban the use of glyphosate-based herbicides and all toxic pesticides, and robustly promote the critical transition to organic agriculture and land/turf management. (See this recent win in New York City.)

Beyond Pesticides provides tools, information, and support to take local action: check out our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup and our report, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed. Contact us for help with local efforts, and stay abreast of developments through our Daily News Blog and our journal, Pesticides and You.  

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420325462?via%3Dihub

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 29, 2021) Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are incompatible with sustainable agriculture goals, according to a recent scientific literature analysis by scientists at Tufts University, Massachusetts. Glyphosate is the most commonly used pesticide active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, including Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup^TM. The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate. However, studies demonstrate glyphosate is the main contributor to human, biotic, and ecosystem harms as toxicities from herbicides are now double what it was in 2004. 

The National Academy of Sciences identifies four goals of sustainable agriculture—productivity, economics, environment, and social well-being for future generations. However, pesticides like glyphosate are ubiquitous in the environment, putting the health, economy, and food/resources for future generations at risk. Therefore, research like this is vital for understanding how chemical use can undermine sustainable agriculture goals to protect humans, animals, and environmental health. Researchers note, “[W]hether or not GBHs are viewed as essential or unessential to contemporary agriculture, and notwithstanding their role in non-tillage agriculture, this study shows that glyphosate-based herbicides do not reach the bar of agricultural sustainability, with respect to humans and the environment, making the system they are part of unsustainable.”

Researchers thoroughly examined ~3,000 scholarly sources to analyze whether GBHs meet sustainable agriculture goal standards. Scientists noted any impacts GBHs applications have on human health, non-tillage agriculture, soil quality, aquatic ecosystems, and beneficial/non-target species. Researchers used various viewpoints on agricultural sustainability as a guide for sustainability standards:

• “Promoting agroecology [ecological processes in agriculture systems].
• Protecting the resource base of natural systems for future generations, including and especially the soil.
• Protecting biodiversity.
• Enhancing the quality of life and health of farmers, farmworkers, and society as a whole.”

This paper finds that GBHs do not contribute positively to sustainability, violating enough criteria to make conventional agricultural systems using GBHs unsustainable. Studies regarding “glyphosate toxicology” have been increasing since 2005. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), glyphosate is a “possible human carcinogen,” therefore, GBH use decreases the quality and health of farmworkers and society. Although studies demonstrate the starkest example of GBH toxicity among animals, indicating a risk to humans, many in vitro studies provide evidence that GBHs are toxic to human cells. Further, the review finds ingredients in Roundup^TM are just as toxic as glyphosate itself, causing DNA damage at low concentrations. Thus, various formulas of GBHs can have devastating effects on human health. 

This paper demonstrates that the combined use of GBHs and glyphosate-tolerant, genetically modified/genetically engineered (GM/GE) crops contributes to an increase in glyphosate-resistance weeds. The presence of these weeds increases soil tilling to rid of the invasive plants, making GBHs unsustainable. Furthermore, glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA are commonly detectable in agricultural soils. These compounds can disrupt microbial communities responsible for standard soil function, increasing pathogen spread while decreasing plant growth and productivity. Beneficial/non-target organisms suffer the consequences of GBH exposure, too. Aquatic organisms like fish, crustaceans, and amphibians experience oxidative stress, birth deformities, and behavioral changes. GBHs disturb the cognitive abilities and gut health of bee pollinators and completely decimate milkweed habitats Monarch butterflies solely rely on for reproduction, thus impacting populations. 

The first introduction to sustainable agriculture was from the United Nations’ 1987 report Our Common Future (the Brundtland Report). The report outlines protecting Earth’s natural resources for future generations, equal income allocation from food production, and supporting small-scale farming. The report emphasizes the challenges of sustainable agriculture, highlighting, “[it] is to raise not just average productivity and incomes [from resources], but also the productivity and incomes of those poor in resources… Land use in agriculture and forestry must [use] scientific assessment of land capacity, and the annual depletion of topsoil, fish stock, or forest resources must not exceed the rate of regeneration.” However, a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report establishes that pesticide use does not adhere to sustainable agriculture goals. It fails to minimize the adverse effects of chemicals and waste as increased use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers—driven by rising demand for food, fiber, fuel, and feedstock crops—puts public and environmental health at risk.  

Clean air, water, and healthy soils are integral to ecosystem function, interacting between Earth’s four main spheres (i.e., hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere) to support life. However, toxic pesticide residues readily contaminate these spheres, frequently existing in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set standards. Scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of adverse effects on the environment, including wildlife, biodiversity, and human health effects. Pesticides can present acute and long-term health impacts worldwide, especially to farmers, 44 percent of whom experience pesticide poisoning every year. Moreover, a 2020 study finds ~385 million cases of non-fatal unintentional pesticide poisonings and 11,000 deaths annually. Pesticide exposure can produce a plethora of adverse health effects, including cancers and neurological, immunological, and reproductive effects, among other health impacts. Most notably, pesticides are immensely harmful to pollinators. Over the last decade and a half, increasing scientific evidence shows a clear connection between the role of pesticides in the decline of honey bees and wild pollinators (i.e., wild bees, butterflies, beetles, birds, bats, etc.) alike. The agricultural industry relies on insect pollinators to aid in plant pollination and sustain annual crop yield. Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. Hence, pesticide use fails to support sustainability goals, decreasing agricultural and economic productivity and social (human/animal) and environmental well-being.

Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate use has put animals, human, and environmental health at risk, thus fails to meet sustainability goals this paper addresses. The chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, with specific alterations on microbial gut composition and trophic cascades. Although the direct impact pesticides have on pollinators is concerning, the indirect impacts pesticides have on pollinator habitats are equally troublesome. Glyphosate use on mono-crop agriculture and genetically engineered crops can drift onto and destroy adjacent habitats. Habitat destruction results in loss of species biodiversity and stable ecosystem processes that are integral to sustainability. The review indicates extensive glyphosate has impacts on soil quality and function, as well as weed resistance. Researchers note the use of tilling to reduce glyphosate-resistance weed persistence in fields. However, over-tilling can result in soil erosion, which a 2020 study finds is an issue among glyphosate use. Continuous pesticide use leaves the dirt bare and more susceptible to decay from lack of organic material, altering the storage compartments of soil sediments from pesticide sinks to sources. Thus, chemical use stimulates soil erosion, responsible for the soil-based emergence of toxic legacy chemicals. Even farmers employing regenerative agriculture practices like cover crops and no-till to reduce runoff into water end up using over 50 percent more pounds of GBHs to rid cover crops between 2009 and 2016.

Similar to this paper, past studies find a strong association between glyphosate exposure and the development of numerous health anomalies, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and autism. Although EPA classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” stark evidence demonstrates links to various cancers. Thus, EPA’s classification perpetuates environmental injustice among farmers, especially in marginalized communities. According to the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting, a lawsuit—filed by the National Black Farmers Association against Bayer/Monsanto—argues that Black farmers are, essentially, forced to use Roundup (glyphosate). Therefore, these farmers incur the risks of developing non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or other cancers (or health impacts) because of pesticide demands and the industry’s “grip” on U.S. agriculture. The lawsuit maintains that the chemical company knowingly failed, and continues to fail, to warn farmers adequately about the dangers of the pesticide.

Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. Bayer/Monsanto patents glyphosate as an antibiotic since exposure hinders enzymatic pathways in many bacteria and parasites, serving as an antimicrobial. However, glyphosate kills bacterial species beneficial to humans and incorporated in probiotics yet allows harmful bacteria to persist, leading to resistance. Similarly, glyphosate-exposed soils contain a greater abundance of genes associated with antibiotic resistance, as well as a higher number of inter-species transferable genetic material. Therefore, the use of antibiotics like glyphosate allows residues of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria on agricultural lands to move through the environment, contaminate waterways, and ultimately reach consumers in food. Antibiotic resistance can trigger longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, the need for more expensive or hazardous medications, and the inability to treat life-threatening illnesses. Resistance to pesticides is also growing at similar rates among GE and non-GE conventionally grown crops. This increase in resistance is evident among herbicide-tolerant GE crops, including seeds genetically engineered to be glyphosate-tolerant. Although one purpose of GE crops is to reduce pesticide use, an increase in resistance can result in additional pesticide use to compensate. 

Although this study reviews GBHs and sustainability, the authors suggest that all herbicide-based agriculture, regardless of herbicide, is inconsistent with sustainability goals. If one competent of an agricultural system is unsustainable, then the entire system is unsustainable. Therefore, agricultural systems must commit to regenerative organic agriculture and land management to meet future sustainability goals and alleviate the effect these chemicals have on humans and wildlife. Organic agriculture is necessary to eliminate toxic chemical use and ensure the long-term sustainability of food production, the environment, and the economy. Organically managed systems support biodiversity, improve soil health, sequester carbon (which helps mitigate the climate crisis), and safeguard surface- and groundwater quality. There are claims that organic agriculture cannot sustain global crop production. However, scientific studies argue organic yields are comparable to conventional and require significantly lower inputs. Additionally, glyphosate levels in the human body reduce by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet. Therefore, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and resulting adverse health effects. Learn more about how consuming organic products can reduce pesticide exposure and the harmful health and environmental impacts of chemical-intensive farming produces.

For more information about organic food production, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keep Organic Strong webpage.

To learn more about how organic the right choice for both consumers and farmers, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Help Beyond Pesticides educate and build the movement that will bring long-needed protection to humans, animals, and the entire environment by attending the National Pesticide Forum this spring. Cultivating Healthy Communities will bring together expert scientists, farmers, policymakers, and activists to discuss strategies to eliminate harms from toxic chemical use in favor of non-toxic organic solutions. It begins with a pre-conference session on Monday, May 24, and continues every Tuesday beginning May 25, June 1, June 8, and ending June 15, 2021. Registration is open today and available through the webpage on this link. It starts with US.

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

Source: GMWatch, Tufts University

(Beyond Pesticides, April 28, 2021) New evidence set to be presented at the Experimental Biology (EB) 2021 meeting held this week suggests that Gulf War Veterans and other individuals with prior pesticide exposures may be more susceptible to Covid-19 infection. As the pandemic continues, it is critically important for researchers to better understand specific vulnerabilities in population groups in order to improve care and patient outcomes. “The reason why COVID-19 causes a severe form of disease leading to hospitalization and high rates of mortality in a small segment of society is unclear,” said Prakash Nagarkatti, PhD, co-author of the study and vice president for research at the University of South Carolina. “This work sheds new light on exposure to pesticides and potential susceptibility to COVID-19 through altered immune response.”  

According to recent data, out of 160,000 Covid-19 cases among veterans, the mortality rate was more than 4%. Researchers are pointing to Gulf War Syndrome, and past exposure to organophosphate pesticides as part of the problem. “We have identified a basic mechanism linked with inflammation that could increase susceptibility to COVID-19 infection among people exposed to organophosphates,” said Saurabh Chatterjee, PhD, from the University of South Carolina.

Interleukin 6 (IL-6) is a protein that has both pro and anti inflammatory properties in the body. Individuals produce these proteins to fight off infections, or to heal injuries to soft tissues. Past research had determined that Gulf War veterans had higher levels of IL-6 than the general population. This can occur under continuously stressful conditions like toxic pesticide exposure, and ongoing production of this protein in one’s body can cause chronic inflammation and lower immune system response.

To determine how IL-6 and pesticide exposure affect coronavirus infection, researchers exposed  epithelial cells in a human lung to IL-6 and the insecticide chlorpyrifos for a period of six hours. A control was established that received no exposures. All groups then had the coronavirus “spike protein” – a protein that protrudes on the outside of the virus and helps it infect cells – applied to certain areas of the epithelial cells (known as the apical and basolateral surfaces, roughly translated to the interior tip and the side of the cells, respectively).

The changes researchers observed dealt with the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, an enzyme in the body that can lower blood pressure, but also serves as the entryway for coronavirus to infect cells. Cells exposed to IL-6 and chlorpyrifos had much higher ACE2 expression, indicating a higher risk of infection. Additionally, cells exposed to these materials also recorded higher rates of apoptosis, or cell death. “To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating that the ACE2 receptor translates from the basolateral cell membrane to the apical cell upon co-exposure to organophosphate and IL-6,” said Dr. Chatterjee.

While the study models exposure induced by pesticide-related stressors, researchers note that the implications may be much farther reaching. “This mechanism could also increase risk for people with metabolic diseases and cancer because they tend to exhibit the same type of inflammation,” said Dr. Chatterjee.  “Since people with obesity, type 2 diabetes or cancer also have high circulatory IL-6 levels, we think people with these conditions will also have increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection because of increased translocation of ACE2 receptor to the apical cell surface.”

This is not the first study to find greater risk of coronavirus infection from past pesticide exposure. A study published in February this year also found that organophosphates increase vulnerability to COVID-19. That research focused on how pesticide exposure can depress immune system functioning. “To curb SARS-CoV-2 infection, a healthy immune system is obligatory despite potent vaccine to alleviate morbidities in patients. But unintentional exposure to OP compounds from several sources can rupture the antiviral defense against SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, respiratory ailments may also be fueled by OP compounds. Hence, SARS-CoV-2 mediated morbidities and fatalities could be backed by unintentional exposure to OPs in patients,” the study authors wrote.

A study published in October of last year also found a mechanism whereby the common fungicide fludioxonil decreases the body’s ability to produce an important antioxidant by harming an enzyme common to all cells.  

Although the stressors and injuries suffered by Gulf War Veterans are in the past, insecticides like chlorpyrifos are ever-present in our conventional food supply. Despite overwhelming data on the dangers of chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates, regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continue to permit their use. The Biden administration is reviewing the chemical, but even if eliminated, a range of other hazardous organophosphates remain on the market and in our food supply.

Maintain your health by avoiding chemically farmed foods that contain toxic pesticides and are grown with synthetic fertilizers. Organic farming provides a method to grow healthy food free of hazardous synthetic residues that can elevate our risk of disease. To learn more about the benefits of a safer, healthier, organic food system, sign up today for Beyond Pesticides first ever virtual National Pesticide Forum.

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

Source: Experimental Biology 2021 conference press release