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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representatives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To these shortcomings Beyond Pesticides would add the agency’s failure, as noted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and reported in this August 2021 Daily News Blog article, to make progress in protecting the population from potentially damaging endocrine disruption impacts of exposures to synthetic chemical pesticides (and other chemicals of concern). Many, many pesticides act as disruptors of the human (and other animal) endocrine systems. The GAO summarized its report: “Without the required testing and an effective system of internal controls, the EPA cannot make measurable progress toward complying with statutory requirements or safeguarding human health and the environment against risks from endocrine-disrupting chemicals.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Thorax, Health Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Ecological Applications, The Fulcrum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Environmental Science and Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for considering this request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please support H.R. 4946.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representatives Buchanan and Soto:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your support of the Florida manatee.

Letter to Florida Governor DeSantis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for acting to protect the Florida manatee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Nature Communications, Science Daily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to President Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to EPA Administrator and Office of Pesticide Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: EPA press release, EPA Q&A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity (press release)

(Beyond Pesticides, January 18, 2021) A study published in Environmental Science & Technology adds to the growing body of scientific research verifying the use of silicone devices as an effective tool for biomonitoring and disease prognosis, finding widespread exposure to people and pets. Researchers can identify the presence of chemical contaminants among humans and their canine companions occupying similar spaces using silicone monitoring devices (e.g., wristbands, collars, etc.). Although scientists can gauge chemical contamination with silicone devices, anthropoid (human) diseases can take many years to develop, even after initial contaminant exposure. Identifying chronic human diseases from pollutants remains challenging as scientists lack a full understanding of mechanisms involved in chemical-driven diseases development. However, dogs develop comparable anthropomorphic (human-like) diseases (e.g., cancer, organ damage) from susceptibility to the same environmental contaminants, but at a much quicker pace. Therefore, this research highlights the significance of identifying chemicals associated with diseases that are common across multiple species over longer disease latency periods. The researchers note, “These results, in combination with our recent study investigating uptake rates of chemicals on wristbands, demonstrate that silicone samplers can be used to assess average integrated exposure over time (in this case over a week of exposure). Studies such as these could aid in identifying important health risks that could be mitigated in order to reduce the burden of these chronic diseases in both people and dogs.”

Several research studies detail disease effects from contaminant exposure, including details pinpointing environmental contaminant absorption and relative exposure patterns that cause these diseases. However, scientists can successfully use silicone to detect environmental contaminants. The silicone membrane mimics human and animal cell membrane absorption, thus acting as a good indicator of contamination absorption and relative exposure. A COSECHA study found that silicone wristbands quantify pesticide exposure, accurately identifying 72 different pesticides exposed to teenage girls in the Salinas Valley region. Therefore, these devices represent a non-invasive tool that can identify exposure to multiple pollutants in various settings, including occupational, household, and ecosystem.

The researchers aim to determine whether silicone wristbands and dog tags accurately predict pesticide exposure. Using a cohort of 30 people and their pet canines, researchers compared the presence of pesticides in silicone samples with participants’ urine samples. Gas chromatography analyses identified pesticides in silicone samplers, while researchers examined urine samples for pesticide metabolites or breakdown products.  

The results find over 70 percent of silicone samples detect the presence of multiple pesticides detectable, such as insecticides, including permethrin, fipronil, and N, N diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) (a highly toxic insect repellent and synergist). Both DEET and fipronil are detectable in 100 percent of human and dog silicone devices, with DEET concentrations in silicone device samples associated with chemical levels in urine. Due to the use of fipronil as flea and tick treatment, participants reporting recent flea/tick treatments have higher levels of fipronil in both silicone and urine samples.

Humans and dogs often occupy similar spaces, exposing both species to the same chemical contaminants, like pesticides. Pesticide exposure from environmental use (i.e., on gardens, turf, public field/property, etc.), or products containing pesticides (i.e., pet shampoos, disinfectants, bug sprays, etc.), is unavoidable—regardless of pesticide product labels warning clients to avoid direct contact with clothes or skin. As the prevalence of environmental pollutants increases annually, the disease implications associated with the contaminants may lack proper regulatory evaluation. Thus, silicone monitoring devices can capture the chemical exposures in combination with adverse health effects on dogs, acting as a proxy for human health effects. Since dogs share a combination of gene functions and pathophysiological (biological processes associated with disease or injury) similarities to humans, canines can considerably improve research in biomedical studies when assessing cross-species health in the shared environment. Furthermore, humans and dogs share over 360 analogous diseases, including various cancers (i.e., testicular, breast cancer, etc.). However, human disease development can remain latent for years, despite environmental pollutant exposure. Because dogs have a shorter disease latency period, they play a significant role as early warning species for disease in humans. Therefore, using data from silicone dog tags can help assess relative pesticide exposure to determine potential health effects, especially for highly latent diseases that appear much soon in dogs.

The study finds permethrin, fipronil, chlorpyrifos, and DEET are present in silicone and urinary samples, with DEET being the most abundant in both humans and dogs. Furthermore, silicone devices most accurately measured concentrations of permethrin and DEET detectable in urine samples. Although the study finds a strong correlation between chemical concentrations from silicone and urine samples, dogs’ exposure profile may in some cases differ from humans. Pesticide concentrations may be higher among dogs as they encounter pesticides more frequently through grooming behavior, diet, or conventional pet products. Numerous flea and tick prevention products (i.e., collars, topical treatments, sprays, dust) include pesticides like synthetic pyrethroids (i.e., permethrin) and fipronil. A common trait among these pesticides is their toxicity. Fipronil can cause aggression, kidney damage, and thyroid disruption among pets. Synthetic pyrethroids, like permethrin, are of principal concern in multi-pet homes as cats are highly sensitive to these synthetic pyrethroids, which trigger seizures, tremors, muscle spasms, and even death. Although there are claims that pyrethroid toxicity is absent in dogs, a 2014 study finds that tremor-salivation syndrome appears in canines after exposure to two different classes of pyrethroids. In humans, synthetic pyrethroids prompt behavioral disorders, ADHD, delayed cognitive and motor development, and premature puberty in boys. Often, manufacturers and pesticides applicators use permethrin in conjunction with other pesticides (i.e., imidacloprid) and chemical synergists (i.e., piperonyl butoxide [PBO]), which enhance the toxicity of the active ingredients in pesticide formulations. With the high degree of human contact with pets, through cuddling and hugs and kisses, those using pet products containing pesticides put themselves, children, and those with comorbidities at greater risk of high contaminant exposure.

Over 85 million people in the U.S. have pets, and 88 million U.S. residents use household pesticides. Many of the chemicals in the study are also some of the commonly used chemicals on lawns and landscapes (i.e., permethrin, a top 10 health concern, and fipronil, a top 10 ecological concern). Thus, silicone devices can investigate the relationship between disease development and environmental exposure patterns across species.

We must have a full knowledge of chemicals we are commonly exposed to in our environment, especially as EPA and state regulatory agencies fail to fully assess the cause of pesticide-induced diseases of these environmental contaminants and their interactions. Harms associated with contaminant exposure should end through policy reform and the adoption of practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use, especially in pet care products. Far too many diseases in the U.S. have associations with pesticide exposure. Thus, eliminating pesticide use is crucial in safeguarding public health, especially for ecosystems and organisms vulnerable to pesticide toxicity. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is an invaluable resource for additional scientific literature that documents elevated rates of chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides. Additionally, learn more about how to protect your pet from pesticides and the least-toxic controls for flea and tick infestation. See also Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe pages on flea and tick management.

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

Source: Environmental Science & Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, January 14, 2022) On the annual celebration of the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.— MLK Day, Monday, January 17 — Beyond Pesticides honors his legacy by calling out ongoing environmental inequities, and calling on all of us to advance environmental justice. In his 1967 Christmas sermon, Dr. King famously noted, “It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” There may be no better description of what is at stake in environmental justice work — righting environmental wrongs that have disproportionate impacts on some groups of people. In its attention to the multitude of ways in which BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) populations face disproportionate risks and impacts, Beyond Pesticides works to ensure that all people are afforded circumstances that support their safety, health, and well-being.

Rather than excavate the very long historical record of environmental injustice in the U.S., today’s Daily News Blog recalls several examples from the past year. It is impossible to begin that chronicle without first acknowledging that the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has surfaced a multitude of inequities that layer on and exacerbate others. Early on, it became abundantly apparent that some people — low-income, elderly, and those in communities of color —are suffering disproportionate rates of infection, illness, and death from the virus that causes Covid. Explanations for such impacts in communities of color include the facts that BIPOC folks represent an outsized proportion of essential workers, and of those with medical comorbidities that raise risk; they may also have less-ready access to, and/or lower-quality of, healthcare.

In the summer of 2020, Beyond Pesticides reported on high rates of Covid infection and death among farmworkers and landscapers, and exposed the increased pandemic risks to such populations because of pesticide exposure. (Latinx people are particularly over-represented among such workers.) As it wrote then, “Evidence is mounting that threats to the immune and respiratory systems posed by pesticides are likely to make those exposed more susceptible to the coronavirus. . . . Alongside other hardships such preexisting health problems, family obligations, cramped housing and transportation, threat of deportation, and communication difficulties, the risks of these essential workers contracting and dying from Covid-19 are compounded exponentially.”

In its 2020–2021 Annual Report, Beyond Pesticides noted important learnings from the Covid-19 experience: “different population groups have disproportionate vulnerabilities, from children to older people; essential workers (from hospital personnel, to grocery store workers, to farmworkers) suffer elevated risk factors due to exposure patterns, creating disproportionate rates of disease; those with preexisting conditions or comorbidities face higher risks; and a lack of complete scientific knowledge requires a precautionary approach or standard.”

—On a brighter and related note, the Apopka, Florida Farmworker Association (FFA) is advocating vigorously for a ban on all organophosphate pesticides, which cause serious neurological damage, especially in children. Earthjustice recently joined FFA and other community health and farmworker groups in support of FFA’s work, filing a petition asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban neurotoxic organophosphate pesticides. These compounds, which are prevalent in the food supply and water resources, endanger farmworkers and their families; see this Earthjustice database, which is chock-full of information on the use of organophosphates in the U.S., for a deep look at their use, the most-contaminated foods, and impacts on workers, bystanders, and consumers.

—Early in 2021, Beyond Pesticides covered a study that found a link between elevated rates of breast cancer and exposure to chemical pesticides among African American women, who are 40 percent morelikely to die from this cancer than are non-Black women. The study also found that aggressive cancer subtypes (such as triple-negative breast cancer) have stem-cell-like properties that allow pesticides to dysregulate hormonal pathways. Increased exposures to chemicals, including pesticides, in low-income, often fenceline, communities of color create unequal risks for residents. The researchers also determined that biomarker concentrations in non-Hispanic Black Women are higher for a variety of chemicals, including a fungicide and some pesticide metabolites, as well as heavy metals and endocrine disruptors.

In covering this study, Beyond Pesticides wrote that, “The connection between cancer and pesticides is of specific concern to communities of color, as etiological studies often attribute cancer to genetics or environmental contamination without considering the disproportionate risk of exposure to contaminants. Many people of color communities or members of low-socioeconomic backgrounds experience unequal amounts of chemical exposure from various sources. Placement of toxic waste plants, garbage dumps, industrial factories, [chemical intensive] farms, and other hazardous pollution sources lowers the quality of life for minority populations. . . . Women of color are especially vulnerable to chemical exposure.”

—In the summer of 2021, the long scandal of EPA’s ongoing allowance of the use of chlorpyrifos (another organophosphate) on food crops was largely resolved when the agency released its final rule on chlorpyrifos by revoking all “tolerances” for the compound, effectively banning the continued use and presence of the chemical in food. But for more than five decades prior to this revocation, the toxic organophosphate insecticide had disproportionately harmed low-income African American and Latinx farmworkers (and their families) who have harvested much of the domestic — and contaminated — crops of grapes, citrus, and sugar beets, among others. Risks of exposure to chlorpyrifos include neurological, reproductive, endocrine, and liver and kidney, damage.

—Beyond Pesticides reported, in December 2021, an acknowledgement, by the Monsanto company (now owned by Bayer), of wrongdoing, in which it admitted guilt in more than 30 environmental crimes in Hawai’i (on Maui, Oahu, and Moloka’i) — for the second time in four years. (In 2019, Monsanto endangered public health and the environment by knowingly storing and applying the highly hazardous and banned insecticide methyl parathionon Maui, and only narrowly avoided prosecution for it.) The company was fined a total of $22 million for both the current adjudication and that in 2019.

In the recent instance, the company acknowledged it had illegally instructed workers to store and transport the banned Penncap-M, and to use it on research crops in 2014. Monsanto then told workers to enter the contaminated fields after seven days — far before the 31-day period required. In 2020, Monsanto told workers to use Forfeit 280 (a post-emergence herbicide) on cornfields, and then told them to enter those fields 30 times during a six-day “restricted entry” period. Both actions exposed multiple workers to these compounds.

Monsanto has conducted trials for its companion genetically engineered seeds and herbicides in Hawai’i for many years now. Roughly 75% of Hawaii’s population is non-white, so both direct impacts on agricultural workers, and indirect impacts on those living proximate to Monsanto fields, land heavily on indigenous people and other communities of color.

—Beyond Pesticides called attention last December to another instance of environmental injustice — one of thousands in the U.S. — related to toxic chemical use in or near communities of color. In this instance, the death of a young boy from leukemia led to the identification of a Houston-area childhood cancer cluster — with incidence of acute lymphoblastic leukemia nearly five times higher than what would be expected. The guardian of the boy and thousands of other area residents — many of whom are Black — are suing Union Pacific Railroad Company for contaminating their properties with highly hazardous creosote wood preservatives.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan, after touring the area as part of his Journey to Justice tour, pledged federal assistance with the cleanup of these toxic and persistent chemicals. Yet, EPA is currently in the process of reauthorizing creosote use for railroad ties and utility poles for 15 more years — even while it purportedly understands that production and use of these compounds contaminate communities and poison people. Beyond Pesticides wrote: “Some environmental advocates are suggesting that Administrator Regan take a tour of EPA’s pesticide registration program and stop the unnecessary poisoning that disproportionately affects people of color and those with vulnerabilities or pre-existing medical conditions that increase their vulnerability to toxic chemical exposure. While advocates say that cleaning up EPA’s mess in communities is critical, they insist that it is just as important to prevent future harm by keeping hazardous chemicals out of the market.”

—The impacts of the climate emergency affect everyone, but as has been repeatedly identified, they are hitting some regions and their inhabitants sooner and harder. According to Los Angeles Times coverage of a University of California Merced report, the annualized average temperature in the San Joaquin Valley — already hugely stressed by drought in recent years — could increase by four to five degrees over the coming three decades. The region is an important agricultural heartland that has long supported a huge variety of row crops, as well as grapes, almonds, pistachios, fruit trees, and dairy production. This report presents a very grim picture for the residents of the valley, largely low-income, Latinx agricultural workers who lack sufficient resources to adapt successfully to such changes.

The predicted temperature increases, according to the report, will likely result in increasing health hazards for residents (especially from extreme heat stress and chronic diseases), as well as degraded and scarce water resources, rising poverty, and poor air quality — spelling extreme erosion of health, economic opportunity, and environmental resources for the region’s population. The UC Merced report does make recommendations to mitigate these impacts, including “repurposing land surrounding rural disadvantaged communities into green areas, aquifer recharge projects, and wildlife corridors,” and bringing to the area cleaner industries, such as solar panel production. It also suggests that cleaner energy sources for heating and cooling across all sectors would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. All of those would require massive investment at local, state, and federal levels.

This roundup of examples of impacts and harms on BIPOC people and their communities underscores the reality, as Beyond Pesticides has identified, that federal environmental laws, policies, and regulations “codify disproportionate harm, such as federal pesticide law that is built on a foundation that allows elevated and disproportionate risk to workers. The law effectively requires EPA to allow higher rates of harm for workers, particularly farmworkers and landscapers (who are disproportionately people of color).”

Aptly, the 2021 Daily News Blog piece for MLK Day featured this statement: “We seek to eliminate disproportionate risk, [of] elevated toxic hazards to people-of-color communities, with higher rates of pesticide-induced diseases among those who live in fenceline communities where chemicals are produced, among farmworkers who harvest the nation’s food, and among landscapers who manage our parks and children’s playing fields. We seek to transform national laws that allow risk assessments that institutionalize environmental racism by allowing for this disproportionate risk. We seek to eliminate toxic pesticides production and use through the adoption of organic land management.”

At the start of 2022, Beyond Pesticides emphasizes its commitment to advancing systemic change that can address the depth and extent of the institutional biases that allow environmental racism to continue, as well as the complexity of the “moving parts” of the food, health, environmental, and governance sectors that allow the persistence of disproportionate impacts. For example, campaigns to eliminate individual pesticides (or other chemicals) are insufficient to the gravity and extent of the threats; a precautionary approach and standards are needed to meet and remedy them.

We recently wrote, “Forty years has taught Beyond Pesticides an approach that advances systemic change to meet the challenges.” Please join, reach out, act locally and regionally, and — in honor of Dr. King — help build a healthy and thriving “network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny” for all people.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 13, 2022) Insects found in nature preserves are consistently contaminated with over a dozen pesticides, calling into question the ability for these areas to function as refuges for threatened and endangered species. This finding comes from a study published last month in Scientific Reports by researchers with The Entomological Association Krefeld, the team behind the seminal study on the decline of flying insect biomass in German nature preserves, which sparked worldwide discussions about the ongoing insect apocalypse. With pesticide use rampant and contamination ubiquitous, it is imperative that lawmakers and regulators embrace stronger measures to reverse the ominous trajectory society continues to follow.

After finding devastating insect declines of nearly 80% over the last 30 years in German nature preserves, researchers set out to analyze what chemicals these insects were being exposed to, whether there were differences in contamination that could be observed between seasons, and how surrounding agricultural areas influenced insect exposure to pesticide residue. Scientists established a series of Malaise traps – large, tent-like mesh nets that will trap flying insects. Between May and August 2020, two insect collection samples each were taken from 21 nature preserves around Germany. Collected insects were immediately placed into ethanol for preservation. Researchers then followed a novel method of testing the ethanol for the presence of 92 commonly used pesticides.

From among the 21 sites, collected insects were contaminated with 16.7 pesticides on average, with ranges from 7 to 27 different substances on a single insect. Overall 47 of the 92 pesticides researchers tested for were discovered on tested insects. Of these, six were insecticides, 13 were herbicides, and 29 were fungicides. Six pesticides were found at every site, including metolachlor-S, prosulfocarb and terbuthylazine herbicides, and the fungicides azoxystrobin and fluopyram. Scientists noted that these chemistries were some of the highest selling pesticides in the country the previous year (notably, in the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not updated pesticide sales and use estimates since 2017, when it provided numbers for 2008-2012).

Researchers also found the neonicotinoid thiacloprid in 16 of the 21 preserves. The chemical was banned in the European Union, but provided a phase out period until early 2021, indicating that 2020 may have been the last opportunity for farmers to use their stock supply.

As the study explains, “A ban could thus result in a greater impact to the ecosystem if parallel applications take place on a large scale. Hence, for potent pesticides which are banned from the market, it seems advisable to stop granting grace periods and instead destroy remaining stock rather than dispersing them into the environment despite knowledge of their high environmental risks.”

Patterns of pesticide use were noticeable as seasons changed. The number of herbicides detected appears to increase in the spring, while fungicide residue detections increase in the late summer months. Although this factor is unsurprising, it has important implications for the health of insect communities, which undergo significant changes in terms of what species are active, dormant, breeding, or emerging at a given time of the year.

The study calls into significant question the ability for these areas to fulfill their stated function of wild species preservation. A correlation analysis conducted by scientists found that the number of pesticide detections on insects corresponded most closely to the amount of agricultural production within 1.25 miles (2,000 meters) of a given site.

In Germany, in response to earlier findings on the decline of insects in nature preserves, the government implemented restrictions around the use of pesticide sin these areas, and moderate buffer zones in the 10s of meters. However, in larger surrounding areas designated by the government as ‘flora-fauna-habitat areas,’ pesticide use is still allowed. Researchers argue that much broader buffers are required to effect meaningful protections. It was noted that a 1.25 mile buffer around all of Germany’s nature preserves would cover 30% of the country. As a compromise, researchers proposed, “that future transformation in land management could be specifically targeted around nature conservation areas to form the required buffer zones of organic agriculture where no synthetic pesticides are applied.” This novel policy approach balances human and ecological needs, protecting species in nature preserves while growing food nearby in a safe and sustainable manner.

The findings of this study are relevant to all pesticide reform advocates fighting recalcitrant lawmakers and regulators. Pesticide approvals allow long-lived chemicals to harm non-target species far away from an application site. These non-target species come into contact with multiple different pesticides at different times of the year. Regulators do not consider the long-range transport of pesticides, mixtures of multiple pesticides, or seasonal changes in pesticide exposure to non-target species, prior to the registration of a pesticide.

The study also highlights the problem of allowing a banned pesticide to have a ‘phase-out period.’ During this time, farmers and pesticide applicators are incentivized to use the remaining stocks of a chemical regulators have already indicated is too dangerous to be sold any further. This approach, where the solution to pesticide pollution is dilution, flies in the face of common sense, yet remains a fixture of pesticide regulation in the United States and abroad.

The real solutions to the pesticide-induced destruction of the natural world are neither impossible nor overly burdensome. The European Union, despite continued regulatory problems around pesticides, is embracing big changes with it’s Farm to Fork strategy, as part of its European Green Deal. But the United States continues to be mired in chemical industry corruption, working to oppose the EU initiative by embracing an alternate approach alongside Brazil and the United Arab Emirates. As the EU looks up, recognizes, and begins to confront the challenges of balancing food production and environmental health, the US is actively working to exacerbate these problems in order to fuel the short-term profits chemical companies.

Organic agriculture represents a path forward that understands that growing food outdoors means working with, not against the animals that are already living in that area. Rather than work to create an artificial environment through the use of synthetic materials, organic agriculture embraces the diversity of the outside world and channels that energy into productive means.  Join us today in telling EPA and Congress that the failed pesticide program needs a new start, and USDA must remove barriers that are preventing a national transition to organic agriculture.

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

Source: Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, January 12, 2022) Well water in agricultural regions of Sri Lanka is contaminated with highly hazardous insecticides and associated with a decline in kidney function, according to research published in npj Clean Water this month. This finding is the latest piece in an ongoing ‘puzzle’ regarding the epidemic of chronic kidney disease of unknown origins in Sri Lanka and other developing countries in agricultural regions. Although the exact etiology of the disease has not been confirmed, a number of scientific studies have pointed the finger at industrial agriculture, increasingly finding evidence of chronic pesticide exposure in affected populations.  

To better understand the connection between agrichemical exposure and kidney health, researchers enrolled 293 individuals from Wilgamuwa, Sri Lanka into a prospective study. Baseline data was retrieved on occupational and environmental exposure factors, focusing in on the water source individuals used at their homes. Samples of each participant’s household wells were taken and analyzed for the presence of pesticides.

Of the wells sampled, 68% were found to contain pesticides. Further, every well where pesticides were detected had at least one pesticide recorded above global drinking water guidelines. The chemicals found were also some of the most toxic pesticides to ever be sold, including the organochlorine insecticides DDT/DDE, propanil, and endosulfan, and the organophosphate diazinon. None of these chemicals are permitted for use in Europe or the United States, and some like endosulfan are being phased out globally through the Stockholm Convention.

The study found that individuals reporting drinking well water during their lifetimes had glomerular filtration rate (a measurement of kidney health) that was significantly lower on average (6.7) than other individuals who never drank well water, after accounting for differences in age and sex. Although this study does not reveal causation, it provides strong evidence that water contamination is playing a role in the development of the disease. “It is likely that there is no single compound of concern but rather a multiple stressor interactor effect across environmental and agrochemical exposure, behavior, and clinical factors,” the study reads.

Prior research has found a range of chemicals linked to kidney damage. Even among the 40 most commonly used lawn care pesticides, the vast majority – 32, are associated with damage to the kidney or liver. This includes widely used herbicides like glyphosate. In 2019, researchers Sararath Guanatilake, MD, and Channa Jayasumana, PhD, were awarded the Freedom and Responsibility Award from the American Association of the Advancement of Science for their work uncovering the link between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease. The award came as the two scientists had to defend their research from death threats and claims of misconduct directly or indirectly from the agrichemical industry, Bayer/Monsanto in particular. In fact, after receiving the award, Bayer/Monsanto bullying caused AAAS to withdraw the prize and place the award under review. Ultimately, however, after a multi-month pause, AAAS decided to confirm the original award.

Another pesticide, malathion, has recently been cited for its close link to kidney damage. A study published in October 2021 found significant associations with malathion exposure, low kidney function, and increased risk of CKD. With researchers now finding evidence that pesticide-contaminated well water may be a source of kidney dysfunction, it is evident that more action should be taken to protect those in intensive agricultural areas from pesticide exposure. While there is a desire to neatly separate bad from good actors in environmental ‘mysteries,’ including chronic kidney disease and the ongoing decline of pollinators, it is evident that in a world awash in chemicals, it is a combination of these factors that is likely at play.

We must act both locally and globally to shift away from our toxic reliance on hazardous chemicals to grow food we know can be grown without these chemicals. Sri Lanka’s government recognized this and attempted to rapidly transition the country to more organic agriculture. However, reports indicate that the approach taken simply stopped government subsidizes for chemical pesticides and fertilizers, without widespread education on new practices or support for alternative products. (There is further indication that this decision was in part a response to lost tourism dollars from the Covid pandemic.) Organic agriculture is about more than removing toxic pesticides and chemicals; it is a systems-based approach that reorients crop production and pest management towards soil health, increased diversity, and working with, rather than against, natural processes. While Sri Lanka’s dive into organic was not successful in this initial attempt, more and more farmers are now aware of the dangers and the need transition to safer practices. Major changes rarely occur successfully at all once, but are often the result of many trials, eventually embracing new approaches once education and practices are further developed. As the present study shows, Sri Lanka’s work to reduce and eliminate toxic chemical use is important for its citizen’s health; with hope the country will learn from its mistakes and continue efforts to increase adoption of organic agriculture.

For more information about the dangers of pesticides in drinking water, see Beyond Pesticides Contaminated Waters program page. Additional information on the link between pesticides and kidney disease can be found on the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: npj Clean Water
Image: Flikr

(Beyond Pesticides, January 11, 2022) A study finds that the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride, used for insect (i.e., termites, bedbugs, cockroaches, etc.) fumigation treatments, increases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to the report, “Termite Fumigation in California Is Fueling the Rise of a Rare Greenhouse Gas.” Not only do most sulfuryl fluoride emissions in the U.S. occur in California, but a majority of global emissions also occur in California. When the use of methyl bromide for agricultural and structural fumigation was phased-out under the Montreal Protocol, sulfuryl fluoride became a replacement for fumigation treatments. However, researchers have identified concentrations of sulfuryl fluoride in the atmosphere due to the chemical’s long half-life and greenhouse warming potential (GWP). The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 does not list sulfuryl fluoride emissions as a GHG risk. Therefore, the researchers note, “This work emphasizes the importance of considering [sulfuryl fluoride] SO2F2 in state and national greenhouse gas inventories and emissions reduction strategies.”

Researchers employed geostatistical inverse model (GIM)—commonly used to estimate GHG fluxes—alongside atmospheric measurements of sulfuryl fluoride to estimate emissions throughout the United States. Using programmable flask packages (PFPs), researchers examined atmospheric observational data from towers, observatories, and aircraft, measuring concentrations of sulfuryl fluoride via gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. To compare surface and downwind emission, the researchers used the Lagrangian particle dispersion model (STILT) with multiple variables, including county-wide uses of sulfuryl fluoride and the U.S. Geographical Survey National Land Cover Database.

The GIM results demonstrate that most U.S. sulfuryl fluoride emissions derive from California, specifically the greater Los Angeles (LA) area (up to 400 parts per trillion between 2015 and 2017), followed by the Bay area. Moreover, all regions outside of California have negligible sulfuryl fluoride atmospheric concentrations, resulting in little to no emissions. Thus, the study implies California is the world’s leading sulfuryl fluoride emitter. Leading author Dylan Gaeta, a Ph.D. student at Johns Hopkins University, extrapolates, “We expected to see little splotches of emissions throughout at least some other parts of the country…The fact that we are seeing almost all of it from California? That was the shocking part.”

Sulfuryl fluoride is a fluoride compound with various adverse health effects, including cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity (reduced IQ), and reproductive damage. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) amendments to Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) require that a pesticide registered for use by the agency cannot exceed acceptable risk thresholds for both dietary and non-dietary exposure. However, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) peer-reviewed risk assessment of fluoride exposure finds that exposure to fluoride from various sources (i.e., sulfuryl fluoride residues in food commodities, fluoride exposure in water and toothpaste) did not meet the safety standard under FFDCA. Moreover, sulfuryl fluoride rapidly metabolizes (breaks down) in the body into fluoride. Considering the compound has a long half-life in human bones (~20 years), advocates attest EPA should withdraw the allowed tolerances for food uses of sulfuryl fluoride.

Sulfuryl fluoride, registered for termite and other wood-boring pest extermination in 1959, gained additional attention as a potential alternative to methyl bromide, a broad-spectrum insect fumigant used in post-harvest storage and food processing facilities. Methyl bromide’s designation as a greenhouse gas under the Montreal Protocol (2005) caused a gradual reduction in use. However, when no feasible methyl bromide alternatives are available, the “critical use exemption” (CUE) allows the use of this chemical. Furthermore, others (i.e., Natural Resources Defense Council) argue that the disallowance of any sulfuryl fluoride uses will lead to prolonged or increased methyl bromide use. However, Beyond Pesticides and others maintain that without the phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride, there will be no incentive for grain storage facilities to upgrade and adopt modern practices that forego hazardous chemical use. Although EPA decided to phase-out sulfuryl fluoride use on food commodities in 2011, Dow AgroScience (the manufacturer of sulfuryl fluoride under the trade names Vikane and ProFume), along with others lobbied against efforts to phase-out use, in the lead up to Congressional action to overrule the science on adverse health effects.

The U.S. Congress, in the 2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014), included a provision that requires EPA to ignore the science and law that establishes the safety threshold for exposure to fluoride. (See When Politics Trumps Science and Health Suffers.) The use of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride, allowed in food production since 2004, in combination with fluoride use in water fluoridation, creates unacceptable hazards under EPA and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) scientific determinations. However, in an intervention that simply defies the scientific literature and thresholds for safety, the bill language orders EPA not to follow the law and science. The regulatory agencies responsible for protecting public health have identified elevated risk of dental fluorosis (breaking down of teeth enamel) in young children, and possibly skeletal fluorosis (joint pain and muscle impairment), while the scientific literature raises serious issues of neurological and brain effects from elevated levels of fluoride.

The sulfuryl fluoride/GHG study represents an all too familiar pattern of widespread chemical use without proper knowledge of health and environmental effects before implementation. According to the most recent data by the California Department of Pesticide Regulations, sulfuryl fluoride is the 12th most used pesticide applied to sites across California, with over 2.9 million pounds used in 2018 for structural and agricultural pest control. Although sulfuryl fluoride emissions mainly stem from the greater Los Angeles area, researchers suggest other states, like Florida, may also produce emissions that remain unaccounted for by current National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chemical tracking. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) added sulfuryl fluoride to its list of “short-lived climate pollutants,” being the only state to do so since 1990. However, California does not include sulfuryl fluoride in the list of GHG emissions to reduce by 2020 as researchers were not aware the chemical was a GHG until 2008. A 2009 study finds the termite insecticide to be a more potent GHG than carbon dioxide by up to 4,000 times over 100 years. Since sulfuryl fluoride has high global warming potential, it can remain in the atmosphere for more than 36 years.

Ninety-nine percent of structural fumigation treatments use sulfuryl fluoride. Recent work from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) demonstrates North America was the leading global source of sulfuryl fluoride emissions in 2019. The risk of multiple chemical contaminants in the atmosphere increases as global warming progresses. Melting glaciers can release persistent organic pollutants into waterways. Recently, pesticides and fertilizers overtook the fossil fuel industry in environmental sulfur emissions. Thus, health and environmental concerns will increase significantly, especially for individuals and ecosystems more vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemical exposure. If pesticide use and manufacturing are amplifying the impacts of the climate crisis, advocates argue that pesticide policy and regulation must address and eliminate chemical use. There are many viable alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide fumigation. These alternatives include temperature manipulation, atmospheric controls, biological controls, and less toxic chemical controls (diatomaceous earth). Many existing commodity storage facilities are too old and outdated to prevent pest infestation. This ineffectiveness leads to a reliance on toxic fumigation. Thus, a clean, regularly-maintained storage or processing facility can easily keep facilities pest-free.  

As the climate crisis continues, banned and current-use pesticides put human and animal health at risk upon release into the atmosphere and waterways. Lack of adequate persistent pesticide regulations highlights the need for better policies surrounding use. The European Union already bans sulfuryl fluoride from any food contact. Thus, a switch from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis by eliminating toxic, petroleum-based pesticide use, building soil health, and sequestering carbon. Current organic food production and handling do not permit conventional pesticide use, including fumigants like sulfuryl fluoride. Therefore, organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions from chemical use. Learn more about how switching to organic management practices can mitigate the climate crisis by reading Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming. For more information about organic food production, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keep Organic Strong webpage. Learn more about the adverse effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure and benefits the environment.

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

Source: EOS, AGU

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2022) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is now undermining full public disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients in our food, both through misrepresentation in labeling and through a definition that allows a large percentage of ingredients to go undisclosed. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act, dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act by food safety advocates, establishes a national GMO (genetically modified organisms or genetically engineered GE) food labeling requirement that has led to deceptive messaging, preempts states from adopting stronger label language and standards, and excludes a large portion of the population without special cell phone technology (because information is accessed the QR codes on products). However, USDA regulations go further—creating loopholes and barriers to transparency that prohibit the use of the widely-known terms “GMO” and “GE” and prohibit retailers from providing more information to consumers.

Tell USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to require USDA agencies to honestly disclose genetically engineered ingredients and carry out the goals of the Executive Memorandum, Modernizing Regulatory Review. Urge your U.S. Senators and Representative to ask Agriculture Committees to hold oversight hearings to ensure that USDA holds to those goals.   

USDA is huge—encompassing 29 agencies and offices, with almost 100,000 employees—with duties ranging from research to marketing to distributing money to regulation. These agencies have a variety of missions, sometimes conflicting. The conflict was evident in the creation of regulations to implement the Dark Act. USDA has also been described as a captured agency that largely serves the interests of chemical-intensive agriculture and agribusiness. This was recognized when President Nixon shifted pesticide regulation out of USDA to the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. It was also recognized when Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and created an independent panel of stakeholders, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), to provide oversight and direct USDA in implementing the law.

USDA encourages the use of genetically engineered crops, which, in turn, increases pesticide use and pesticide dependency. This conflict between promoting GE and chemical-intensive agriculture and protecting the public through the use of transparent labeling is one way that USDA’s practices are in conflict with the direction of President Biden’s inauguration day action, the Executive Memorandum and directive Modernizing Regulatory Review. This presidential action instructs the heads of all executive departments and agencies to produce recommendations for improving and modernizing regulatory review, with a goal of promoting public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations. Oversight is necessary to hold federal agencies—especially captured agencies like USDA— accountable to full transparency and public safety.  

Tell USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to require USDA agencies to honestly disclose genetically engineered ingredients in food and carry out the goals of the Executive Memorandum, Modernizing Regulatory Review. Urge your U.S. Senators and Representative to ask Agriculture Committees to hold oversight hearings to ensure that USDA holds to those goals.   

To Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is huge—encompassing 29 agencies and offices, with almost 100,000 employees—with duties ranging from research to marketing to distributing money to regulation. Its agencies also have a variety of missions, sometimes conflicting. The conflict of programs supporting chemical-intensive agriculture with those promoting the interests of health, environment, and organic farmers was recognized when President Nixon shifted pesticide regulation from USDA to the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. It was also recognized when Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and created an independent panel of stakeholders, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), to provide oversight and direct USDA in implementing the law.

The conflict was also evident in the creation of regulations to implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act. The statute itself, dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act by food safety advocates, establishes a national GMO (genetically modified organisms or genetically engineered GE) food labeling requirement that has led to deceptive messaging, preempts states from adopting stronger label language and standards, and excludes a large portion of the population without special cell phone technology (because information is accessed the QR codes on products). However, USDA regulations go further—creating loopholes and barriers to transparency that prohibit the use of the widely-known terms “GMO” and “GE” and prohibit retailers from providing more information to consumers.

USDA generally encourages the use of genetically engineered crops, which, in turn, increases pesticide use and pesticide dependency. This conflict between promoting GE and chemical-intensive agriculture and protecting the public through the use of transparent labeling is one way that USDA’s practices are in conflict with the direction of President Biden’s inauguration day action, the Executive Memorandum and directive Modernizing Regulatory Review, requiring the heads of all executive departments and agencies to produce recommendations for improving and modernizing regulatory review, with a goal of promoting public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations.

I urge you to hold USDA agencies accountable to the goals of this administration as expressed in the Executive Memorandum.

Thank you.

To Members of Congress
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is huge—encompassing 29 agencies and offices, with almost 100,000 employees—with duties ranging from research to marketing to distributing money to regulation. Many have referred to USDA as a captured agency that largely serves the interests of chemical-intensive agriculture and agribusiness. This was recognized when President Nixon shifted pesticide regulation out of USDA to the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. It was also recognized when Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and created an independent panel of stakeholders, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), to provide oversight and direct USDA in implementing the law.

USDA’s agencies have a variety of missions, sometimes conflicting. The conflict was evident in the creation of regulations to implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act. The statute itself, dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act by food safety advocates, establishes a national GMO (genetically modified organisms or genetically engineered GE) food labeling requirement that has led to deceptive messaging, preempts states from adopting stronger label language and standards, and excludes a large portion of the population without special cell phone technology (because information is accessed the OR codes on products). However, USDA regulations go further—creating loopholes and barriers to transparency that prohibit the use of the widely-known terms “GMO” and “GE” and prohibit retailers from providing more information to consumers.

USDA encourages the use of genetically engineered crops, which, in turn, increases pesticide use and pesticide dependency. This conflict between promoting GE and chemical-intensive agriculture and protecting the public through the use of transparent labeling is one way that USDA’s practices are in conflict with the direction of President Biden’s inauguration day action, the Executive Memorandum and directive Modernizing Regulatory Review, requiring the heads of all executive departments and agencies to produce recommendations for improving and modernizing regulatory review, with a goal of promoting public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations.

Oversight is necessary to hold USDA accountable to the goals of this administration as expressed in the Executive Memorandum.

Please ask the Agriculture Committee to hold oversight hearings to ensure that USDA honestly discloses genetically engineered ingredients in food and carries out the goals of the Executive Memorandum, Modernizing Regulatory Review.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides. January 7, 2022) Unbeknownst to most Americans when they woke up on New Year’s Day 2022, a new labeling system for genetically modified-engineered foods— promulgated in 2019 — which does not mention genetically engineered or GMO ingredients, went into effect. Consumer, food, and environmental advocates say that the new label is misleading, insufficiently transparent, discriminatory, rife with loopholes, and confusing for consumers. The new labeling requirement mandates that genetically engineered foods bear labels that indicate that they have been “bioengineered” or that provide a text-messaging phone number or a QR code as avenues for further information. (“Additional options such as a phone number or web address are available to small food manufacturers or for small and very small packages.”) The new labeling rule from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) aims, according to the agency, to eliminate the crazy quilt of labels affixed to foods and ingredients that have been scientifically altered. According to an agency spokesperson, the rule is designed to “balance the need to provide information to consumers with the interest in minimizing costs to companies.”

Genetically altered food items and ingredients have heretofore been called, and labeled as, “genetically engineered” (GE) or “genetically modified” (GM), or as containing “genetically modified organisms” (GMO). The Washington Post reports that, “The new rule requires food manufacturers, importers and retailers to disclose information whether foods are bioengineered or use bioengineered ingredients, doing away with well-established terms like ‘genetically engineered’ and ‘GMO’ on labels. However, other kinds of official certifications like USDA Organic and NON-GMO Project Verified will be allowed.”

The new labeling arises out of several developments in recent years. The first was the so-called “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015,” dubbed the DARK Act — the “Denying Americans the Right to Know” Act — by its many opponents. This legislation reacted to efforts in Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine to enact state laws that would mandate labeling of foods and ingredients that were genetically engineered, or contained such ingredients. The food industry was not happy with such developments, and spent huge sums to thwart state efforts. Some food companies even stopped selling to Vermont grocers in order to avoid the extra costs of labeling and segregating such products. The passage of the DARK Act preempted Vermont’s successful GE labeling law, which required such items to be labeled as “produced with genetic engineering.”

Other contributing developments were: (1) the 2016 Congressional passage of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act, which directed USDA to establish a “national mandatory standard for disclosing foods that are or may be bioengineered,” and (2) the Trump USDA’s subsequent 2018 announcement of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS), which resulted in the 2019 announcement of the new labeling rule that became mandatory on January 1, 2022. That standard defined “bioengineered foods as those that contain detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques and cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.”

The Harvard Political Review sums up the status of GE/GMO foods in the U.S. marketplace, and the history of the battles over labeling of such food. “Genetically modified crops, which primarily include corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets, have been grown in the United States for 20 years, and they have FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approval. Today, as much as 75 percent of the food Americans buy at their local grocery store, from cereals to soups, include genetically modified ingredients. However, most consumers are not aware that the foods they are eating include these ingredients.”

GE/GMO proponents argue that such foodstuffs are safe for human consumption. Opponents have a variety of objections (health and safety, pesticide contamination, ecosystem impacts, etc.) that are largely shared by Beyond Pesticides, but the central issue has been consumers’ basic right to know what they are purchasing and ingesting. Out of concern for all of those issues arose the “Just Label It” campaign, on which Beyond Pesticides partnered, and about which it wrote, nearly a decade ago, “Beyond Pesticides’ goal is to push for labeling as a means of identifying products containing GE ingredients and allow for consumer choice that will drive the market toward sustainable practices.”

This shift to the term “bioengineered” for labeling has been roundly criticized by advocates. Director of the project on biotechnology for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Gregory Jaffe, has commented, “The worst part of this law is the use of the term ‘bioengineered’ because that’s not a term most consumers are familiar with,” adding that the move to the new jargon was made primarily because “GMO” had come to be perceived as pejorative.

In the summer of 2020, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed suit against the Trump administration’s National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard and proposed labeling rule. CFS “seeks to have the court declare the regulations unlawful and nullify them, and then return the issue to USDA with orders to fix the unlawful portions of the rules.” The organization claimed that the new regulation includes provisions that “will leave the majority of GMO-derived foods unlabeled; discriminate against tens of millions of Americans; prohibit the use of the widely known terms “GMO” and “GE”; and prohibit retailers from providing more information to consumers.”

Among the objections CFS cites in its case are:
• unprecedented allowance of electronic or digital disclosure on packaging, also known as “QR code” or “smartphone” labeling without requiring additional on-package labeling

• the discriminatory nature of such digital “portals” to information, given that “at least 20 percent of the American adult population — primarily poor, elderly, rural, and minority populations — have lower percentages of smartphone ownership, or live in areas in which grocery stores do not have internet bandwidth”; (The Washington Post reports that “the new rules discriminate againstthe more than 100 million Americans who do not have access to smartphones or cell service, because companies will be allowed to rely on smartphone-based scannable QR codes to share information with consumers.”)
• the rule’s restrictions on label language: when on-package text isused, the rules limit the adjective used to only “‘bioengineered,’ despite the fact that for 25 years, every aspect of the issue — [in] science, policy, and [the] marketplace — has used genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GMO”
• the “loopholes” that would exempt many GE foods from the new labeling requirements

In its litigation, CFS argues that the new rule violates the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the U.S. Constitution. The first of those aimed to protect the public’s right to know what is in their food and how it is produced; USDA was tasked by that law with creating and implementing rules to achieve those aims. Plaintiff’s case documents state: “USDA’s final rule ignores virtually all the Disclosure Act’s statutory provisions designed to ensure disclosure of all GE foods for all Americans. Instead, USDA’s Disclosure Standard strips away the hard-fought labeling requirements of states — requirements Congress sought to encompass — replacing them with inaccessible digital disclosures, unfamiliar terminology, and an extra-statutory definition of ‘bioengineered food.’ USDA’s flawed rationales for doing so violate the plain language of the Disclosure Act and are arbitrary and capricious under the APA.”

The suit also asserts that “the Disclosure Standard violates regulated entities’ First Amendment rights to provide disclosure to consumers, violates states’ Tenth Amendment rights by overbroadly prohibiting state laws related to GE seed labeling, and violates the Fifth Amendment by using vague and contradictory language, allowing for arbitrary enforcement.” CFS adds, in its case documents: “Left standing, the Disclosure Standard will result not only in de facto concealment of GE disclosures, but also a dangerous precedent for truthful and non-misleading commercial speech and for Congress’s power to commandeer state governments. Accordingly, this Court should set aside the arbitrary and unconstitutional Disclosure Standard and sever and declare invalid constitutionally infirm provisions of the Disclosure Act.” CFS filed a motion for summary judgment in the case in early December, 2021. (Such a motion asks a court for a judgment on the merits of a case prior to the actual trial; this is typically done when the dispute is about a question of law, rather than the facts of a case.)

The net impact of the new labeling schema, according to advocates, is that it puts a far greater burden on consumers to figure out what the labels mean, to “do their homework” so they are adequately informed (especially because there is, to date, no broad public campaign to apprise them of the change), and — if industry takes the least transparent path of using QR codes and text messaging rather than labels — to have to resort to in-the-moment “research” in the grocery store via smart phones they may or may not have and in settings that may or may not have cell or wifi service.

An issue for many advocates is the huge number of food items that would not be covered by the new labeling requirements. The NBFDS exempts “(1) foods served in a restaurant, (2) very small food manufacturers with annual receipts of less than $2.5 million, (3) food certified under the USDA National Organic Program, and (4) food in which no ingredient intentionally contains a bioengineered substance, with an allowance for inadvertent or technically unavoidable presence of up to 5% for each ingredient.”

CFS elaborates on this “loophole” issue and notes an additional concern: “The vast majority of GE foods (by some estimates over 70%) are not whole foods, but highly processed foods with GE ingredients, like sodas and oils. Yet in the final rule USDA excluded these ‘highly refined’ products, unless the GE material is ‘detectable.’ Lastly, the statute invalidates state GE seed labeling laws and prohibits future GE seed labeling laws in violation of states’ rights to regulate in the absence of federal regulation.” Even Forbes magazine has weighed in, writing that, “One failing of the bill is that even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that the definition of ‘bioengineering’ in the bill is too narrow and would not apply to many foods that come from genetically engineered sources.”

CFS Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell wrote, in a late December 2021 update on the organization’s litigation, “These regulations are not about informing the public but rather designed to allow corporations to hide their use of genetically engineered ingredients from their customers. It is a regulatory scam which we are seeking to rescind in federal court. In addition, we are urging our million CFS members and others to become citizen investigators and find and expose the companies that are using QR codes instead of on-package text or symbol labeling, thereby trying to keep us in the dark about what they have put in our food.”

Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman had this to say: “This label is recognition by USDA and ‘Big Food’ that full and honest disclosure of GMO/GE ingredients will hurt the market. In the end, lying to consumers will not work, but it may hurt the value and credibility of other USDA labels, such as the USDA Certified Organic label that we have worked so hard to create in order to convey meaningfully important information about organic criteria, standards, and enforcement.”

Few stakeholders appear thrilled by this rule at this moment in time. Some food companies, according to their trade groups, are asserting that instituting this new rule mid-pandemic, and during a supply-chain crisis, puts a significant burden on a sector already struggling. The Consumer Brands Association has urged USDA to pause implementation temporarily; a spokesperson commented: “We believe the government must take a ‘do no harm’ position right now that allows companies to focus on delivering essential products to consumers.”

Long a proponent of transparency about the food supply, a few years ago Beyond Pesticides published advocacy points on the flaws of the then-anticipated labeling schema, asking USDA to “ensure that labels are honest, transparent, and informative by adopting the following policies”:
• reject package labeling with unreliable “QR codes” and other discriminatory communication methods; such options discriminate against more than 100 million Americans — especially many in rural communities, as well as low-income, people of color, and elderly populations that tend disproportionately to lack access to these technologies

• require labeling to use only common, well-established labeling terms, such as GE or GMO; do not allow these to be replaced with the term “bioengineered”
• require all foods produced with genetic engineering — including highly processed oils and sugars — to be labeled
• include new and future methods of genetic engineering, such as CRISPR
• ensure harmonization with the European Union by requiring disclosure if unintended GE contamination exceeds the current level of detection

In light of the new labeling, consumers would do well to “do their homework” ahead of time, or in the grocery store, in order to parse the meaning of the new labeling. (The Washington Post’s coverage of the new rule includes a useful “What to Know” section to help consumers understand implications of the rule for foods they buy and consume.) Perhaps an easier approach, for those who want to avoid GE/GMO food items, is to buy organic as much as possible because USDA National Organic Standards disallow the use of GEs/GMOs.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/01/01/usda-bioengineered-food-rules/#CEJNGNFJVRDINNQWQ2TPUJITFAA

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 6, 2022) Seeds treated with neonicotinoid insecticides contaminate honeydew, often the biggest source of food for pest predators, according to recent research published in the journal Environmental Pollution. Concerned advocates for pollinators and pesticide reform are likely familiar with fact that neonicotinoids are systemic, and once applied to a seed or sprayed on a plant are taken up by the plant and distributed throughout the pollen, nectar and dew drops that a plant produces. But there is another systemic effect that is not included in that picture, and in monoculture crops, it could be the biggest source of carbohydrates for beneficial pest predators – honeydew. Honeydew is produced from phloem-feeding (sap sucking) pests like aphids, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and other hemipteran insects. The waste that these insects produce is liquid, and full of sugars. “This rich carbohydrate source is a common food for many beneficial insects, including pollinators, such as bees and flies, and some natural enemies of pests, such as ants, wasps and beetles,” said John Tooker, PhD, coauthor of a recent literature review published in Biological Reviews. “Honeydew often is more abundant than nectar in agroecosystems.”

In 2019, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by the same research team determined that neonicotinoids have the ability to pass through sap sucking pests, contaminate honeydew, and kill of beneficial insects. However, the pesticide industry criticized the research, claiming that the laboratory conditions used in the study wouldn’t translate into the field. The study recent published in Environmental Pollution proves that criticism to be specious.

To show the process, researchers chose a study site in Saint Paul, MN where 24 soybean plots were planted in June 2019. Random blocks were assigned in which plants were either untreated, coated with the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, or coated with a mixture of neonicotinoids and fungicides. Roughly one month after planting, researchers introduced soybean aphids, infecting 10 plants per plot. Two plants per plot were covered with exclusion cages to prevent predation so that researchers could come back and harvest honeydew from the aphids. Honeydew that was collected was analyzed for pesticide concentrations. Pest predators were then collected, placed in a vial, and provided as much of the contaminated honeydew as they could eat. The beneficial predators were then observed until they died.

Researchers found that concentrations of the neonicotinoid clothianidin (the chemical tested by scientists, as it is the immediate breakdown product of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam), are 9 to 11 times higher in aphid honeydew derived from plants that were seed treated with neonicotinoids (at ~35-45 parts per billion), compared to those untreated. Importantly, however, aphids from untreated blocks also had neonicotinoids in their honeydew (at ~1.5-6 ppb). Researchers indicate that this was either from prior plantings on the plot of land chosen, or from runoff from nearby applications causing contamination in the untreated plot.

The results also reveal that pest predators die off much faster when eating contaminated honeydew. While uncontaminated parasitoid wasps lived a median of 17 days on untreated honeydew, those eating the contaminated honeydew lived as many as five fewer days. Although seemingly insignificant to a human lifespan, these results indicate that feeding on contaminated honeydew could cut a pest predator’s life span by nearly one third.

In the more expansive, overarching review of threats posed by contaminated honeydew in Biological Reviews, scientists analyzed various routes of honeydew contamination, reviewed various insecticides that have the potential to contaminate honeydew, and analyzed particular agroecological scenarios that pose outsized risks. They indicate that honeydew itself, after excreted from an aphid, can be sprayed or drifted with pesticides that contaminate it. And in addition to excreting the pesticide after feeding on a contaminated plant, pest insects may also have their honeydew contaminated if they are directly sprayed with a pesticide. In direct exposure scenarios, an aphid may excrete honeydew for several days before it dies. However, researchers indicate seed coatings are more insidious. With seed coatings, aphids develop a level of insecticide resistance that allows them to excrete honeydew for longer periods of time.  

The pesticides identified as particularly problematic for this route of exposure are generally those the researchers indicate have systemic properties.

In terms of problematic scenarios, researchers identified cereal crops (wheat, corn, rice, oat, rye, etc.), fruit crops, and vegetable crops, with brassicas (broccoli, caucliflower, kale, etc) and tomatoes singled out. Cereal crops likely represent the greatest risk as they cover over 50% of the world’s agricultural areas. In monoculture landscapes, researchers found evidence that a large proportion of hoverflies and most beneficial wasps feed on honeydew. Lastly, researchers noted that the spread of invasive pests that are honeydew producing also poses a significant future risk for agroecological landscapes.

“Our review describes how honeydew contaminated with systemic insecticides may play a role in insect declines,” Dr. Tooker said. “Honeydew is a hidden driver of direct and indirect interactions among insects that is likely to be affecting the population dynamics of herbivores, biological control agents and pollinators.”

Honeydew is an aspect of the natural world that is not considered by pesticide regulators at any level. However, the science on the “pass through” effect of neoincotinoids is now well-documented. A 2011 study finds that mites on elm trees sprayed with the neonicotinoid imidacloprid in fact thrived after the exposure, flipping the tables on their predators and causing a predator-prey reversal. Likewise, a 2014 study by Dr. Tooker and colleagues finds that thiamethoxam could pass through pest slugs feeding on neonicotinoid treated seedlings. Predator beetles that feed on the slugs subsequently die as a result of the toxic contamination in their slug prey.

It is critical that pesticide regulators think more broadly about the dangers and complex situations that can occur once a human-made chemical is introduced into the environment to function as a pest predator. In the absence of a truly precautionary system where independent science is adequately considered by regulators, and pesticides are removed from the market when found to cause trophic cascades or other ecosystem disruption, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must go beyond individual assessments on categories of plants and animals and consider entire ecosystem health in its regulatory reviews.

With EPA continuing to talk big but act small in reforming its pesticide program, changes to federal pesticide law require Congressional action. Help us tell the Senate that major changes to pesticide regulation –including those that go beyond the scope of the current legislation to Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides – are urgently needed now. For more information on the dangers that pesticides pose to ecosystem health see the article, Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through the Ecosystem, and see Beyond Pesticides wildlife and biodiversity program pages.

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

Source: Penn State press release, Environmental Pollution, Biological Reviews

Image Source: Wikimedia (some ant species form mutualistic relationships with aphids, whereby they consume their honeydew, protect them, and in a sense “farm” them)

(Beyond Pesticides, January 5, 2022) Household pesticide use is associated with harmful impacts to infant motor development, according to a study published late last year in the journal Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. The research focused on primarily low-income Hispanic women located in Los Angeles, California, enrolled in an ongoing study referred to as Maternal and Developmental Risks from Environmental and Social Stressors (MADRES). As with other pollutants in society, low-income, people of color communities are disproportionately in contact with toxic pesticides, resulting in exposures that can start early, and affect health over the course of one’s lifetime.

Women enrolled in the MADRES cohort are over the age of 18, and speak English or Spanish fluently. For the present study, roughly 300 MADRES participants met the criteria for enrollment, and completed household pesticide use questionnaires at a 3-month post-natal visit. The questionnaire generally inquired whether pesticides had been used in one’s home since their child was born. After another 3 months, researchers also tested infants’ motor development using an Ages and Stages-3 protocol screening tool, which evaluates a child’s ability to execute muscle movements.

Overall, roughly 22% of mothers reported pesticide use in their home during the first months of their children’s lives. Analysis revealed that 21 of the infants tested fell below the cut-off for the screening tool that suggests further evaluation by a health professional. “In adjusted models, infants whose mothers reported household use of rodent or insect pesticides had 1.30 (95% CI 1.05, 1.61) times higher expected gross motor scores than infants in households with no reported household pesticide use, with higher scores indicating decreasing gross motor performance,” the study indicates.

While researchers indicate that additional data is needed to determine specific pesticides that may be playing a role, the general findings support a hypothesis that household pesticide use is associated with harm to infant motor development. Using a method of calculating unmeasured variables that could influence final results, researchers note that, “The E-value of 1.92 (95% CI 1.28, 2.60) suggests substantial unmeasured confounding would be needed to reduce the observed association between household use of rodent and insect pesticides and infant gross motor development.”  

Household pesticide use over the last decade has generally shifted away from the use of older organophosphate chemistries to the use of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides. But this switch has not resulted in safer exposures; a growing body of literature is finding that synthetic pyrethroids can cause a range of adverse health impacts, particularly in children. Multiple studies have been published linking synthetic pyrethroids to developmental problems in children. Most recently, a 2019 Danish study found that higher concentrations of pyrethroid insecticides corresponded to higher rates of ADHD in children. Pesticide exposure at a young age can have far-reaching effects. In addition to motor skills and learning development, young boys exposed to synthetic pyrethroids are more likely to experience early onset of puberty.

These data are all the more concerning in the context of findings that show how synthetic pyrethroids can persist as residue on hard surfaces in one’s home for over a year. This persistent residue can result in multiple re-exposures, turning what an individual may consider a one-time use into a chronic exposure event.  Unforteunately though, for many low-income residents in the United States, pesticide use in and around one’s home or apartment isn’t a decision they can make. Many property management companies, landlords, and public housing authorities have ongoing service contracts with chemical pest control companies, or require residents to otherwise regularly treat their homes. This outdated and dangerous approach to pest management, which often includes service visits that prophylactically spray toxic pesticides without considering need, results in disproportionate exposure to low income individuals who may otherwise be keeping a spotless home. It is little wonder why studies can match disease risk to zip code, with individuals in low income, indigenous and people of color communities at greatest risk of developing pesticide and other environmentally induced diseases.

While research finds that feeding kids an organic diet improves scores on tests measuring memory and intelligence, the additional use of pesticides in one’s home can undermine those benefits, notwithstanding the increased strain of organic prices in many cases. Ultimately, everyone should have access to healthy food grown without pesticides, and be able to live a life without mandated exposure to toxic pesticides that undermine your and your family’s health. If pesticide use is a modifiable – if you can stop using them in your home, or speak with your landlord or service provider – Beyond Pesticides strongly recommends you take actions to stop use. For assistance on stopping household pesticide use and managing household pests without chemicals, see Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe webpage, or reach out at [email protected].

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

Source: Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology