(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2022) With a history of unenforceable and impractical pesticide label restrictions resulting in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings of ludicrously small or no risk, the agency is at it again with its latest announcement that allows the continued use of the deadly organophosphate insecticide malathion. This just the latest example of what advocates see as an irresponsible federal agency falling far short, as the nation and world sit on the brink of biodiversity collapse and deadly pesticide-induced diseases.  

In a head-spinning development, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced on March 8 its final Biological Opinion (BiOp) on malathion, which opinion claims that the commonly used insecticide poses no extinction risk to any protected animal or plant. The FWS review and BiOp are part of EPA’s evaluation of whether malathion — an organophosphate insecticide that causes serious damage to many organisms — should retain its registration. The Executive Summary of the BiOp concludes: “Our findings suggest that no proposed species or candidate species would experience species-level effects from the action [i.e., registration and thus, permitted use of malathion], and, therefore, are not likely to be jeopardized. We also conclude the proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify any proposed critical habitats.” Advocates view this BiOp as a terrible setback for biodiversity and wildlife, including pollinators, aquatic organisms, and birds, and for fragile ecosystems.

More than a million pounds of malathion are used annually in the U.S. on cotton, corn, and other crops; as of 2018, another two million pounds was also in use for home gardens, miscellaneous purposes, and mosquito control. Pest management entities, whether private companies, states, or localities, deploy malathion for adulticiding of mosquitos — a notoriously ineffective strategy that uses spray trucks in the hope of “knocking down” mosquitoes that happen to be in the immediate area at a given moment.

Malathion spray, whether for mosquitoes or on crops, can travel and impact a wide area, exposing nontarget organisms and humans alike. In humans, malathion exposure is linked with reproductive, endocrine, neurological, hepatic, renal, and developmental harms. Its terrible impacts on wildlife are well-documented. Further, as Beyond Pesticides covered in February 2022, widespread, intensive pesticide use for mosquito control has catalyzed development of resistance to those same pesticides in some mosquito populations — an inevitable outcome of chemical treatment of pests. A shift to alternative strategies is overdue.

The history of EPA and malathion is fraught. In 2017, after an EPA finding that use of organophosphate insecticides has negative impacts on more than 1,000 endangered and threatened species — and that malathion, specifically, threatens 1,284 species — Dow Chemical pressured the Trump administration to ignore the studies that underlay that finding. Later that year, the administration sought a two-year delay in EPA’s review of malathion. In 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) discovered documents that showed that the Trump administration had this information on the harms to species in 2017 and suppressed it. Indeed, top officials at the Department of the Interior, including Acting Secretary David Bernhardt, knew of and stopped the release of a FWS BiOp that showed the extent of the dangers of this class of pesticides.

According to the Associated Press, “[FWS] officials now say malathion could cause limited harm to hundreds of species, but is unlikely to jeopardize any of them with extinction as long as labels that dictate its use are changed,” but advocates insist that proposed changes to labels would do little to protect species that in some cases have dwindled to very few individuals.” In addition, this “no extinction” claim, even if borne out, would depend utterly on the voluntary compliance of farmers, pesticide applicators, and consumers to use the insecticide exactly according to label instructions — which will not even be developed for another 18 months. This BiOp represents an unacceptable gamble with endangered ecosystems and organisms.

The FWS opinion contradicts the agency’s 2021 BiOp (no longer available on the EPA website), which asserted that, due to registration and use of the insecticide, “78 listed species could be jeopardized, and 23 critical habitats could be adversely modified by the use of malathion.” This final, 2022 BiOp also contradicts the agency’s 2017 conclusion “that 1,284 species would likely be jeopardized by malathion.” According to the Center for Biological Diversity, both that 2021 assertion and this final BiOp used “debunked Trump-era methodology promoted by the pesticide industry” as the bases for the opinion.

Only a week prior to the March 8 release of the final BiOp, FWS’s co-equal agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), issued an updated draft BiOp, which concluded in part: “For malathion, we present draft conclusions that EPA’s action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 37 species, and likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for 36 species.” It also asserted that malathion (and two notorious cousin organophosphate pesticides) threaten nearly every endangered salmon, sturgeon, and steelhead species in the U.S.

CBD notes that this NMFS BiOp “debunks the Trump methodology that based harm analyses on historic use data known to be incomplete and unreliable. . . . Yet the Fish and Wildlife Service continued to heavily rely on the same historic use data in its analyses to reach conclusions that the pesticide would not harm endangered species.” CBD also writes, “The widely disparate findings by the two agencies were highlighted in harm assessments for bull trout and salmon, biologically similar species that share habitat in the Pacific Northwest. [FWS says] that malathion won’t harm bull trout in Pacific Northwest streams; meanwhile [NMFS] has concluded that the use of the very same chemical in the very same streams is pushing every Pacific salmon to extinction.” CBD’s environmental health director, Lori Ann Burd, commented: “One’s based on sound science, and one’s based on industry-driven politics. [NMFS] is bravely taking a stand to prevent extinctions while [FWS] is continuing to cower to an anti-science, anti-endangered species agenda.”

EPA struck a cheerier note in its press release on the BiOp with the headline, “EPA Takes Steps to Protect Endangered and Threatened Species from Insecticide.” And FWS’s assistant director for ecological services, Gary Frazer, frames the BiOp differently, saying that despite the 2021 BiOp, FWS “worked with EPA, the malathion registrants and USDA to develop general and species-specific conservation measures that significantly reduce many of the effects of malathion use on listed species and their critical habitats.”

FWS insists that implementation of new conservation measures — changes in the text on the pesticide’s label, reductions in the maximum number of allowable applications per year, establishment of buffers from aquatic habitats, and restrictions from application when rain is forecast or when certain crops are in bloom — will eliminate “the problems identified earlier.” EPA has said it will provide online details for protocols that users of malathion should follow, such as no spray zones in areas of critical wildlife habitat. But many of these have been designated as voluntary “guidelines,” rather than compulsory rules.

CBD has decried this final BiOp; Beyond Pesticides joins in this response to EPA’s shocking avoidance of the scientific evidence on malathion. CBD’s Brett Hartl commented, “This is an enormous punt. There’s not a single endangered species that will see anything change on the ground because of this biological opinion for at least 18 months, but probably never.”

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

To learn more about impacts of malathion and other pesticides on biodiverse and functional organisms, wildlife, and ecosystems, see the work of the Center for Biological Diversity, and Beyond Pesticides’ coverage: Mosquito Control and Pollinator Health, The Truth About Mosquitoes, The Health Effects of Pesticides Used for Mosquito Control, Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through the Ecosystem, and its Daily News Blog archives on malathion.

Sources: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-refuses-to-protect-any-endangered-species-from-neurotoxic-pesticide-2022-03-08/ and https://apnews.com/article/science-business-animals-wildlife-billings-e3443e0a0ff76211d1e1bb0275f9385b

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2022) Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) like Roundup® induce DNA damage and alter biological mechanisms (gene regulatory microRNAs [miRNAs or miRs]) associated with cancer development. According to the study published in Toxicological Sciences, DNA damage mainly occurs through oxidative stress from GBH exposure. Moreover, DNA damage and other biological mechanisms that cause carcinogenicity (cancer) occur at doses assumed “safe” by pesticide regulators such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, not just Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup®. The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate over two decades ago. The toxic herbicide readily contaminates the ecosystem with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, literature proves time and time again that glyphosate has an association with cancer development, as well as human, biotic, and ecosystem harm. 

Study lead author Michael Antoniou, Ph.D., cautions, “Our results are the first to simultaneously show glyphosate and Roundup toxicity in a whole mammalian animal model system and provide a mechanism – oxidative stress – by which DNA damage has been observed in other systems, such as mammalian tissue culture cells. These findings show that glyphosate and Roundup score positive in various tests of carcinogenicity – transcriptome/epigenome/miRNA changes, oxidative stress, protein misfolding, and DNA damage – in a living animal (rat) that is accepted as a surrogate for human health effects. In my view, this strengthens the argument that exposure to Roundup herbicides can lead to the type of cancer suffered by the plaintiffs in many of the court cases – non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

This study represents a follow-up that builds on the finding of a previous one by the same authors. The previous study compared the effects of MON 5227 (an active ingredient in Roundup) and glyphosate alone in rats and found both ingredients to cause gut microbiome disruption and oxidative stress related to possible liver damage. Thus, the present study intends to determine damages in the liver by analyzing tissue samples. Following standard regulatory testing for pesticide approval, researchers investigated biochemical changes in the blood of the kidneys and liver after exposure to glyphosate and four active ingredients in Roundup formulas: MON 52276 (European Union), MON 76473 (United Kingdom), and MON 76207 (United States). Additionally, researchers performed tests not carried out by standard testing, including observation on molecular changes in the biological function of gene expression and epigenetics (e.g., DNA methylation that changes the activity but not the sequence of a DNA segment) in the kidneys and liver. To highlight changes in biological function linked to cancer, researchers used genetically engineered (GE) cell lines and tested them for direct DNA damage.

The results confirm that liver damage occurs from exposure to glyphosate and Roundup, leading to alterations of gene expression and miRNA (small RNA) in the liver. Specifically, glyphosate and MON 52276 alter nine gene expressions in the liver and kidneys responsible for oxidative stress and DNA damage, prompting cancer development. Researchers suggest changes in miRNA can disrupt the regular function of cell growth regulator genes, like p53, resulting in cancer. The changes in gene expression of p53 strongly indicate a possible pathway for DNA damage and thus a major cancer development risk factor. Furthermore, various research, including this one, demonstrates increases in small RNA, like miR-10 from GBH exposure, have an association with blood cancer development, particularly leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Dr. Antoniou notes, “The new data showing changes in miRNA patterns add yet more evidence to the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate and Roundup. What is more, our results show that it is not just Roundup, which is a mixture of glyphosate with various additives, that has carcinogenic potential, but also glyphosate alone.”

Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate-based herbicide use has put human, animal, and environmental health at risk. The chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion, loss of services). Exposure to GBHs has implications for specific alterations in microbial gut composition and trophic cascades. Similar to this paper, past studies find a strong association between glyphosate exposure and the development of various 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, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Thus, EPA’s classification perpetuates environmental injustice among individuals disproportionately exposed to chemicals like farmworkers, especially in marginalized communities.  Chemical companies knowingly failed and continue to fail to warn farmers adequately about the dangers of the pesticide, and that the manufacturer’s (Bayer/Monsanto) chemical review conclusions are supported by accurate science.

The territory for research on pesticides’ potential carcinogenicity, and other impacts on human health, is almost ridiculously complicated. Yet there is some convergence across research that exposure to certain pesticides increases the risk of developing some cancers. The association that has been in the blinding spotlight for the past few years is between exposures to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides and the risk of developing cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). Beyond Pesticides has covered the mounting evidence of the dangers of glyphosate, including a meta-study that suggests a compelling link between exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides and increased risk of NHL.

In addition, it has written extensively on developments in the science and regulatory arena, including:

• the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2015 landmark designation of glyphosate as potentially carcinogenic
• evidence that the Environmental Protection Agency colluded with Monsanto (maker of Roundup, the most widely used glyphosate-based herbicide) to advantage industry and that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that countered scientific conclusions on the cancer associations of the compound
• And California’s 2017 listing of glyphosate under Proposition 65 as a probable carcinogen and a 2018 Appellate Court affirmation of its ability to do so.

Glyphosate has been the subject of a great deal of public advocacy and regulatory attention, as well as the target of thousands of lawsuits. Beyond Pesticides has covered the glyphosate tragedy extensively; see its litigation archives for multiple articles on glyphosate lawsuits. In June 2020, facing approximately 125,000 suits for Roundup’s role in cancer outcomes, Bayer announced a $10 billion settlement to resolve roughly 75% of current and potential future litigation. However, roughly 30,000 complainants ultimately did not sign on to the settlement, so the queue of potential lawsuits is still potentially enormous. Although Bayer tried for a second settlement (~ $2 billion) to handle future claims, a U.S. District Court judge for the Northern District of California rejected Bayer’s 2021 settlement proposal. The judge stated that the settlement was inadequate for future victims diagnosed with cancer after using the herbicide. Bayer has never acknowledged any harm caused by glyphosate, maintaining the chemical is safe for use. However, in July 2021, Bayer announced its plan to end sales of its glyphosate-based herbicides (including its flagship product, Roundup) in the domestic U.S. residential lawn and garden market in 2023.

For the first time, this study demonstrates epigenetic changes in DNA, proteins, and small RNA profiles in the liver of organisms exposed to glyphosate and Roundup formula MON 52276. Researchers observed activation of DNA repair mechanisms in response to DNA damage from glyphosate. Moreover, oxidative stress and the unfolding of proteins occurred at lower concentrations of Roundup, in which the same concentration of glyphosate produced no effect. The researchers recommend regulators rely on methods to detect metabolic changes that conventional biochemical and tissue analyses overlook. Glyphosate acts on the shikimate pathway, present in plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea, and protozoa. Thus, many taxonomic groups of microorganisms are sensitive to glyphosate. Moreover, chronic exposures to the herbicide could lead to the dominance of resistant strains in bacterial communities. Some glyphosate-vulnerable bacterial strains can become resistant to glyphosate (glyphosate-tolerant class II EPSPS). For instance, glyphosate-resistant bacterial strains like E. coli and Pseudomonas alter gene function to enhance the outflow of glyphosate from the bacterial cell. Thus, this resistance mechanism encourages cross-resistance against antibiotics for pathogenic bacterial species like E. coli and Salmonella, altering the microbiome.  

Overall, the researchers determined oxidative stress, an imbalance between reactive oxygen species (ROS) and biological mechanisms to detoxify ROS, likely causes liver damage. This liver damage, in turn, leads to inflammation that can damage DNA and prompt carcinogenicity. Similar to this study, others suggest that glyphosate may impact other metabolic pathways beyond the known Shikimate. A report by the University of Turku, Finland stated, “Even in glyphosate-resistant species, the interference of the herbicide on mitochondrial metabolism may induce oxidative stress and lead to toxic effects.”

Although Bayer announced the end of glyphosate sales by 2023, sales of Roundup will continue with different active ingredients. It is essential to note that the study also demonstrates ingredients in Roundup are even more toxic than glyphosate itself. Therefore, new formulations without glyphosate do little to mitigate the problem, especially regarding synergistic (combined) impacts of so-called “inert” ingredients in glyphosate formulations.

Considering pesticide exposure does not affect just one part of the body, but multiple organs, more studies need to assess what other organs or biological mechanisms glyphosate targets, triggering cancer development. These results could strengthen the legal cases of cancer patients in the U.S. who are suing Bayer/Monsanto because they have evidence that their exposure to Roundup caused their disease. The authors conclude, “[A]doption by regulatory agencies of multi-omics analyses would result in more accurate evaluation of a chemical’s toxicity and therefore better protection measures being enacted with major public health benefits.”

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with over eight million people succumbing to the disease every year. Notably, IARC predicts an increase in new cancer cases from 19.3 million to 30.2 million per year by 2040. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and cancer will aid in understanding the underlying mechanisms that cause the disease. Beyond Pesticides challenges the registration of chemicals like glyphosate in court due to their impacts on soil, air, water, and our health. While legal battles press on, government officials must eliminate the use of toxic synthetic herbicides to avoid the adverse effects of chemical exposure and contamination. Instead, emphasis on converting to regenerative-organic systems and using least-toxic pest control to mitigate harmful exposure to pesticides, restore soil health, and reduce carbon emissions, should be the main focus. Public policy must advance a shift to organic rather than allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides. Considering glyphosate levels in the human body decrease by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and resulting adverse health effects.

It is essential to understand the health implications of pesticide use and exposure for humans, especially if pesticides increase chronic disease risk. Beyond Pesticides tracks news and studies related to pesticides through the Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on the adverse effects of pesticides on human health, see PIDD pages on cancer (including lymphoma) and other diseases. Moreover, 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 informed of developments through our Daily News Blog and our journal, Pesticides and You. Additionally, check out Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption on glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum.

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

Source: GM Watch, Toxicological Sciences 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2022) In response to local concerns around children’s environmental exposures, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) recently published biomonitoring data collected from young children living in urban and rural areas of the state. The findings provide local residents and lawmakers with baseline data on the hazards children are encountering where they live, learn, or play, and point to ways in which families can reduce or eliminate these dangers. With evidence that early life exposures during “critical windows of vulnerability” increase risk of long-term health problems, it is critical for state agencies to both collect data, and take meaningful action to protect children from future harms.

Minnesota lawmakers established a state biomonitoring program in 2007, and have since expanded the project. The current report represents the results of MDH’s Healthy Rural and Urban Kids Project aimed at biomonitoring chemicals in young children. For this round, the agency focused on preschool-aged children living in MN’s rural Becker, Todd, and Wadena counties, as well as those living in urban North Minneapolis. MDH enrolled 232 families during the summer of 2018, provided them with a questionnaire, and tested children for 21 different chemicals in their urine. The chemicals tested were chosen with community input and guidance from a scientific advisory panel. The focus was placed on understanding the impact of air pollution, pesticides, and toxic metals in the environment.

The results did show differences in exposures between rural and urban children. Pesticide exposure also displayed a level of urban/rural divide. Children living within roughly ½ mile of a corn field (which included 61% of rural children tested) were more likely to have traces of the herbicide 2,4-D in their urine than children not living near farm fields. Likewise, living near a soybean field was correlated with higher rates of 3PBA, a metabolite for the synthetic pyrethroid class of insecticides. In urban areas, pesticide use in the home was most closely associated with higher urinary levels of 3PBA. Twenty-three percent of all families had used pesticides in their homes within the last three months. Most concerning, children in urban areas who had pesticides used in the home more than two times within the last three months had urinary levels of 3PBA that were 3x higher than urban families that did not use pesticides.

Of the air pollution chemicals measured, including various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and other chemicals created from burning or combustion, researchers found that kids in urban areas had higher rates of exposure than those living in rural areas. Additionally, children whose families used incense in the home had higher rates of the PAH 2-Hydroxynaphthalene (2NAP). The connection is not certain, but no other links were found between 2NAP and other potential environmental exposures. Children living in homes where incense was used recorded nearly 2x higher rates of 2NAP in their urine. Among the metals tested (arsenic, chromium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel), high levels of arsenic were found in children that ate rice frequently; kids who ate rice more than 3x per day had over 2x as much arsenic their urine than those who did not.

The results of this project generally line up with prior research on public exposure to environmental hazards. Data published just last month finds that one-third of Americans have detectable levels of 2,4-D in their bodies. As Marlaina Freisthler, a PhD student and researcher at the George Washington University, noted, “These findings raise concerns with regard to whether this heavily used weed-killer might cause health problems, especially for young children who are very sensitive to chemical exposures.”

Likewise, synthetic pyrethroids are frequently detected in the general population. These chemicals are used on farms, landscapes, as well as in the home in commonly sold spray products like RAID®, HOT SHOT®. Widespread use is particularly concerning in light of peer-reviewed data on the dangers these chemicals pose to children’s health. Multiple studies have been published linking synthetic pyrethroids and household pesticide use to developmental problems in children, including ADHD and impacts on motor skill development. Research finds that young boys exposed to synthetic pyrethroids are more likely to experience early onset of puberty, and exposed children are in general at greater risk of developing a respiratory disease.

MDH’s biomonitoring project reveals timely and helpful data that can provide individual families, the general public, and lawmakers with the support necessary to make positive changes that safeguard children’s health. The state expects to both follow-up on and expand this project into a larger statewide program called Healthy Kids Minnesota. “The point is to more systematically move across the state to include more kids and more chemicals,” said Jessica Nelson of MDH to DL-Online. “Each year we’ll do a new non-metro area and five areas in the metro.”

As the state collects data and residents wait for action to reign in toxic exposures to pesticides and other environmental hazards, U.S. residents throughout the country can find steps to move protective action forward in their state or community on Beyond Pesticides Children and Schools program page.

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

Source: DL-Online, Minnesota Department of Health

(Beyond Pesticides, March 8, 2022) A silver lining has emerged from the past two devastating Covid years, according to Civil Eats. A large California school district has used pandemic changes — in the regulatory schema of the federal and state governments, in supply chain function, and in available funding — to catalyze the transition to organic food in school-based feeding programs. For the past decade or so, U.S. school districts have, here and there, been moving gradually in this direction. The West Contra Costa Unified School District (WWCUSD) is robustly making the transition to organic, in no small part through its collaboration with Conscious Kitchen, a local nonprofit that seeks to “break the cycle of conventional, packaged, overly processed food, [and] transitioning to meals based on five foundational attributes: fresh, local, organic, seasonal and nutritious.” Beyond Pesticides has long pointed to the importance of shifting school-based meals to organic for multiple reasons, but centrally, because the pesticides with which conventional food is generally contaminated have outsized health and developmental impacts on children.

The WWCUSD, which is northeast of San Francisco, boasts 30,000 students — 75% of whom come from low-income households. The district’s food service director, Barbara Jellison, and other food service leaders in the state have seized the moment of Covid disruption and the “pause” in standard operating procedures to shift toward what she sees as better food for her students. Food service in many, if not most, schools in the U.S. was turned upside down with the twists and turns of navigating Covid protocols amid remote learning, hybrid learning, and in-person learning, as well as constantly changing attendance patterns, masking requirements, and staffing shortages, among other factors.

In addition, as Civil Eats reports, “numerous disruptions loosened regulations that [have made] it difficult for any supplier other than the largest conventional food companies to get their food into cafeterias. The federal and state government both sent extra funds to California schools to ensure children would not go hungry. And global supply-chain snags gave smaller, local farms a leg up; many of those farms in Northern California are organic.”

As Covid arrived, WWCUSD’s food service teams first made hot meals available for pick-up by low-income families. That then shifted, because of a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) waiver, to distribution of boxes of raw ingredients — with enough ingredients for a week’s worth of three daily meals plus snacks. In the fall of 2020, when the district was in remote mode, Ms. Jellison called Judi Shils of Conscious Kitchen to ask for help. She wanted to shift at least some of the contents of the food boxes to organic.

Ms. Shils contacted some of those local Northern California organic farms and food vendors, including Full Belly Farm, Earl’s Organic, and Lundberg Family Farms, and the organic transition was soon under way. In short order, Ms. Jellison’s team was distributing more than 20,000 boxes each week, and could provide items such as ground beef, beans, grains, fruits, and vegetables. By March 2021, the food boxes were 100% organic, and the district had invested $17 million in the purchase of 10.7 million pounds of organic food for students’ low-income families. The Conscious Kitchen website provides an excellent array of infographics and other information on the program here.

Civil Eats notes Ms. Shils’s comment: “It was incredible to see what can happen during a pandemic, when all [the farms] needed was business and when all families needed was food. And then I thought, ‘Okay, we’re going to go back to school someday. How do we keep the integrity of the supply chain in a district that has never had organic food?’” Previously, such small organic producers would have had little chance of participating in the school lunch bid process because USDA regulations made it difficult for suppliers other than large, conventional food processors/companies to get a foot in the cafeteria door. Now, all these small, organic producers had become vendors in the system. This has had knock-on effects on local organic growers and producers, many of whom had lost wholesale restaurant and other accounts because of lowered demand during the pandemic.

Another salutary outcome of the push for organics in schools was their introduction into federal food purchasing programs, and especially into one called “DoD Fresh.” With the full and unwieldy moniker, “U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Department of Defense (DoD) Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program,” DoD Fresh had historically had no organics available in the subsidized, bulk food program for schools; policy advocacy by Friends of the Earth and other organizations changed that.

Deputy director of food and agriculture at Friends of the Earth (FOE), Kari Hamerschlag, commented, “Until recently there was no organic available [in the program]. So we worked with the suppliers in both Northern California and Southern California . . . and we got them to add a whole slew of different organic products.” Civil Eats reports FOE’s estimate that, in a three-month period in late 2021, that change resulted in 80,000 pounds of organic food (worth $100,000) showing up in California school-based meals.

So, though further progress will not be free of challenges, the two women believe they have sufficient sourcing and coordination infrastructure and protocols in place so that what they have accomplished can be replicated in other districts. Ms. Shils notes that already, they can see ripple effects: “Those companies that we were connected to and supported us and we supported them through the majority of the pandemic . . . they’re learning how to work with schools and how to reformulate some of their items to meet our requirements, and hopefully will be able to support other school districts in time.”

One example of that ripple was the work Ms. Shils and Ms. Jellison did with Mindful Meats (purveyor of organic, grass-fed beef from retired dairy cows) to develop a pre-cooked burger patty that would work once students returned to in-person school. That burger was then added to the repertoire of food service in the San Francisco Unified school district, which lacks “from scratch” cooking facilities. Then came sourcing of organic burger buns from Alvarado Bakery. Item by item, districts are ratcheting up the organic content of school meals. Ms. Jellison “is checking off each organic box,” according to Civil Eats; she adds, “Since we’ve gone back into the schools, we’ve made tremendous gains that we weren’t able to do during that pilot year.”

The women believe that the best path for districts in this pursuit is to partner with nonprofits working in the sector. For WWCUSD, the partnership with Conscious Kitchen was transformative, allowing an already stressed and challenged food service system to make significant headway. Ms. Shils commented, “Most food service directors are up to their eyeballs, especially now, in regulations and they don’t have time to think. Every community I believe could have a partner. There are lots of nonprofits out there.”

A focus on getting organics into school feeding programs has been afoot for years, and has proponents in multiple places, including in Congress and in state houses. A 2020 study out of the University of California Berkeley found that roughly 30% of school districts in the state are purchasing some organic food items. Farm-to-School nonprofits and programs have sprouted up in many states, and USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service conducts a grant program for such initiatives. The California Department of Food & Agriculture recently published its report on the farm-to-school movement, Planting the Seed, which provides guidance on how to expand, support, and strengthen such programs in the state.

The report emphasizes the potential for such programs to address multiple critical issues, noting that farm-to-school programs “serve as a powerful tool to build demand and expand markets for producers that use . . . verified climate smart agriculture production systems, including certified organic and transitioning to organic certification systems.” Civil Eats notes that one of the report’s working groups recommended that building relationships between organic producers and schools should be a top priority.

Multiple school districts across the nation — in Boston, New York City, Buffalo, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Denver, Austin, Chicago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and a few others — are working with the nonprofit Center for Good Food Purchasing to move the needle on organic purchasing. The center “uses the power of procurement to create a transparent and equitable food system that prioritizes the health and well-being of people, animals, and the environment. We do this through the nationally networked adoption and implementation of the Good Food Purchasing Program by major institutions.”

The mission is shared and is being advanced by many advocacy organizations, as well — including Beyond Pesticides. Ms. Hamerschlag of FOE, who has worked for half a decade on getting more organic food into schools, comments, “The benefits of organic are significant in terms of climate, soil health, and reducing toxic pesticide exposure.”

Beyond Pesticides has written often about the many upsides of organic food production and consumption, which advance multiple health and environmental goals: reduced health harms to children and farmworkers from synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use, improved health outcomes for children and adults (including lowered obesity rates), reduction of environmental/ecosystem and biodiversity degradation, and greater equity for environmental justice communities and populations.

Indeed, the whole Conscious Kitchen model is based on getting “all-organic, scratch-cooked, plant-forward meals to districts that serve a large proportion of low-income students.” Ms. Shils notes that because organic food often costs more than conventional food (i.e., food raised with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers), it can be economically infeasible for some students’ families to purchase organic. Thus, school lunch is an opportunity to provide the most healthful possible fare for students.

She emphasizes that this helps rebalance the equity scales and shifts the local food system in a more sustainable direction. “When you have hundreds of thousands of children needing to be fed, it creates a lot of leverage, and food prices go down, our land is healthy, the agricultural practices [are better for the workers], and we mitigate climate change,” Ms. Shils commented. Conscious Kitchen generated a case study of the WWCUSD initiative — Organic, Plant-Forward, Scratch-Cooked School Meals: A California Case Study.

Lena Brook of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has advocated with California state government agencies to integrate more organic-specific incentives into their grants programs, notes: “We can’t afford to be solving one problem at a time anymore. We have a climate crisis, various public health crises, biodiversity [loss], drought, wildfires, etc. Where do we put our investments in order to tackle more than one at a time? For me, organic sits at the center of this.”

Beyond Pesticides concurs. To learn more about the harms of pesticides in children’s diets, and the benefits of organic foods, see the Factsheet, Children Need Organic Food, and these webpages: Kids Who Eat Organic Food Score Higher on Cognitive Tests, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture, Study Shows Organic Food Diet Reduces Residues of Glyphosate in Body, and Hazards of Pesticides for Children’s Health, among others.

Source: https://civileats.com/2022/02/28/coronavirus-pandemic-disruptions-organic-school-food-meals-opportunity/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2022) Contrary to the demands of consumers for hormone-free organic dairy products and the requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will allow continued use of the synthetic hormone oxytocin in organic dairy production. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted unanimously in 2017 to reject the use of the synthetic hormone oxytocin in livestock production. Since administration of oxytocin has been linked to a range of serious health problems and early onset puberty, autism, and psychiatric disorders, it is important to avoid residues in food that may cause a hormone imbalance in food consumers.

Tell USDA Secretary Vilsack to reverse the decision to allow oxytocin in organic dairy. Tell Congress that greater oversight is needed to ensure that USDA upholds the Organic Foods Production Act. 

Substances on the National List are reconsidered every five years to determine whether they still meet criteria in OFPA—that is, that their use is (1) not harmful to human health or the environment, (2) necessary for organic production, and (3) consistent with organic practices. In the case of oxytocin, a hormone involved in the milk “let-down” reflex, there is longstanding concern that misuse of the hormone to increase milk production may be at the expense of the health of the cows. Increased milk production may also be at the expense of the organic dairy industry. USDA, with its mentality of increasing production, ignores the greater importance of organic principles to organic consumers.

In 2017, the NOSB unanimously recommended the sunsetting (removal) of oxytocin from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List). Oxytocin had been allowed to be used for “use in postparturition therapeutic applications” since 2000. In deciding not to relist oxytocin, the NOSB said, “[M]ethods and materials have been developed that make oxytocin less essential for maintaining animal health and welfare. The expectations and awareness of dairy production tools by consumers has changed over time. They now expect organic milk be produced without the use of synthetic hormones. The Livestock Subcommittee realizes that some producers may need to learn new methods to address post parturition issues, but we believe the knowledge and materials are present, so that there will be no interruption in commerce, economic hardship, or lessening of animal welfare if this material is removed from the National List of approved synthetics.”

Thus, the NOSB decided that oxytocin meets neither the essentiality nor the compatibility criterion. USDA ignored the NOSB decision and, contrary to OFPA, which prohibits USDA from adding any synthetic to the National List that has not been recommended by the NOSB, issued a final rule—which goes into effect March 30, 2022—relisting oxytocin.

Tell USDA Secretary Vilsack to reverse the decision to allow oxytocin in organic dairy. Tell Congress that greater oversight is needed to ensure that USDA upholds the Organic Foods Production Act. 

Letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack:

USDA’s decision to relist oxytocin on the National List of synthetic materials allowed in organic production is contrary to the expectations of organic consumers and to the letter of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).

Organic consumers expect that organic milk is produced without added hormones. Milk, because it is an important food for children, is especially critical for organic integrity.

Furthermore, taking an action to relist a synthetic material on the National List in spite of a recommendation to the contrary by the National Organic Standards Board is expressly prohibited by OFPA’s “no additions” clause (§6517(d)(2)).

I am extremely disturbed by actions taken by USDA that threaten organic integrity and the role of the NOSB in representing the organic community. The final rule is due to take effect on March 30. I request that you revoke the rule before that date.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

I am writing out of concern that USDA’s administration of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) does not comply with either the law or the needs of the people it was designed to serve. In particular, USDA’s recent decision to relist oxytocin on the National List of synthetic materials allowed in organic production is contrary to the expectations of organic consumers and to the letter of OFPA.

Organic consumers expect that organic milk is produced without added hormones. Milk, because it is an important food for children, is especially critical for organic integrity. And yet, USDA, contrary to the recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), has relisted oxytocin, a synthetic hormone, for use in organic dairy.

Furthermore, taking an action to relist a synthetic material on the National List in spite of a recommendation to the contrary by the NOSB is expressly prohibited by OFPA’s “no additions” clause (§6517(d)(2)).

I am extremely disturbed by actions taken by USDA that threaten organic integrity and the role of the NOSB in representing the organic community. The final rule is due to take effect on March 30. Please ask USDA to revoke the rule before that date.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2022) An article in My London reported by Finn Byrne, finds labeling on conventionally grown fruits and vegetables marked as non-vegan. The non-vegan label shocked many shoppers who buy the produce with chemical-intensive practices, as fruits and vegetables are inherently vegan. However, pesticides used in the production of fruits and vegetables render these foods non-vegan because of the harm that pesticides cause to animals and since a wax coating on fruits and vegetables made of shellac, a resin secreted from female lac beetles and thus non-vegan.

Recent studies indicate plant-based diets can mitigate excessive pesticide use and exposure if they are organically grown. However, a plant-based diet reliant on pesticides does little to lessen the health and ecological effects of conventional agriculture. Fungicides are ubiquitous in agricultural and residential settings puts human and animal health at risk. Exposure to fungicides can manifest adverse health effects, including reproductive dysfunction, birth/developmental effects, kidney/liver damage, and cancer. Several researchers find that fungicide use promotes more drug-resistant fungal infections in humans as these fungicides are structurally similar to medical antifungal medications.

After investigating fruits and vegetables at various United Kingdom (UK) grocery stores (i.e., Tesco, Morrisons, and Marks and Spencer), the report finds fungicides imazalil and propiconazole present on fruits like oranges. The European Union (EU) bans both chemicals with some exceptions. Furthermore, an alternate version of imazalil (E904) is a wax coating on fruits and vegetables made of shellac, a resin secreted from female lac beetles and thus non-vegan. Since it is no longer a part of the EU, the UK does not have to adhere to these chemical bans. However, the article notes that the toxic health and ecological impacts of these chemicals are the reason why the EU bans imazalil and propiconazole. With that in mind, the use of these chemicals, even in small amounts, can be detrimental.

Fungicide use is becoming a bigger issues with the climate crisis and changes to moisture and temperature conditions that promote the spread of fungi, according to studies. Climate warming may cause fungi to become significantly more heat-tolerant, increasing pesticide use to combat the spread. However, heat tolerance also increases fungi’s ability to infect a host with higher body temperatures as the difference between environmental and body temperature will decrease. Additionally, extreme weather conditions associated with climate change, like flooding from hurricanes, or drought, can promote fungus growth (e.g., mold), resulting in more extensive fungicide use. In addition to containing potentially dangerous compounds, fungicide use in agriculture is often in conjunction with other chemical pesticides to increase potency. The synergy between fungicides and other pesticides can further worsen the adverse effect on human and animal health. Since humans and animals encounter these pesticides through various mediums (e.g., residues on food and in water and air), it is essential to understand how these chemicals work to cause toxicity in humans and animals.

This report adds to the growing body of work evaluating the impacts that pesticides have on dietary lifestyle (e.g., vegan, pescatarian, vegetarian, meat-eater, etc.), indicating a change in dietary habit alone does not prevent exposure to pesticides. Both fungicides in the article have adverse health effects, including kidney/liver damage. Imazalil negatively affects the reproductive system, is a sensitizer/irritant, and can cause developmental delays. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies imazalil as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” one of the highest cancer designations, and propiconazole as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Furthermore, these chemicals have ecological effects that are toxic to birds and aquatic organisms/fish. The vegan and organic movements share the same critique of conventional agriculture in the treatment of animals, over-feeding and production of crops, and chemical use.

Although the vegan movement excludes animal and their byproducts for consumption or use, intensive chemical use limits the ecosystem services (e.g., wild bee pollination) veganism relies upon. Regardless of dietary lifestyle, the article recommends buying organic when possible.  The commentators conclude, “When fruit isn’t suitable for vegans you know something bad is happening. Imazalil & propiconazole are fungicides & are the reason why we should’ve been(long before now) scrubbing citrus fruits before using the peel & washing hands after peeling & before eating treated fruit. Better to buy organic, untreated fruits when available.”

Chemical interventions to “control” pests of any sort, beyond all the potential toxicity issues, fundamentally cause imbalances in ecological systems. When humans use toxic synthetic chemicals to protect “systems” that violate ecological laws, such as monocultures, the natural predators that exist in those ecosystems disappear. Chemical inputs in agriculture reduce the biodiversity that keeps these systems functional. Moreover, the concern about human infection by antifungal-resistant fungi is a distinct echo of the mounting public health threat from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

With the negative impacts on human and environmental health, including the mounting resistance issues, chemical-intensive agriculture should be understood as a sign of the ineffectiveness of conventional, chemical approaches to pest management.Organic agricultural practices can support biodiversity and protect global health and the environment. Organic agriculture seeks to prevent pest problems by creating healthy agroecosystems. Moreover, switching from a chemical-intensive to an organic diet will drastically reduce the levels of pesticide in one’s body, with one week of an organic food diet showing a 70% reduction in bodily glyphosate levels. 

Eating organic should not be a choice to make as all food should be grown with high-quality standards that reject toxic pesticides and protect the environment. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure. For more information on determining when to eat organic vs. chemically grown food, see Beyond Pesticides article on The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food. Join Beyond Pesticides as the organization continues to push for that reality.

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

Source: My London

(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2022) Children’s exposure to synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, particularly during the course of mosquito control operations, is associated with increased occurrence of certain respiratory diseases and allergic outcomes, finds research published in the journal Thorax late last month. With a pandemic respiratory virus continuing to spread throughout the world, it has become increasingly important to avoid environmental exposures that can harm lung health. This research underscores the critical need for homeowners, farmers, and vector control officials to shift away from chemical use as the first line of defense against pest problems in order to safeguard children’s health.

A total of 303 women and their children participated in the study, which tracked pesticide exposure during pregnancy and then at age five. All participants in the study lived within roughly three miles of a banana plantation. A structured questionnaire captured a range of variables, from socioeconomic status to medical history, local environmental conditions, occupation, and demographics. Researchers collected urine samples from pregnant mothers during the first visit, and their children during the 5-year follow-up.

Urine samples were analyzed for metabolites concerning a range of pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, synthetic pyrethroids, the fungicides mancozeb, pyrimethanil, and thiabendazole, and the herbicide 2,4-D. During the second follow-up, mothers filled out another questionnaire regarding their children’s respiratory and allergic outcomes

Of the pesticides tested, 80% are frequently detected within tested mothers, and 68% within children during the course of the study. Researchers thus differentiated between high and low levels of pesticide concentration in making their findings.

While researchers find inconsistent links between prenatal pesticide exposure and adverse health outcomes, current pesticide use is associated with a range of respiratory and allergic complications in children. High levels of metabolites from the fungicide mancozeb are correlated with increased incidence of lower respiratory tract infections. However, synthetic pyrethroid insecticides are the primary offenders, associated with higher odds of current asthma, ever being diagnosed with asthma, recent lower respiratory tract infections, and cough. The strongest association between pyrethroids and adverse health impacts is for wheeze. Increased exposure exhibits stronger correlations, with each 10x increase showing a greater likelihood of developing asthma, wheeze, lower respiratory tract infections, and itchy rash.

While studies show that levels of synthetic pyrethroids in one’s body can be rapidly reduced by switching to an organic diet, individuals have significantly less control over exposures that come from nearby chemical farming operations or mosquito vector disease practices. In fact, researchers are able to identify risks directly related to vector control operations. Over half (56%) of all study participants report nearby adulticide use for mosquito control within the last year. This is associated with increased incidence of both cough and lower respiratory tract infections in tested children.

Data on the link between pesticide exposure and respiratory harms, particularly in children, have grown over the last decade. While researchers did not find links between prenatal pyrethroid use and childhood respiratory problems, a 2012 study looking at PBO, a pesticide “synergist” often combined with synthetic pyrethroids in consumer products was found to be linked to childhood cough after a mother’s exposure. In 2015, a study from University of California, Berkeley found that general exposure to organophosphates (not only chlorpyrifos) corresponds with a measurable decrease in lung function.

Agricultural workers and their families are at greatest risk from these health hazards. A 2016 study linked an astounding 78 pesticides to allergic and non-allergic wheeze among male farmers. Agricultural work with toxic pesticides was associated with an increased risk of the potentially deadly diseases idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in a 2021 study, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a recent February 2022 report. Unsurprisingly, a comprehensive literature review published in 2020 finds pesticide exposure to be strongly correlated with the development of respiratory diseases.

Current laws do not adequately protect local residents from toxic pesticide exposure coming from farms and mosquito control operations. Oftentimes, it can be difficult for individuals to obtain basic information about the pesticides being sprayed near their homes and schools their children attend. As a respiratory pandemic continues to spread, it is critical that environmental factors that weaken individual immune systems be avoided if at all possible. While personal protective measures are important, residents throughout the U.S. are encouraged to engage with their elected officials to rein in toxic pesticide use in their community. Through collective action, we can stop the regular use of hazardous, lung-harming pesticides in homes, on farms, and in mosquito management. Reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450 for assistance with your local advocacy efforts.

For more information about the link between pesticides and respiratory health, see Beyond Pesticides Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Thorax

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2022) Covid (SARS-CoV-2) is being detected in wastewater, sludge, and biosolids, providing a “safe haven” for the virus and creating a health risk for wastewater workers and farmers. Published in Geoscience Frontiers, an international team of researchers systematically reviewed the available literature on the prevalence of pandemic coronavirus in wastewater in order to better determine risks to workers and public health. The timely review comes as many communities and states are reevaluating their use reclaimed human effluent due to a range of toxic contaminants, including per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Researchers found 20 articles from published literature that met the criteria for their review. Each of three environmental materials –wastewater effluent, sludge, and biosolids were analyzed for the presence of Covid. Effluent is the liquid that remains after a sewage treatment process, sludge is organic matter separated from effluent, and biosolids are the fully processed product that is then often applied to farm fields.

Of the three materials, sludge contained the highest prevalence of covid RNA, followed by biosolids and then effluent, according to modeling of the data employed by researchers. Covid amounts were found to be related to the number of infected individuals living within the bounds of a treatment plant, as well as the treatment approach utilized by the plant.

Covid is an enveloped virus, and as such contains a hydrophobic envelope layer. As a result, the virus is apt to latch on to solid particles present in the wastewater stream. Researchers found that greater amount of solids and longer retention times (amount of time the effluent is stored) increase the rate of Covid RNA detection. Further, suspended solids in wastewater retention tanks have the potential to block UV light that may otherwise breakup the virus.

Scientists indicate that if proper guidelines are not in place, the routes of transmission through environmental materials are “numerous.” Accordingly, wastewater workers, who can be exposed to these materials for long periods of time, are at high risk. “The inevitable inhalation of the virus-laden aerosols generated during the wastewater and sludge processing activities, especially without adequate protection, could also lead to fecal-oral transmission of the virus,” the authors write.

The data indicates that conventional wastewater treatment is not effective at entirely removing Covid RNA from the waste stream as it processes these materials for reuse. Although citing studies on potential transmission, authors do note that there is not clear agreement in the literature that the genetic materials found in these waste streams are directly contributing to the spread of viral infection.

The authors suggest the use of “adequate protections, including the use of personal protective equipment should be ensured for the wastewater/sludge workers, while the use of reclaimed wastewater and other materials like sludge and biosolids should be done with caution, especially in rural settings of developing and low-income countries where water, sanitation, and hygiene are insufficiently deployed.” The article also suggests methods to better ensure the elimination of Covid RNA, including best practice treatment measures.

However, even if concerns over Covid RNA are addressed, wastewater products still pose a range of pubic health concerns. Biosolid/sludge products have been found in the past to contain residues of hazardous pesticides, heavy metals, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and a range of other toxicants. A 2018 report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General identified over 350 pollutants in biosolids, 61 of which are considered hazardous. A recent study conducted by the Sierra Club and the Ecology Center found PFAS in every biosolid fertilizer sold to consumers at hardware stores. With even the most highly processed consumer-forward biosolids contaminated with hazardous materials, many communities and states are rethinking their use of these products.

In Oklahoma, the small town of Luther in 2020 voted to ban the use of biosolids on farmland. This has led Oklahoma state senator Shane Jett to introduce a state-level prohibition on the use of human raw sewage on agricultural land. Concern over PFAS in Maine led to legislation that would likewise ban the use of sludge or sludge-derived products unless a laboratory test confirms PFAS below a certain level to be determined by state agencies.

As the worst of the coronavirus pandemic appears to be in the rear-view mirror, it is critical that steps are taken to address all potential routes of exposure. As Beyond Pesticides continues to track this story, read more about the hazards associated with the use of environmental materials in agriculture through the reports Wastewater Irrigation on Farms Contaminates Food, and Biosolids or Biohazards.

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

Source: Geoscience Frontiers, News-Medical

(Beyond Pesticides, March 1, 2022) A report by the Independent finds chemical-intensive farming of crops for animal feed puts thousands of endangered species at risk. U.S. farmlands use more than 235 million pounds of pesticide (i.e., herbicides and insecticides) solely for animal feed production, many of which are highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs). Several HHP hazard categories include acutely toxic, chronic health hazards, and environmental hazards. Therefore, animal feed production intensifies global pollution, increases pesticide exposure, and degrades human, animal, and ecological health. 

Although the report demonstrates a need to eliminate toxic pesticide use for the sake of human, animal, and ecosystem health, it will take more than eliminating the worst chemicals to address the impending biodiversity collapse and the climate crisis. Experts highlight the need for an urgent shift to organic land and agricultural management practices. The study notes, “These pesticides are taking a toll on our environment and biodiversity. Endangered species like the highly imperiled whooping crane, monarch butterflies, all species of salmon, the rusty-patched bumble bee, the San Joaquin kit fox, and the northern long-eared bat, as examples, all face significant threats from industrial agricultural operations and the chemicals applied. In order to conserve biodiversity and better protect vulnerable species and their habitats, we must reduce the production and consumption of animal protein and shift to a food system that prioritizes diverse plant foods.”

Over 10 billion animals involved in factory farming (chemical-intensive farming of crops for animal feed) endure increased amounts of stress, pain, and suffering to meet the demand for cheap meat. Many studies find enormous amounts of feed crop, mainly corn and soy results in habitat loss for wild animals, declining biodiversity, water pollution, pesticide pollution, soil degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions. The production of massive amounts of animal feed contributes to abnormal growth rates among animals, leading to many health issues. Furthermore, these chemicals also take an enormous toll on the planet.

The World Animal Protection and Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) report investigated the impacts pesticides have on the relationship between the factory farm industry and the worldwide decline of human, farmed animal, and wild species health. Researchers assessed data on glyphosate, atrazine, paraquat, dicamba, 2,4-D, neonicotinoids, and bifenthrin to determine the uses on crops, as well as related health and environmental effects. These six individual chemicals and one class of chemicals have common uses on corn and soybeans in the U.S. and are continuously increasing annually.

Using the most recent, comprehensive data from 2018 on U.S. pesticide use, researchers determined that farms applied nearly 172 million pounds of glyphosate to corn and soy, with 100 million pounds attributed to farm animal feed production. A CBD report finds glyphosate likely to adversely affect the health, survivability, and habitat of 93 percent of plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act. However, the report also notes the impacts on human health, highlighting over 13,000 lawsuits asserting glyphosate’s role in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma development as recognized by The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO-IARC).

Following the same comprehensive data, farms applied nearly 61 million pounds of atrazine on corn and soybean crops, a 17 percent increase from 2012 levels. About 25 million pounds of atrazine use was on animal feed. The report notes that the endocrine disruption properties and persistent water contamination resulted in a ban in 35 countries and the European Union (EU). However, the chemical’s use in the U.S. puts over 1,000 endangered species (56 percent) at risk, including the whooping crane, the San Joaquin kit fox, and the California red-legged frog.

In 2018, U.S. farms applied 4.2 million pounds of paraquat to corn and soybeans, with over half (2.9 million pounds) attributable to animal feed production. Like atrazine, the EU and 53 other countries banned paraquat. The report notes paraquat toxicity to bird embryos, including the Japanese quail, mallards, bobwhite quail, and ring-necked pheasant. Furthermore, many studies demonstrate paraquat’s role in human poisonings, most notoriously Parkinson’s disease.

Dicamba use was another concern as farms applied 17 million pounds on corn and soy crops in 2018, a 1200 percent increase from 2012 application levels. However, farms used 11 million pounds solely for animal feed crop production. Despite the approval of genetically engineered (GE) soy crops to reduce dicamba use in 2016, the opposite effect occurred, increasing chemical use. The report notes dicamba use threatens monarch butterflies, and people who work with this chemical have an increased risk of developing various cancers. For the pesticide bifenthrin, farms applied over 700,000 pounds of the chemical on U.S. corn and soy crops, a 130 percent increase from 2012 use, with nearly 370,000 pounds used solely for animal feed. The report notes that bifenthrin is neurotoxic, highly toxic to insects and aquatic species, and impairs the ability of various insect and animal species.

In 2018, U.S. farms applied over 14.6 million pounds of 2,4-D to corn and soybean crops, with almost nine million pounds solely used for animal feed production. The report highlights the harmful effects 2,4-D has on beneficial insects and animals that provide ecosystem services, as well as the endocrine, immune, and neurotoxic influences on human health.

Lastly, U.S. farms used 2.6 million pounds of three neonicotinoids (neonics) on corn and soy, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid. Farm applied nearly 1.5 million pounds solely to animal feed production. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined these three chemicals to cause toxicity among all 38 protected amphibian species and three-fourths of all endangered plants and animals in the U.S. Specifically, the report notes that neonics pose the greatest risks to pollinators like bees, birds, butterflies, and bats. Furthermore, a single treated seed, or seed coated in these neonics, can kill a songbird upon ingestion. Furthermore, as little as 1/10th of a seed can decrease reproduction among the bird population.

The researchers warn, “With projections showing a likely continued increase in the production and consumption of meat and dairy in the US if nothing changes, it can be assumed that these pesticide use levels will also continue to increase alongside demand for industrially-produced feed, unless something changes.”

Agricultural land is subject to chemical-intensive farming that uses toxic pesticides to manage pests (e.g., weeds, insects, fungi) on animal feed crops. Nearly half of all global HHP use was on soybean and corn, staple crops in animal feed, with pesticide use on soybeans being the highest. Most soy and corn crops in the U.S. are genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate pesticides, including two highly hazardous pesticides commonly used on animal feed, glyphosate and atrazine. However, pesticide-resistant crops can increase chemical use, causing a rise in pesticide-resistant weeds (i.e., superweeds). As pesticide resistance grows at similar rates among GE and non-GE conventionally grown crops, health and environmental harm can be more severe. The increase in resistance is evident among herbicide-tolerant GE crops, including seeds genetically engineered to be glyphosate-tolerant. Although one stated purpose of GE crops is to reduce pesticide use, increasing resistance can result in additional pesticide use to compensate. Furthermore, most corn and soy crops are monocultures that can exacerbate the impact of pesticide exposure. As farms convert farmlands into single-crop agriculture to sustain animal feed production, the demands for feed exceed requests for diverse crop production. Perversely, monoculture crops induce biodiversity loss and pollinator decline via pesticide exposure and habitat destruction. 

This report highlights how unsustainable factory farming with regard to chemical pollution and intensive reliance on resources. Thus, the expansion of factory farming threatens wildlife and humans, especially children, farmworkers, and their families. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations said back in 2013, “Livestock health is the weakest link in our global health chain.” Alternatively, organic principles offer an existing federal guideline for ecologically and environmentally viable conditions for agriculture.

The report offers many recommendations that governmental officials, businesses, and individuals can adopt to protect endangered species and humans from toxic chemical use. In addition to reducing conventional (non-organic) meat and dairy consumption, the report recommends creating a more sustainable food production system less reliant on factory farming to mitigate hazardous chemical exposure.

The study concludes, “Government agencies and programs should instead support a shift to a more humane and sustainable food system that prioritizes the production of crops for human consumption and farming practices that foster rather than deplete biodiversity. This requires a reconceptualization of how we produce and consume protein. Our appetite and demand for animal proteins is fueling the further expansion of factory farming systems that are propped up by millions of pounds of herbicides and insecticides. This model is not only causing the suffering of billions of cows, pigs, turkeys, and chickens, but countless wild species exposed to these toxic chemicals. By significantly reducing the amount of meat and dairy we produce and ensuring that the farmed animals that remain in production systems are living in higher welfare conditions we can create a more planet- and animal-friendly food system.”

Pesticides should be phased out and ultimately eliminated to protect the world’s wildlife and reduce the number of endangered species exposed to dangerous. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides has long fought against GE crops and pesticide use in agriculture and advocated for federal regulations that consider all potential impacts of pesticides on ecosystems and organisms. Chemical-intensive farming contributes to pesticide global market sales as farmers apply various herbicides and insecticides to many staple animal feed crops. International sales of pesticides pose a serious global health risk as 18 out of 19 analyzed highly hazardous pesticides are available in the U.S. pesticide market for use. Most Americans want stricter oversight of general large-scale livestock operations. Therefore, organic agriculture can offer more oversight on farming practices that curtail the need for toxic pesticides to protect global health and the environment. Regenerative organic agriculture revitalizes soil health through organic carbon sequestration while reducing pests and generating higher profits than chemical-intensive agriculture. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure.

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

Source: the Independent, World Animal Protection

(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2022) When bacteria and fungi become resistant to pesticides, it is a signal that the toxic chemical approach to controlling pathogens does not work. But resistance also poses a direct threat to human health when the pesticide (or a related chemical) is used in human medicine.

Tell EPA to cancel all uses of a pesticide when resistance is discovered or predicted to occur. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA protects public health from deadly antifungal and antibiotic resistance.

The threat of resistance in bacterial human pathogens has long been widely recognized. Although research sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the spread of resistance to antibiotics important in human medicine through horizontal gene transfer in the environment, EPA inaction both on antibiotic and antifungal resistance has become a growing crisis.

EPA does recognize the existence of resistance to fungicides. It uses codes produced by the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee in decisions regarding fungicide registration. Although EPA says resistance “may be considered in the risk-benefit decision-making process,” there is no evidence that the agency actually considers the failure of EPA-registered pesticides to control the target organisms in registering pesticides. That failure has a serious impact on human and environmental health as users of the chemical increase use and as medical uses of antibiotics and fungicides become ineffective.

The threat of resistance is evident with a number of fungicides, as well as bactericides and viricides. For example, Candida auris is an emerging fungal pathogen that threatens those with compromised or immature immune systems, such as infants, the elderly, people taking steroids for autoimmune disorders, diabetics, those undergoing chemotherapy, and even smokers. Nearly half of those who contract a C. auris infection die within 90 days. One of the factors making this fungus so deadly is that it has developed resistance to existing antifungal medicines, with 90% of infections resistant to one drug, and 30% to two or more. As is true for resistant bacteria, culprits in C. auris’s development of resistance include the use of antifungal medications in health care and reliance on fungicides in agriculture.

A recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Georgia finds fungicide use in agriculture is driving the spread of multi-fungicide resistant human pathogens. Of 700 Aspergillus fumigatus samples collected, nearly 20% (123) displayed some level of resistance to the commonly used azole fungicide tebuconazole. Twelve of the 123 were highly resistant at clinically relevant levels for human health care. No samples taken from organic sites contained  resistant fungi.

Azole-resistant strains also displayed resistance  to methyl benzimidazole carbamate (MBC) fungicides like carbendazim, and quinone outside inhibitors (Qol) like azoxystrobin.

A review of genome sequences shows that genetically those with broad resistance to azole fungicides show a close match between those discovered on farms and those found in human clinical settings. Of 25 pan-azole resistant samples analyzed, eight farm samples and 12 human clinical samples also display resistance to non-azole fungicides.

These results indicate a need for a shift toward eliminating reliance on toxic fungicides.

Unfortunately, regulators and politicians are neither heeding the science, nor listening to scientists. EPA’s recent response to the rise   of drug-resistant Candida auris is a case in point. The agency failed to assess the efficacy of any pesticides that are not used for public health purposes; EPA only evaluated the efficacy of antimicrobial compounds whose use patterns classify them as human-health-related—thus ignoring the impact of other antimicrobial pesticides on resistance in human pathogens.

At the international level, a Freedom of Information Act request revealed officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture working to downplay the role of synthetic fungicide use in chemical agriculture as a factor in the rise of drug-resistant fungal infections worldwide by denying the truth on the ground and attempting to halt protective actions, as EPA did with pentachlorophenol (recently cancelled with a 5-year phaseout after the manufacturer pulled out of the market).  Prior research on resistance in agriculture has shown that the only true way to eliminate resistance is to stop using the material that was causing resistance to occur in the first place. Organic agriculture, with its strong restrictions on allowed synthetic materials, provides a path out of the industrialized chemical farming system that overtook agricultural production over the last century. Rising resistance, and the need to retain life-saving medications for protecting people’s health is another reason why investing in organic is the right choice for the future.

Tell EPA to cancel all uses of a pesticide when resistance is discovered or predicted to occur. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA protects public health from deadly antifungal and antibiotic resistance.

Letter to EPA:

When bacteria and fungi become resistant to pesticides, it signals that the toxic chemical approach to controlling pathogens does not work. But resistance also poses a direct threat to human health when the pesticide (or a related chemical) is used in human medicine. EPA must cancel all uses of a pesticide found to cause resistance.

The threat of resistance in bacterial human pathogens has long been widely recognized. Although research sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows the spread of resistance to antibiotics important in human medicine through horizontal gene transfer in the environment, EPA inaction both on antibiotic and antifungal resistance has become a growing crisis..

EPA recognizes the existence of resistance to fungicides by using codes produced by the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee in registration decisions. Although EPA says resistance “may be considered in the risk-benefit decision-making process,” there is no evidence that the agency actually considers the failure of EPA-registered pesticides to control the target organisms in registration—a failure that affects human and environmental health because those who depend on the pesticide use ever-higher amounts, as medical uses of antibiotics and fungicides become ineffective.

The resistance threat to human health is evident with a number of fungicides, bactericides, and viricides. For example, Candida auris is an emerging fungal pathogen that threatens those with compromised or immature immune systems, such as infants, the elderly, people taking steroids for autoimmune disorders, diabetics, those undergoing chemotherapy, and even smokers. Nearly half of those who contract a C. auris infection die within 90 days. One of the factors making this fungus so deadly is that it has developed resistance to existing antifungal medicines, with 90% of infections resistant to one drug, and 30% to two or more. Culprits in C. auris’s development of resistance include the use of antifungal medications in health care and reliance on fungicides in agriculture.

A recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Georgia finds fungicide use in agriculture is driving the spread of multi-fungicide resistant human pathogens. Of 700 Aspergillus fumigatus samples collected, nearly 20% (123) displayed some level of resistance to the commonly used azole fungicide tebuconazole. Twelve of the 123 were highly resistant at clinically relevant levels for human health care. No samples taken from organic sites contained resistant fungi.

Azole-resistant strains also display resistance to methyl benzimidazole carbamate fungicides like carbendazim, and quinone outside inhibitors like azoxystrobin. A review of genome sequences shows that genetically, those with broad resistance to azole fungicides show a close match between those discovered on farms and those found in human clinical settings.

These results indicate a need for a shift toward eliminating reliance on toxic fungicides.

EPA’s recent response to the rise of drug-resistant C. auris demonstrates EPA’s failure to use the science. The agency failed to assess the efficacy of pesticides not used for public health purposes, only evaluating the efficacy of antimicrobial compounds whose use patterns classify them as human-health-related—thus ignoring the impact of other antimicrobial pesticides on resistance in human pathogens.

Research shows that the only way to eliminate resistance is to stop using the material that was causing resistance to occur in the first place. Organic agriculture, with its strong restrictions on allowed synthetic materials, provides a path out of the industrialized chemical farming system that overtook agricultural production over the last century.

Rising resistance, and the need to retain life-saving medications for protecting people’s health require that EPA cancel all uses of a pesticide found to cause resistance.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

When bacteria and fungi become resistant to pesticides, it signals that the toxic chemical approach to controlling pathogens does not work. But resistance also poses a direct threat to human health when the pesticide (or a related chemical) is used in human medicine. EPA must cancel all uses of a pesticide found to cause resistance.

The threat of resistance in bacterial human pathogens has long been widely recognized. Although research sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows the spread of resistance to antibiotics important in human medicine through horizontal gene transfer in the environment, EPA inaction both on antibiotic and antifungal resistance has become a growing crisis..

EPA recognizes the existence of resistance to fungicides by using codes produced by the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee in registration decisions. Although EPA says resistance “may be considered in the risk-benefit decision-making process,” there is no evidence that the agency actually considers the failure of EPA-registered pesticides to control the target organisms in registration—a failure that affects human and environmental health because those who depend on the pesticide use ever-higher amounts, as medical uses of antibiotics and fungicides become ineffective.

The resistance threat to human health is evident with a number of fungicides, bactericides, and viricides. For example, Candida auris is an emerging fungal pathogen that threatens those with compromised or immature immune systems, such as infants, the elderly, people taking steroids for autoimmune disorders, diabetics, those undergoing chemotherapy, and even smokers. Nearly half of those who contract a C. auris infection die within 90 days. One of the factors making this fungus so deadly is that it has developed resistance to existing antifungal medicines, with 90% of infections resistant to one drug, and 30% to two or more. Culprits in C. auris’s development of resistance include the use of antifungal medications in health care and reliance on fungicides in agriculture.

A recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Georgia finds fungicide use in agriculture is driving the spread of multi-fungicide resistant human pathogens. Of 700 Aspergillus fumigatus samples collected, nearly 20% (123) displayed some level of resistance to the commonly used azole fungicide tebuconazole. Twelve of the 123 were highly resistant at clinically relevant levels for human health care. No samples taken from organic sites contained resistant fungi.

Azole-resistant strains also display resistance to methyl benzimidazole carbamate fungicides like carbendazim, and quinone outside inhibitors like azoxystrobin. A review of genome sequences shows that genetically, those with broad resistance to azole fungicides show a close match between those discovered on farms and those found in human clinical settings.

These results indicate a need for a shift toward eliminating reliance on toxic fungicides.

EPA’s recent response to the rise of drug-resistant C. auris demonstrates EPA’s failure to use the science. The agency failed to assess the efficacy of pesticides not used for public health purposes, only evaluating the efficacy of antimicrobial compounds whose use patterns classify them as human-health-related—thus ignoring the impact of other antimicrobial pesticides on resistance in human pathogens.

Research shows that the only way to eliminate resistance is to stop using the material that was causing resistance to occur in the first place. Organic agriculture, with its strong restrictions on allowed synthetic materials, provides a path out of the industrialized chemical farming system that overtook agricultural production over the last century.

Please ensure that in view of rising resistance, and the need to retain life-saving medications for protecting people’s health, that EPA cancels all uses of a pesticide found to cause resistance.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2022) Together, governments of the world over are spending at least $1.8 trillion annually — 2% of global gross domestic product — on subsidies that drive the destruction of ecosystems and species extinction, and exacerbate the climate crisis. This news comes from a study commissioned by The B Team and Business for Nature, and released in a joint brief, Financing Our Survival: Building a Nature Positive Economy through Subsidy Reform. The Business for Nature website offers a remedy to this entropy: “With political determination and radical public–private sector collaboration, we can reform these harmful subsidies and create opportunities for an equitable, nature-positive and net-zero economy.” To that end, the two organizations have issued, in their brief, calls to action to multiple sectors, including one to the governments participating in the coming UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15): “Adopt a clear and ambitious target within the Global Biodiversity Framework . . . that commits governments to redirect, repurpose, or eliminate all environmentally harmful subsidies by 2030 and increase positive incentives to enable an equitable, net-zero, nature-positive world.”

A press release from The B Team reports that the fossil fuel, agriculture, and water sectors are the recipients of more than 80% of all environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS) annually, thus “depleting natural resources, degrading global ecosystems, and perpetuating unsustainable levels of production and consumption, in addition to exacerbating global inequalities.” Other recipients of significant subsidy include the forestry, construction, marine capture fishery, and transport sectors. Business for Nature (BFN) comments, “In other words, public money is financing our own extinction.”

The release of the brief and study is timely, given the early March UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP15 Open Ended Working Group meeting in Geneva; the follow-on UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) scheduled for April 25–May 8 in Kunming, China; and the next UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt (rescheduled for November 2022). The study and report hope to inform decision makers in government and business on the case for, and how to, reform these environmentally damaging subsidies.

EHS, as the brief defines them, are government support programs that — though often established (at least ostensibly) to solve socioeconomic problems — ultimately encourage unsustainable production and/or consumption patterns, largely because they were deployed without consideration of environmental impacts. Beyond Pesticides notes that many of the health and environmental crises we face have arisen because of such a “siloed” approach to problems, and that broadly, precautionary and holistic approaches can avoid such unintended and harmful impacts; see “Scientific Findings Support Replacing Poisons with Precaution” (p. 9).

The World Economic Forum puts failure to act robustly on climate, resulting extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss as the leading threats to humanity — catalyzed in part by the enormous amounts of money given by governments to support harmful industries and practices. The research finds that globally, the fossil fuel industry receives $640 billion in EHS annually; the agriculture sector, $520B; water, $350B; forestry, $155B; construction, $90B; transport, $85B; and marine capture fisheries, $50B. (The report also mentions that, though no metrics are available on EHS for it, illegal gold mining accounts for billions of dollars in damage each year.)

These subsidies are significant contributors to many of the crises the world faces: the rapidly heating climate, ecosystem and biodiversity loss, air and water pollution, land degradation, and social and economic inequality. A UN Development Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization report suggests, for example, that of the subsidies provided to farmers, nearly 90% distort prices or cause other harm, and that most fossil fuel subsidies hamper the critical and urgent need to transition to a clean energy economy globally.

The report also scolds governments for terrible follow-through on pledges made — and then ignored or unrealized. It notes, “During the 2010 UN CBD Summit, 190 countries committed to phasing out or reforming subsidies harmful to biodiversity by 2020 as part of the Aichi targets. Governments missed the target, and we cannot afford for history to repeat itself.”

The brief acknowledges the extreme difficulty of reforming these subsidies: “Many of [them] are so deeply embedded in our economies that attempts to define, measure and track them often struggle to be comprehensive, and progress to reform them has been slow. This is due not only to the power of vested interests, but also because both the governments and beneficiaries — including business — are unaware of the full scale of the subsidies and their impacts. Businesses often lobby for continued or increased government support that often has negative unintended environmental consequences.”

Among its observations are the needs for greater public awareness and visibility of EHS, and much more transparency and disclosure about subsidies from governments and recipient businesses. In the U.S., such subsidies tend to be “worked out” behind semi-closed doors among legislators, federal agencies, lobbyists, and private business entities, and occasionally reported on by journalists — hardly the stuff of open, democratic, and accountable governance.

The report’s summary asserts that reform adequate to the goals of reversing “nature loss” by 2030, and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, will require roughly $700 billion annually — far less than is currently spent on funding climate- and nature-destructive governmental subsidy programs. The researchers and authors, Doug Koplow and Ronald Steenblik, say that these government efforts need to occur in parallel with (1) a realignment of all private financial flows so as to be “nature-positive,” and (2) increased public and private financing that can deliver innovative financial solutions to protect, restore, and conserve nature.

“Nature-positive” is not comprehensively defined in the brief, but these outcomes can be inferred, from the brief itself and commentary on the BFN and The B Team websites, as qualifying: emissions reductions and the transition to renewably powered economies; restoration of damaged ecosystems and initiatives to arrest further biodiversity loss and restore damaged and endangered populations; support of social and economic needs of human populations, including redress of economic and environmental inequities; and support of nature-based solutions broadly. Importantly, BFN asserts that EHS reform must consider social and economic forces at play as it pursues “the imperative for a just and equitable transition. Reform managed sensitively means providing support for the poorest households and most vulnerable communities, such as via targeted cash transfers.”

In the authors’ view, such redirection of resources from harmful subsidies toward nature-positive outcomes would:

• free up substantial government resources to support social needs and local livelihoods
• redirect capital toward ecological restoration, including nature-based solutions
• close the biodiversity finance gap by reducing environmental degradation and unlocking the funding needed to mitigate it
• send more accurate signals to public and private investors and producers on where to direct R&D efforts and future investments
• accelerate innovation to reduce greenhouse gases and environmental damage
• create a level playing field for businesses, which would further encourage rapid transformation of business models
• unlock social benefits such as poverty reduction, improvements in education and other social services, and more sustainable approaches to providing basic access to energy, clean air, and water

The brief calls on businesses and investors to advocate with governments for reform of EHS through their repurposing or redirection, or elimination, and funding of “an equitable, net-zero, and nature-positive world by 2030.” In addition, it asks that businesses (1) collaborate broadly to increase awareness of reputational, competitive, and investor advantages of subsidy disclosure, and (2) support the development of international standards, frameworks, and guidance for mandatory ESG (environmental, social, and governance) disclosures, including subsidies.

The report goes on to make a compelling business case for reforming systems of subsidies that fund destructive entities and practices by identifying risks and opportunities. Central to the risks is the inescapable fact that virtually all businesses rely on functional natural systems and resources for every aspect of their value chains. In addition, EHS, as noted above, distort pricing, investment decisions, and resource allocation; encourage unsustainable production and consumption (chickens will eventually come home to roost!), and unfair competition; and generate supply chain, reputational, and operational risks.

On the other side of the ledger, the draft points to opportunities that EHS reform and redirection of funding to nature-positive objectives would present. The authors assert that among those would be increased competitive positioning, increased ESG investor interest, reduction of the risks noted above, and progress on the “ambitions of the Paris Climate Agreement.” (Inadequate as that particular set of accords is, that would still be a giant step in the right direction for many private enterprises.)

The brief summarizes: “Informed reform of subsidies can boost business and investment opportunities, create jobs, reverse nature loss and help ensure a sustainable future for our planet. Businesses can mobilize and implement change with speed (often faster than policy-makers), setting a precedent for improvement across industry. Investors are starting to acknowledge the financial and sustainability risks of environmentally harmful subsidies and forward-looking companies recognize they need to prepare for subsidy reform.”

The brief ends with a slew of endorsing comments from members of The B Team, business leaders, and advocacy groups. Several stand out to Beyond Pesticides:

• “It’s time to stop the self-serving, short-sighted lobbying instead directing public money towards supporting responsible companies transition to nature positive business models.” — Paul Polman, business leader and The B Team member
• “It is more important than ever to put in place ambitious targets to reverse nature loss and to redirect, repurpose or eliminate all subsidies that harm our natural world.” — Marco Lambertini, Director General of World Wildlife Fund International
• “We must break down the siloed approach that has led to putting subsidies in place without consideration of their long-term environmental costs.” — Jennifer Morris, CEO, The Nature Conservancy

Activist 360 reports the comment of Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and member of The B Team: “Climate action is at a crossroads, in part because of the large scale of public money flowing to harmful industries and practices. We need to see thorough subsidy reform from governments and businesses, with social and environmental considerations at the heart, to ensure a just and equitable transition for all.”

Enacted, EHS reform could go a long way to mitigating climate and environmental harm, but such reform will likely be a slog, given the complexity and entrenched nature of national and international economic systems, the inherent conservatism — never mind the centrality of the profit motive — of most private enterprise, and the typically glacial pace of governments on reform efforts. Still, it is encouraging to see some portion of the business community stepping up to recognize its responsibility to remedy what it (as well as governments, militaries, and others) have caused, and advance the possibility of a livable and functional climate and environment.

Beyond Pesticides would add to the ambitious scope of this brief and its sponsors that EHS reform, and the implied reform of supply chains, should directly address the toxicity of so much of the global materials stream — particularly, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, plastics, and chemical ingredients of industrial and consumer products (see, e.g., this Daily News Blog article on PFAS and other toxics). Multiple other articles have covered the need for companies to clean up their supply chains, and Beyond Pesticides advocacy on the issues — whether about garden center and other retail sale of plants treated with toxic pesticides, sale of contaminated “biosludge” as fertilizer, the ubiquity of untested chemicals, including those in plastics, or myriad others. Beyond Pesticides has also detailed the systemic ecosystem impacts of toxic chemicals and their damage to biodiversity.

Many, many products and ingredients are integral in causing the harms this brief addresses, and whose authors and supporters hope will inform decision makers at COP15 (the UN Biodiversity Conference). Beyond Pesticides encourages that the report be taken seriously, and that its influence leads to a genuine shift across the global business community toward nature-positive goals — redirection of policy and investment to repair and restore, rather than ravage, the climate and natural systems of this world.

Sources: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d777de8109c315fd22faf3a/t/620d33b868c7486475f06303/1645032379783/Financing_Our_Survival_Brief_FINAL.pdf and https://www.businessfornature.org/news/subsidy-reform

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 24, 2022) Widespread, intensive pesticide use for mosquito control has allowed genetic mutations to persist among mosquito populations, causing subsequent resistance to future chemical exposure. According to a study published in Scientific Reports, two common species of female mosquitoes learned to evade pesticides following non-fatal exposure through smell. More concerning is the survival rate of these pre-exposed mosquitoes, as it is more than double that of unexposed mosquitoes. Insects, including mosquitoes, use various sensory and cognitive abilities like vision, smell, and hearing to navigate the ecosystem for survival and reproduction. Mosquitoes associate sensory stimuli like smell to a positive or negative experience, thus facilitating a response. Considering the two species of mosquitoes in this study are a vector for numerous diseases in humans, including dengue and Zika and West Nile viruses. Hence, this study highlights the significance of addressing pest resistance in pest management strategies, particularly to mitigate disease exposure and effects. The study notes, “[The] findings highlight the importance of mosquito cognition as determinants of pesticide resistance in mosquito populations targeted by chemical control.”

It is essential to understand insect behavior that propagates vector-borne disease transmission that exacerbates the widespread public health crisis. Scientists attribute memory and associative learning to behavioral changes occurring in responses to chemical exposure. The study focused on female Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciastus mosquitoes that researchers exposed to a sublethal dose of five pesticide compounds. Using the World Health Organization (WHO) bioassays, researchers observe associative learning by exposing mosquitoes to sublethal doses of deltamethrin  (pyrethroid), permethrin (pyrethroid), lambda-cyhalothrin (pyrethroid), propoxur (carbamate), and malathion  (organophosphate). These chemicals represent the pesticides primarily used for vector control. Researchers then exposed female mosquitoes to the same chemical in the assay.

The result demonstrates that female mosquitoes previously exposed to a chemical avoid the same chemical when associated with adverse survival odds, seeking out blood to ensure survival. Thus, following a single exposure, mosquitoes can associate the smell of pesticides with their harmful effect to avoid contact with the said chemical. Female mosquitoes prefer to rest in a pesticide-free area rather than one prone to pesticide use.

This study resembles an all too familiar phenomenon of resistance among pest populations. Scientists note resistance is an entirely normal, adaptive phenomenon: organisms evolve, “exploiting” beneficial genetic mutations that give them a survival advantage. However, resistance is growing in all sectors of pest control, including critically needed agriculture and medicine. For nearly a century, the human response to resistance is the development of a compound that kills the resistant organism (whether pest or weed or bacterium or fungus), which works for a while. However, the dependence on chemical solutions is increasingly failing. Whether it is antibiotics for bacterial infections, herbicides for weeds/pests, or insecticides to mitigate vector-borne diseases, organisms are becoming resistant to usually toxic compounds. Once an organism inevitably becomes resistant to a particular chemical control strategy, people — the chemical industry, researchers, applicators, farmers, public health workers, clinicians, et al. — will have typically moved on to the subsequent chemical “solution.” Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) notes, “The World Health Organization underscored the problem in their 2012 guidance on policymaking for Integrated Vector Management (IVM): ‘Resistance to insecticides is an increasing problem in vector control because of the reliance on chemical control and expanding operations…Furthermore, the chemical insecticides used can have adverse effects on health and the environment.’”

Beyond Pesticides has written extensively on the issue of resistance, particularly the relationship to the use of agricultural and other land management pesticides, with the central message: resistance is a symptom of the ineffectiveness of chemical-intensive agriculture and leads to increased use of more and more toxic pesticides. In addition, resistance in one of the “sectors” mentioned above can “crossover” to become problematic in another. Growing pesticide resistance often leads to an increase in chemical inputs to control pests. Exposure to permethrin already has implications for human health, including cancer, endocrine (hormone) disruption, reproductive dysfunction, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage. Mosquito resistance can augment the use of chemical control methods, including the addition of toxic synergists like piperonyl butoxide (PBO), known to cause and exacerbate adverse health effects from exposure. Therefore, researchers need to understand the mechanisms prompting pesticide resistance among mosquito populations to safeguard human health from disease.

In the context of deadly pesticide use in developing countries, Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, has noted, “We should be advocating for a just world where we no longer treat poverty and development with poisonous band-aids but join together to address the root causes of insect-borne disease because the chemical-dependent alternatives are ultimately deadly for everyone.” He also said, “We should focus on the deplorable living conditions and inequitable distribution of wealth and resources worldwide that give rise to squalor, inhumane living conditions, and the poor state of development that, together, breed insect-borne diseases like malaria.”

Even if dengue is not a local concern, there remains general concern surrounding the diseases mosquitoes can transmit, including the West Nile and Zika virus. Beyond Pesticides provides valuable information on mosquito management and insect-borne diseases on the Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases section devoted to these issues. Furthermore, keep up on pesticide-related science and news, including mosquitoes and pesticide resistance on Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News blog.

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

Source: ABC News, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, February 23, 2022) Fungicide use in agriculture is driving the spread of multi-fungicide resistant human pathogens, finds a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Georgia. While this occurrence has long been an assumption based on the rampant overuse of fungicides in chemical-dependent farming, scientists have now found clear evidence linking the development of widespread fungal resistance to farming practices, rather than health care use. Despite strong evidence that commonly used synthetic pesticides in chemical-intensive farming are driving resistance that threatens human health on a global scale, the U.S. government has not only failed to take action, it has fought against international efforts to slow the crisis, at the behest of the agrichemical industry.  

Scientists focused their research on Aspergillus fumigatus, a common mold that can infect humans and cause aspergillosis. Although some have problems with mild sensitivity to the fungus, virulent infections called invasive aspergillosis can occur in immunocompromised individuals and are on the rise. Cases of invasive aspergillosis increased 3% per annum between 2000 and 2013, and roughly 300,000 worldwide are diagnosed each year. On both farms and in human medical settings, antifungal compounds called azole fungicides are used in attempts to kill off A. fumigatus infection.

Samples were taken from soil, compost, or plant debris from 56 farms in Georgia and Florida, with 53 of those sites having previously used azole fungicides. Of the remaining three, two samples were taken from organic farms and one was taken from a compost pile.

Of 700 A. fumigatus samples collected, nearly 20% (123) displayed some level of resistance to the commonly used azole fungicide tebuconazole. Twelve of the 123 were highly resistant at clinically relevant levels for human health care. No samples taken from organic sites contained resistant fungi.

It was hypothesized that if the strain of A. fumigatus infecting people developed its resistance traits on a farm, that strain would also have developed some level of resistance to other, non-azole, agricultural fungicides. Sure enough, the azole-resistant strains also displayed resistance to methyl benzimidazole carbamate (MBC) fungicides like carbendazim, and quinone outside inhibitors (Qol) like azoxystrobin.

By sequencing the genomes of A. fumigatus samples both from the current study and those taken and stored  from clinical tests across the world, researchers were able to create a neighbor-joining tree — a sort of family tree of fungicide resistant A. fumigatus. That review showed that genetically, pan-azole resistant strains – those with broad resistance to azole fungicides – matched up closely between those discovered on farms and those found in human clinical settings.  Of 25 pan-azole resistant samples analyzed, eight farm samples and 12 human clinical samples also displayed resistance to non-azole fungicides.

“The strains that are from the environment and from people are very closely related to each other,” study co-author Marin T. Brewer, PhD, said. “It’s not like there are different strains that are developing resistance in people and in the environment. It’s all the same. So people who have these infections that are resistant have likely acquired them from the environment.”

Aspergillus fumigatus is commonly found both indoors and outside. Infection can occur by simply inhaling a small amount of the fungi.

This result is merely the latest resistant pathogen to trace its lineage back to on-farm use. Over the last decade, scientific evidence has built around the link between common herbicides and antibiotic resistant bacteria. A 2015 study found that Salmonella and E.coli exposed to the herbicides glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D triggered a non-specific defense mechanism which, while building resistance to the toxic effects of the herbicides, also resulted in resistance to commonly used antibiotics. Subsequent research has found soil sprayed with these same herbicides to have higher numbers of antibiotic resistant bacteria than areas where the chemicals were not applied. The resistant genes move throughout the environment by ‘horizontal gene transfer,’ elevating the importance of land and agricultural management practices that eliminate antibiotics and fungicides. 

Another problematic fungal pathogen, the yeast Candida auris, continues to rapidly develop treatment resistance in human clinical settings, linked to the excessive use of fungicides.

Researchers say their results indicate a need for a shift toward less toxic fungicides that do not cause resistance to human pathogens. “This emergence severely limits the usefulness of fungicides to manage plant pathogens while still preserving the clinical usefulness of azoles,” Dr. Brewer said. “We urgently need effective agricultural fungicides that aren’t toxic to the environment that do not lead to the rapid development of widespread resistance in the clinic.”

While the call is laudable, regulators and politicians are neither heeding the science, nor listening to scientists. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent response to the rise of drug-resistant Candida auris is case in point. The agency failed to assess the efficacy of any pesticides that are not used for public health purposes; EPA only evaluated the efficacy of antimicrobial compounds whose use patterns classify them as human-health-related.

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

Prior research on resistance in agriculture has shown that the only true way to eliminate resistance is to stop using the material that was causing resistance to occur in the first place. Organic agriculture, with its strong restrictions on allowed synthetic materials, provides a path out of the industrialized chemical farming system that overtook agricultural production over the last century. Rising resistance, and the need to retain life-saving medication for protecting people’s health, not growing crops, is another reason why investing in organic is the right choice for the future. For more reasons to go organic, see Beyond Pesticides Why Organic webpage.

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

Source: University of Georgia press release, G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics

(Beyond Pesticides, February 22, 2022) Regulation of toxic chemicals must recognize the reality that, “The cocktail of chemical pollution that pervades the planet now threatens the stability of global ecosystems upon which humanity depends,” as stated by The Guardian. When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the dangers of a toxic chemical—especially one persistent in the environment—it must take immediate action to prevent further contamination. So, allowing the phase-out of chemicals with long residual life can extend the poisoning and contamination for generations.

Tell EPA to immediately ban all uses of pentachlorophenol and other toxic wood preservatives. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA does its job. 

There is an ongoing crisis, widely reported, posed by the nearly ubiquitous presence of “forever chemicals”—poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and their relatives. A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that 97% of Americans have PFAS in their blood. The Safer States Network finds that more than 210 bills will be considered in at least 32 states in 2022 to try to address the problem. Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that ‘forever chemicals’ are contaminating containers that store pesticide products, and subsequently the products themselves.

PFAS are only the most recent persistent toxic chemicals to achieve notoriety. Ever since its inception, Beyond Pesticides has shown the need to ban highly toxic wood preservatives. According to Koppers Recovery, “43% of all new poles are treated with penta; 42% are treated with CCA; and 13% are treated with creosote.”

EPA has long known about the dangers pentachlorophenol (penta) poses to health, particularly the health of workers in penta production or wood treatment plants and opposed worldwide action to ban the chemical. In 2008, the agency determined that these occupational handlers have a 1 in 1,000 risk of developing cancer. Rather than cancel the chemical at that time to protect worker health, the agency opted to attempt additional mitigation measures, requiring further personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and changes to treatment procedures. With no real-world evidence that this would make a difference, the agency expected these changes to drop the cancer risk to workers. However, in its most recent draft risk assessment, EPA found that this drastically high cancer risk remained the same. The agency’s current action to phase-out penta over five years came only when the manufacturer in North America stopped production after being shut down in Mexico.

Similarly, EPA has known about the dangers of creosote and arsenical wood preservatives. Despite a high-profile tour of communities affected by toxic chemicals by EPA Administrator Michael Regan, the agency still fails to make connections that could help protect against the poisoning of workers, fenceline communities, and others. As Mr. Regan, in November, visited Houston, Texas, where thousands of residents are suing Union Pacific Railroad Company for contaminating their properties with highly hazardous creosote wood preservatives, EPA is in the process of reauthorizing creosote use for another 15 years with the knowledge that it is virtually impossible to produce and use without causing contamination and poisoning. When EPA proposed interim decision for creosote, it wrote, “Creosote-treated wood offers unique benefits in the preservation of railroad crossties, wooden utility poles, and round timber foundation piles for land, freshwater, and marine use.” In light of these “unique benefits,” the agency did not even consider the viability of alternatives, such as steel, composites, and fiberglass that could replace the hazardous wood preservative process with non or less toxic materials.

All of the wood preservatives are broadly highly toxic and persistent. There is no safe way to dispose of treated wood. As was seen firsthand by EPA Administrator Regan, it is evident from both history and the present day that chemical corporations target low income, BIPOC neighborhoods to site hazardous industrial processes, creating fence line communities with higher rates of disease incidence and other health problems. EPA must not only clean up contamination caused by past injustices, but also stop future injustice directed toward black and brown communities by suspending the registration of hazardous wood preservatives like creosote.

Unfortunately, when EPA takes action, it is delayed. Although after nearly a century of use, EPA is officially cancelling the highly toxic wood preservative pentachlorophenol (penta), it has done so with a 5-year phase-out period. But the first step to removing these “forever chemicals” from our environment is to quit adding them.

Tell EPA to immediately ban all uses of pentachlorophenol and other toxic wood preservatives. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA does its job. 

Letter to EPA:

Regulation of toxic chemicals must recognize the reality that “The cocktail of chemical pollution that pervades the planet now threatens the stability of global ecosystems upon which humanity depends,” according to The Guardian. When EPA recognizes the dangers of a toxic chemical—especially one persistent in the environment—it must take immediate action to prevent further contamination.There is a widely reported ongoing crisis posed by the nearly ubiquitous presence of “forever chemicals”—poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and their relatives. 97% of Americans have PFAS in their blood, resulting in more than 210 bills that will be considered in at least 32 states in 2022 to try to address the problem.

But PFAS are only the most recent persistent toxic chemicals to achieve notoriety. Highly toxic wood preservatives pose a similar danger.

EPA has long known about the dangers pentachlorophenol (penta) poses to health, particularly the health of workers in penta production or wood treatment plants. In 2008, the agency determined that these occupational handlers have a 1 in 1,000 risk of developing cancer. Rather than cancel the chemical at that time to protect worker health, the agency opted to attempt additional mitigation measures, requiring further personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and changes to treatment procedures. With no real-world evidence that this would make a difference, the agency expected these changes to drop the cancer risk to workers. However, in its most recent draft risk assessment, EPA found that this drastically high cancer risk remained the same.

Similarly, EPA has known about the dangers of creosote and arsenical wood preservatives. Despite a high-profile tour of communities affected by toxic chemicals by EPA Administrator Michael Regan, EPA still fails to make connections that could help protect against poisoning of workers, fenceline communities, and others. As Mr. Regan, in November, visited Houston, Texas, where thousands of residents are suing Union Pacific Railroad Company for contaminating their properties with highly hazardous creosote wood preservatives, EPA is in the process of reauthorizing creosote use for another 15 years with the knowledge that it is virtually impossible to produce and use without causing contamination and poisoning. In its proposed interim decision for creosote, EPA wrote, “Creosote-treated wood offers unique benefits in the preservation of railroad crossties, wooden utility poles, and round timber foundation piles for land, freshwater, and marine use.” In light of these “unique benefits,” the agency did not even consider the viability of alternatives, such as steel, composites, and fiberglass that could replace the hazardous wood preservative process with non or less toxic materials.

All the wood preservatives are broadly highly toxic and persistent. As was seen firsthand by EPA Administrator Regan, it is evident from both history and the present day that chemical corporations target low income, BIPOC neighborhoods to site hazardous industrial processes, creating fence line communities with higher rates of disease incidence and other health problems. EPA must not only clean up contamination that caused past injustices, but also stop future injustice directed toward black and brown communities by eliminating the use of penta, creosote, and arsenical wood preservatives.

Unfortunately, when EPA takes action, it is delayed. Although after nearly a century of use, EPA is officially cancelling the highly toxic wood preservative pentachlorophenol (penta), it has done so with a 5-year phase-out period. But the first step to removing these “forever chemicals” from our environment is to quit adding them.

Please take action to eliminate use of these persistent toxic chemicals immediately.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

I am writing out of an urgent concern for our future, in view of increasing contamination with toxic “forever chemicals.”

Regulation of toxic chemicals must recognize the reality that, “The cocktail of chemical pollution that pervades the planet now threatens the stability of global ecosystems upon which humanity depends,” according to the Guardian. When EPA recognizes the dangers of a toxic chemical—especially one persistent in the environment—it must take immediate action to prevent further contamination.

Anyone who reads the news is aware of the crisis posed by the nearly ubiquitous presence of “forever chemicals”—poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and their relatives. 97% of Americans have PFAS in their blood, resulting in more than 210 bills that will be considered in at least 32 states in 2022 to try to address the problem.

But PFAS are only the most recent persistent toxic chemicals to achieve notoriety. Highly toxic wood preservatives pose a similar danger.

EPA has long known about the dangers pentachlorophenol (penta) poses to health, particularly the health of workers in penta production or wood treatment plants. In 2008, the agency determined that these occupational handlers have a 1 in 1,000 risk of developing cancer. Rather than cancel the chemical at that time to protect worker health, the agency opted to attempt additional mitigation measures, requiring further personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and changes to treatment procedures. The agency expected these changes to drop the cancer risk to workers. However, in its most recent draft risk assessment, EPA found that this drastically high cancer risk remained the same.

Similarly, EPA has known about the dangers of creosote and arsenical wood preservatives. Despite a high-profile tour of communities affected by toxic chemicals by EPA Administrator Michael Regan, EPA still fails to make connections that could help protect against poisoning of workers, fenceline communities, and others. As Mr. Regan visited Houston, Texas, where thousands of residents are suing Union Pacific Railroad Company for contaminating their properties with highly hazardous creosote wood preservatives, EPA is in the process of reauthorizing creosote use for another 15 years with the knowledge that it is virtually impossible to produce and use without causing contamination and poisoning. In its proposed interim decision for creosote, EPA wrote, “Creosote-treated wood offers unique benefits in the preservation of railroad crossties, wooden utility poles, and round timber foundation piles for land, freshwater, and marine use.” In light of these “unique benefits,” the agency did not even consider the viability of alternatives, such as steel, composites, and fiberglass that could replace the hazardous wood preservative process with non or less toxic materials.

All wood preservatives are broadly highly toxic and persistent. As was seen firsthand by EPA Administrator Regan, chemical companies target low income, BIPOC neighborhoods to site hazardous industrial processes, creating fence line communities with higher rates of disease incidence and other health problems. EPA must not only clean up contamination that caused past injustices, but also stop future injustice directed toward black and brown communities by eliminating the use of penta, creosote, and arsenical wood preservatives.

Unfortunately, when EPA takes action, it is delayed. Although after nearly a century of use, EPA is officially cancelling the highly toxic wood preservative pentachlorophenol (penta), it has done so with a 5-year phase-out period. But the first step to removing these “forever chemicals” from our environment is to quit adding them.

Please ensure that EPA takes action to eliminate use of these persistent toxic chemicals immediately.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Safer States analysis sets out these particulars:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source: University of Copenhagen press release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: uOttawa press release, FEMS Microbiology Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: George Washington University press release, Environmental Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Letter to Governor and state legislators outside of California:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Letter to Governor and state legislators of California:

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is essential to know and understand the effects pesticides have on human health, especially if pesticides increase the risk of developing chronic diseases, particularly among vulnerable individuals. GIS-based pesticide exposure data can help public health officials make more targeted decisions regarding human health concerns. Moreover, GIS can incorporate numerous sources involving location, chemical, and time-period specific data. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift from pesticide dependency. For more information on pesticide exposure harms, see PIDD pages on cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases.

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies find that pesticide metabolites in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and the agricultural sector can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. Furthermore, learn more about farmworker protection by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice page.

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

Source: Environmental Factor-NIEHS, Scientific Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Scientific Reports

Image Source: Luca Prasso, Flikr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Beyond Pesticides Wood Preservatives webpage. 

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

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