(Beyond Pesticides, January 17, 2024) Science continues to find a link between mental health and occupational (work-related) chemical exposure, with a study published in Toxicology finding an increased risk of depression among farmers exposed to pesticides. Conventional, chemical-intensive farming is a profession notorious for higher-than-average pesticide exposure occurrences, thus explaining why the study concludes that individuals within this occupation can suffer from chemically induced oxidative stress, inflammation, and lower education-based cognition that exacerbate depressive symptoms. However, besides psychological symptoms, the study indicates potential physiological issues from pesticide exposure, such as renal (kidney) and hepatic (liver) issues. Studies like this one can directly pinpoint risks of developing depression, especially among agricultural workers and landscapers who use pesticides.

Usually, research on pesticide-induced diseases commonly investigates pesticide exposure concerning the development of various physical illnesses. However, previous studies show that occupational risks of developing depression are high in agriculture, where pesticide use is rampant. Acute exposure to chemicals, including organophosphate, organochlorine, triazine, and carbamate pesticides, tends to put farmers at greater risk of suicide than the general population. There is a lack of information connecting pesticide exposure to the subsequent psychological (psychiatric) effects on the general population.

Although the etiology of depression—and many other psychiatric disorders—is often genetic, studies suggest that other etiological factors, like pesticide exposure, play a role in depression incidents. Poor mental health has a tangible influence on physical health (e.g., depression and cardiovascular disease); therefore, the combination of pesticide exposure and mental illness worsens the adverse effects on human health. Since pesticide exposure can exacerbate psychiatric symptoms, it is essential to evaluate how pesticide exposure affects mental health in addition to physical health. This research highlights the significance of researching potential mental health detriments resulting from pesticide exposure, especially as society tends to rank mental health risks second to physical health. 

The study notes, “…[T]he impact of occupational pesticide exposure on the mental health of rural workers… [the] underuse of PPEs [personal protective equipment] and the link between depressive symptoms, inflammation, and oxidative stress underscore the urgent need for improved safety measures in agricultural practices. Addressing these issues will contribute to a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship between environmental exposures and mental health outcomes.”

The study assesses the oxidative and inflammatory profiles and mental health of Brazilian farmers exposed to pesticides and compares the results to the control group lacking occupational exposure to pesticides. Researchers gathered data on sociodemographic factors (i.e., age, race, ethnicity, language, economic status), work history, and medical records. Using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the researchers evaluate emotional states to determine mental health status. Researchers collected blood samples from the participants to measure redox (oxidative) and inflammatory profiles. The physiological results identify that BDI scores are higher among the pesticide-exposed group (farmers), with these individuals experiencing more severe cases of depression. Physically, the same farmers have increased lipid peroxidation and superoxide dismutase activity, among other oxidative stress markers, and elevated levels of inflammatory signaling cells (cytokines) indicating inflammation. The study notes that the herbicide glyphosate is the most commonly used pesticide among farmers, which may play a role in elevating the enzyme levels in the liver and kidneys of pesticide-exposed participants. Additionally, the results highlight a particularly stark issue concerning the underuse of PPE among farmers and the disparity in education among farmers. Education is pivotal in fostering safety practices, comprehending technical information about pesticide handling, and using PPE.

Within the past two and a half decades, research concerning pesticide exposure and psychiatric disorders, such as depression, has grown, especially for farmworkers. Exposure to agricultural pesticides puts farmers at a six times greater risk of exhibiting depressive symptoms, including chronic anxiety, irritability, restlessness, and sadness. For instance, exposure to organochlorines and fumigants (highly toxic, gaseous pesticides) heighten an individual’s risk of depression by 90% and 80%, respectively. Linear models reveal an association between lifelong pesticide poisoning episodes and the increased risk of developing mental disorders among tobacco farmers, with farmers using organophosphate pesticides (notorious for neurotoxicity) having a higher prevalence of minor psychiatric disorders. Although individuals suffering from occupational pesticide exposure face a disproportionate risk of developing depression, pesticide exposure from nearby agricultural fields remains a threat to residential (nonoccupational) human health. Previous studies find that populations living near farms are more likely to have high depressive symptoms. Similarly, a 2019 study found that teens and adolescents living in agricultural areas, where organophosphate exposure is prevalent, are at higher risk of depression. Uniquely, gender (female), physical health, and age (young adult) indicate the likelihood of having depressive symptoms, with the most adverse effects on women, those in poor physical health, and children under 14. Regardless of pesticide exposure frequency, duration, intensity, type, and location, the development of depression symptoms remains of concern.

The study highlights the interplay of multiple factors contributing to the prevalence of depression among pesticide-exposed farmers. Despite the study location being in Brazil, the results have implications for farmers across the globe, especially in regions where pesticide policies and practices do little to protect workers. Understanding the mental health implications of conventional pesticide exposure can help identify the various physiological mechanisms attributed to psychiatric disorders. Notably, this study calls for the continued investigation of pesticide neurotoxicity mechanisms and the association between mental health disorders. This and other studies indicate that farmers and those in agricultural communities are at disproportional risk of mental health problems due to pesticide use. Therefore, the study advocates “for comprehensive strategies to improve the mental and physical well-being of rural workers exposed to pesticides, including education, preventive measures, and ongoing research efforts to safeguard the health of those who play a vital role in our agricultural communities.”

Mental health is just as—if not more–important than physical health, and reviews such as this highlight the importance of knowing pesticide implications beyond physical ailments. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), depression affects 322 million people globally, with the number of diagnosed patients increasing by 18.4% from 2005 to 2015. Annually, only half of Americans with a depression diagnosis seek treatment for symptoms. Untreated symptoms of depression can increase the risk of suicide, a severe sign of depression. Commonalities between occupational and household pesticide exposure are suicidal thoughts and pesticide provocation as a suicide agent. WHO scientists recognize pesticide self-poisoning as one of the most significant global methods of suicide, as increases in pesticide toxicity make them potentially lethal substances. 

Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent news and studies related to pesticide exposure through our Daily News (DN) Blog and Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). For more information on the multiple harms of pesticides, see our DNs on Pesticides and Depression and PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders, endocrine disruption, and other diseases.  Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. It also reduces demand for toxic pesticides in areas where farmer suicides are alarmingly high. Coupled with evidence from past studies that link pesticide exposure to suicidal ideations and depression, even in developed countries, this research strongly supports a ban on toxic pesticides in favor of organic practices. Our choices encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table daily by purchasing organic products. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

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

Source: Toxicology

(Beyond Pesticides, January 16, 2024) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long been criticized for its failure to evaluate the effectiveness (or efficacy) of all the pesticides it registers. A petition, for which there is now an open public comment period (submit comments by January 22, 2024), challenges what advocates call a basic failure of the agency to evaluate the claimed benefits of pesticides. Because of this long-standing situation, those who purchase pesticides do not know that the pesticides they buy will meet expectations for control. For farmers, that means that EPA has not evaluated whether the pesticide’s use actually increases productivity of the treated crops and/or whether over time the target pest (weed, insect, fungus) will become resistant. For consumers, it also means that there is not an independent analysis of whether the pesticide products work. As EPA implements the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), not only is there no agency assessment of whether the pesticide’s use will achieve its intended purpose, there is not a determination as to whether there is a less toxic way of achieving the pest management goal.

As Beyond Pesticides cited last year, a piece published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Journal (2020) sums it up well: “[N]eonicotinoid [widely used insecticide] exposure is far higher than necessary to achieve plant protection and yield objectives. Neonicotinoid seed coatings rarely improve crop yield, and neonicotinoids are applied preventively to vast areas of turf, which cover more land in the United States than any other irrigated crop, even when pests are absent or below thresholds. . . . Risks to many terrestrial, aquatic, and detrital organisms and ecosystems have been documented. Considering these risks, advocacy groups have frequently promoted outright bans on all neonicotinoids in all circumstances, and this stance seems easy to justify.” Nearly ten years agon, “Heavy Costs—Weighing the Value of Neonicotinoid insecticides in Agriculture” (Center for Food Safety, 2014) concluded that, “EPA should suspend all existing registrations of neonicotinoid seed treatment products whose costs and benefits have not been adequately weighed until this accounting is completed.

The petition open for public comment is requesting the adoption of rules that require efficacy data be submitted for systemic insecticides by manufacturers registering these pesticides with EPA.   

>>EPA must require submission of efficacy data and make findings based on evidence that benefits outweigh risks before registering a pesticide.

Petitioners ask that manufacturers of neonicotinoids (neonics) or other systemic insecticides be required to prove that they work as intended and do not “subject species, ecosystems, and people to abject devastation with no benefit to users.” In fact, Section 3(c)(5) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that EPA determine whether the pesticide will perform its intended function, when used “in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice,” without “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” “Unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” means “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 

The petitioners submit support for their contention that systemic insecticides are not effective and that they cause widespread harm to the environment, including birds, honey bees, aquatic ecosystems, and wildlife. The petition says, “The species impacted include all amphibians, and the majority of endangered fish, birds, and mammals, as well as pollinators and the plants they pollinate.”  

The petitioners also point to results showing lack of benefits—including a report by EPA’s Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) showing that systemic insecticides generally do not provide benefits when used to protect soybeans. 

Thus, the petitioners make a case that registration should be denied to these systemic insecticides, since FIFRA Section 3(c)(6) requires EPA to deny registration if “the Administrator determines that the requirements of paragraph (5) for registration are not satisfied.” 

But how can EPA make any determination without efficacy data? The petitioners say that because the case they make shows that systemic insecticides do not meet the criteria for registration, EPA must request efficacy data for those pesticides. However, the same is true for all pesticides. EPA cannot meet the statutory prerequisite for registration without weighing data on both risks and benefits. Instead, as pointed out by the petitioners, EPA says, “rather than require efficacy data the Agency presumes that benefits exceed risks.” 

In 2021, a coalition of groups, including PEER and Beyond Pesticides, issued a scathing critique of the performance of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs — embedded in the groups’ advocacy for a series of 25 reforms. The petition tackles one specific aspect of EPA’s process on one class of insecticides. The agency’s track record, on so many pesticides, is to deal with one compound (under a narrow range of circumstances and/or narrow time frame and/or specific exposure levels) at a time. Beyond Pesticides has dubbed this the “whack-a-mole” struggle on pesticides. 

Each regulatory baby step at EPA represents small, incremental advances on a pesticide problem that is vast in scope—an approach that is wholly inadequate to the devastation that toxic pesticides are causing, and it continues the “collision course” we are on re: human health and well-being, biodiversity collapse, and the climate crisis. A precautionary approach—captured in organic, regenerative agriculture and land management protocols—is far more suited to the task of genuinely protecting public health and the environment than EPA’s current, industry-friendly, piecemeal approach. 

The availability of alternative materials and practices that prevent (or vastly reduce) toxic hazards, as are used in organic management, makes the dependence on synthetic chemical pesticides even more reprehensible. A genuinely protective approach to pests (floral or faunal) in agriculture and land management starts with transitioning from chemical dependency to organic land management in food production, and parks, playing fields, and all recreational and public spaces. In the meantime, efforts to push EPA will continue to move the needle, however slowly and haltingly. EPA should take seriously its mission: to protect human health and the environment. 

>>EPA must require submission of efficacy data and make findings based on evidence that benefits outweigh risks before registering a pesticide.

The target for this Action is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency via Regulations.gov.  

Letter to EPA

I am writing to support the petition  asking that manufacturers of neonicotinoids (neonics) or other systemic insecticides be required to prove that they work as intended and do not “subject species, ecosystems, and people to abject devastation with no benefit to users.” In fact, Section 3(c)(5) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that EPA determine whether the pesticide will perform its intended function, when used “in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice,” without “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” “Unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” means “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.”

It has been shown that systemic insecticides are not effective in soybean production and that they cause widespread harm to the environment, including birds, honey bees, aquatic ecosystems, and wildlife. The petition says, “The species impacted include all amphibians, and the majority of endangered fish, birds, and mammals, as well as pollinators and the plants they pollinate.” The petitioners point to results showing lack of benefits—including a report by EPA’s Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) showing that systemic insecticides generally do not provide benefits when used to protect soybeans.

Thus, the petitioners make a case that registration should be denied to these systemic insecticides, since FIFRA Section 3(c)(6) requires EPA to deny registration if “the Administrator determines that the requirements of paragraph (5) for registration are not satisfied.”

But how can EPA make any determination without efficacy data? The petitioners say that because the case they make shows that systemic insecticides do not meet the criteria for registration, EPA must request efficacy data for those pesticides. The same is true for all pesticides. EPA cannot meet the statutory prerequisite for registration without weighing data on both risks and benefits. Instead, as pointed out by the petitioners, EPA says, “rather than require efficacy data the Agency presumes that benefits exceed risks.”

Each regulatory baby step at EPA represents small, incremental advances on a pesticide problem that is now vast in scope—an approach that is wholly inadequate to the devastation that toxic pesticides are causing, and it continues the “collision course” we are on re: human health and well-being, biodiversity collapse, and the climate crisis. A precautionary approach — captured in alternatives like organic, regenerative agriculture and land management protocols — is far more suited to the task of genuinely protecting public health and the environment than EPA’s current, industry friendly, piecemeal approach. This approach is viable under the “unreasonable adverse effects” standard of review under FIFRA.

The availability of alternative materials and practices that prevent (or vastly reduce) toxic hazards, as are used in organic management, makes the dependence on synthetic chemical pesticides even more reprehensible and “unreasonable.” A genuinely protective approach to pests (floral or faunal) in agriculture and land management starts with transitioning from chemical dependency to organic land management in food production, and parks, playing fields, and all recreational and public spaces. In the meantime, the petitions request for efficacy review will push the pesticide registration review process to move the needle, however slowly and haltingly. EPA should take seriously its mission: to protect human health and the environment.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 12, 2024) As we commemorate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.—an inspiration for taking on the challenges of justice, equity, and safety as a central part of all our work for a sustainable future—through a day that stands for equality, justice, and the pursuit of a better world, it is crucial to reflect on issues that impact the health and well-being of communities. One such issue that echoes the spirit of Dr. King’s vision is the pervasive use of pesticides and the associated health risks. Drawing insights from prior articles on Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News, we delve into the intersection of environmental justice, public health, and the ongoing struggle for a safer and healthier world. 

The Invisible Threat with Visible Consequence: Pesticides and Health. 

Beyond Pesticides sheds light on the hidden dangers of pesticide exposure and the disproportionate impact it has on marginalized communities. Communities of color and economically disadvantaged areas bear a heavier burden of pesticide exposure, leading to higher rates of health issues, including respiratory problems, developmental disorders, and certain cancers.  From agricultural workers to residents of low-income neighborhoods, the adverse health effects of pesticides are not evenly distributed. The use of pesticides without adequate consideration for their health impacts constitutes a form of environmental injustice. This resonates with Dr. King’s vision of equity, as these communities often face the brunt of environmental injustices. Dr. King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  

Connecting the Dots: MLK’s Legacy and Environmental Advocacy.  

Dr. King’s legacy extends beyond civil rights, encompassing a vision of justice that encompasses all aspects of life. The Beyond Pesticides article underscores the importance of connecting MLK’s teachings with environmental advocacy. By advocating for alternatives to harmful pesticides and promoting sustainable practices, we honor Dr. King’s call for justice and equality. 

Community-Led Initiatives for Social Justice. 

Community-led initiatives featured on Beyond Pesticides’ blog, where individuals and groups have taken the initiative to address pesticide-related health risks. From local activism to policy advocacy, these stories showcase the power of grassroots movements in effecting positive change, aligning with Dr. King’s belief in the strength of communities to drive transformation. 

Beyond Pesticides works to advance systemic change seeks to identify underlying policies that codify dispropor­tionate harm, such as federal pesticide law that is built on a foundation that allows elevated and disproportionate risk to workers. They are excluded from EPA’s cumulative risk assessment (under the Food Quality Protection Act amendments to the Fed­eral Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), which aggregates dietary and non-dietary, but explicitly not occupational, exposure to pesticides, while in­cluding a mandate to protect children. With this, the law effectively requires EPA to allow higher rates of harm for workers, particularly farmworkers, land­scapers (workers who are disproportionately people of color), and others occupationally exposed to pes­ticides. In response, Beyond Pesticides is reimagin­ing legislative proposals that effect a transformation to an organic society that eliminates toxic pesticides, respects the complexity of life and the ecosystems that sustain us, and put an end to institutional biases that codify environmental racism.  

Beyond Pesticides also works with grassroots groups, like The Black Institute and other grassroots organizations, across the nation to ban toxic pesticides in city, town, and county parks, playgrounds, and playing fields, as part of an organic transition. Children and people of color face disproportionate harm from pesticide exposure. To make matters worse, the hazards associated with the toxic chemicals inflict multi-generational diseases like diabetes, asthma and respiratory illness, and learning disabilities. 

Educating: A Cornerstone of Change.  

Here are some of the pieces covered by Beyond Pesticides over the last year that paint a stark picture of disproportionate harm to people of color, translating to a pattern of injustice that must be corrected in the adoption of a transformative path forward. 

—A study published on April 18 finds that people in U.S. BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) communities, as well as those living in low-income communities, endure a very disproportionate rate of exposure to pesticides, and of subsequent risks of harm. It finds that such disparities exist in both urban and rural communities, and at all points in the pesticide “life cycle,” from manufacture to application. A section of Beyond Pesticides’ recent mega-issue of Pesticides and You, “Retrospective 2021: A Call to Urgent Action,” is devoted to such inequities. Section IV, “Disproportionate Pesticide Harm Is Racial Injustice: Documenting Victimization: Structural Racism,” reprises Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 coverage of environmental injustices. It also calls for urgent action re: federal and state “evaluations that go into toxic chemical regulation . . . to reform and replace the current regulatory decision-making process, which is empirically racist, with one that acknowledges and cares for those with the highest real-world vulnerabilities and exposure[s].” [See Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community at Disproportionate Risk from Pesticides, Study Finds] 

On Juneteenth Day, we commemorate the abolition of slavery and celebrate human freedom. At the same time, we recognize that we have significant work to do to eliminate systemic racism and advance environmental justice. We strive to ensure that people of color are not disproportionately harmed by pesticides and other toxic chemicals—from production, use, to disposal—and that all people have access to sustainable and organic food and organically managed communities. Acute and chronic exposure to chemicals like pesticides cause a plethora of harmful effects, including (but not limited to) brain and nervous system disorders, birth abnormalities, cancer, developmental and learning disorders, endocrine disruption, immune disorder, and reproductive dysfunction, among others. However, people of color may experience more severe health effects from exposure, resulting in elevated rates of diseases. Communities of color and those living in low-socioeconomic conditions experience an inequitable number of hazards, including toxic waste plants, garbage dumps, and other sources of environmental pollution and odors that lower the quality of life. Therefore, these populations experience greater exposure to harmful chemicals and suffer from health outcomes that affect their ability to work and learn. When discussing health disparities and environmental justice, we need to focus on those most impacted by toxic chemical use. [See This Juneteenth, We Celebrate Those Who Made this Country] 

Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News serves as a valuable resource for educating individuals and communities about the risks associated with pesticides and the viability of organic practices that eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. By empowering people with knowledge, we can foster a collective commitment to healthier alternatives and advocate for policies that prioritize both human health and environmental sustainability. 

As we reflect on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, it is crucial to recognize the interconnectedness of social justice, environmental advocacy, and public health. Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News provides a platform for understanding and addressing the health risks posed by pesticides, aligning with Dr. King’s vision of a just and equitable world. Let us draw inspiration from his teachings to work toward a future where everyone, regardless of their background, can enjoy the benefits of a healthy and sustainable environment. 

Beyond Pesticides continues to emphasize 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 ongoing and escalating threats. 

We at Beyond Pesticides are looking forward to working with people and organizations in communities nationwide to tackle what often seems like insurmountable problems, but problems that have real solutions that are within our reach, when we tap into the power of working together. 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. 

Thank you, Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Sign up for Beyond Pesticides Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay informed on these issues and take action. 

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 11, 2024) In a move to safeguard public and animal health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned nine manufacturers and distributors in December last year to stop selling unapproved and misbranded antimicrobial animal drugs, with the director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, Tracey Forfa, explaining to the public that “inappropriate use of medically important antimicrobials contributes to the development of antimicrobial resistance, which affects both human and animal health.”  This action and announcement exhibit a higher degree of concern about antimicrobial resistance—understood as a growing worldwide pandemic—than the history and ongoing inaction by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—resulting in the allowance of widespread nonmedical uses of antibiotics in agriculture and on synthetic (or artificial) turf. Contrary to broad scientific understanding, EPA told a federal appeals court last year that, “There is no data that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to the presence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria of human health concern,” and that “[a]t the present time, there is little evidence for or against the presence of microbes of human health concern in the plant agricultural environment.” The issue of resistance discussed in the scientific literature concerns reduced susceptibility to clinically important antimicrobials, including antibiotics, due to either cross-resistance or co-resistance mechanisms. 

The FDA enforcement action highlights the growing concern over antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a critical issue that Beyond Pesticides has reported on extensively, especially as related to horizontal gene transfer (the movement of antibiotic-resistant bacteria throughout the environment, ultimately making their way to people, as medically necessary drugs become ineffective).  The illegal marketing of these drugs for minor species, including aquarium fish and pet birds, featuring medically important antimicrobials such as amoxicillin, penicillin, tetracycline, and erythromycin, violates FDA regulations. 

While the uses in the FDA warning are limited, the agency used the opportunity to highlight the importance of the AMR issue. AMR is an escalating global health crisis that affects humans and animals alike. When pathogenic microorganisms become resistant to antimicrobials designed to kill them, the consequences can be severe, leading to infections that are harder to treat and more likely to spread. Previous coverage of this issue by Beyond Pesticides has discussed how the use of antimicrobials, including antibiotics, in agriculture, synthetic turf management, and medicine contribute to this resistance, turning what were once easily treatable infections into serious health threats. The use of antimicrobials in artificial turf exemplifies a nonmedical use that results in frequent exposure to children and others playing on antimicrobial-treated surfaces. In November, Beyond Pesticides reported, “A builder of sports facilities, American Athletic, states, “Beyond surface cleaning, the artificial turf should be sanitized weekly or monthly to protect the players’ and coaches’ health. This disinfection requires special solvents, cleansers, and anti-microbial products to remove invisible particles and bacterial growth. You should strive to sanitize the field after every game and throughout the school day if it’s used for physical education classes.” 

A 2020 scientific peer-reviewed article in Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica (Pan American Journal of Public Health)—a publication of the Pan American Health Organization,  From environment to clinic: the role of pesticides in antimicrobial resistance, finds the following: “This report draws attention to molecules, rather than antibiotics, that are commonly used in agrochemicals and may be involved in developing AMR in non-clinical environments, such as soil. This report examines pesticides as mediators for the appearance of AMR, and as a route for antibiotic resistance genes and antimicrobial-resistant bacteria to the anthropic environment. Available evidence suggests that the natural environment may be a key dissemination route for antibiotic-resistant genes. Understanding the interrelationship of soil, water, and pesticides is fundamental to raising awareness of the need for environmental monitoring programs and overcoming the current crisis of AMR.”  

The study goes on: “Soil microbiota serves as an early contributor to AMR and a reservoir of genes for resistance to clinical pathogens. Metagenomics studies have identified an exchange of antibiotic resistance genes (ARG) between environmental bacteria and clinical pathogens (5). Multidrug-resistant (MDR) soil bacteria also contain genes for resistance to the main classes of antibiotics, such as aminoglycosides, amphenicols, β-lactams, sulfonamides, and tetracycline.” 

As the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) noted in its December 13, 2023 letter to Environmental Protection Agency, ASM Responds to Environmental Protection Agency on Antimicrobial Resistance Assessment Framework about EPA’s proposed  Antimicrobial Resistance Assessment Framework, “Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a top public health threat and one of our most daunting challenges. AMR is associated with the deaths of 4.95 million people in 2019 and is projected to cause 10 million deaths by 2050. Each use of an antimicrobial drug or agent, whether used to treat disease in humans, animals, or crops, contributes to antimicrobial resistance. As existing antimicrobial agents decline in effectiveness, infections will be more difficult and expensive to treat and epidemics harder to control.” 

The FDA, in its announcement, links to its simply stated page entitled Antimicrobial Resistance: “When microorganisms become increasingly resistant to antimicrobial drugs, the drugs become less effective at slowing or stopping the growth of the microorganisms. This makes it more difficult to treat infections in people and animals. When antimicrobials are used excessively or inappropriately, the rate of this resistance grows.” 

The scientific literature and many recommendations abound for strategies and progress on AMR, including banning medically important antibiotics in agribusiness and promoting consumer (and business) awareness and action. Beyond Pesticides endorses these strategies, but insists that a genuine solution must include a systemic change through the transition to organic agriculture, recognizing the health benefits it provides. Beyond Pesticides’ databases, including Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, provide advocates with science-based information that informs the urgent need to shift to organic management practices in addressing existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises. 

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

Sources:

FDA NEWS RELEASE: FDA Warns Nine Manufacturers, Distributors of Unapproved Antimicrobials for Animals; FDA warns Chewy, others about antimicrobials in pet drugs

Agricultural Uses of Antibiotics Escalate Bacterial Resistance: Organic leads in prohibiting antibiotic use, Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You, Winter 2016-2017; American Society for Microbiology letter to Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2024) Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) negatively impacts testicular function and may cause sperm count declines over time, according to a 2022 review published in Endocrine. The findings indicate that this occurs regardless of whether exposure is prenatal (before birth) or postnatal (after birth). More recent work from October 2023 confirms the connection between male reproductive health and exposure to organophosphate and carbamate insecticides and the weed killer glyphosate—as many pesticide products containing these chemicals are classifiable as endocrine disruptors (ED). Just last year, a meta-analysis from researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the University of Copenhagen, among others, finds that the drop in global sperm count is accelerating, dropping by 51.6 percent from 1973 through 2018.

The U.S. regulatory system, under the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has not kept pace with the science and does not fully evaluate pesticides in wide use for endocrine disruption, despite a requirement in 1996 law (the Food Quality Protection Act) to begin that testing and evaluation nearly three decades ago. In 2021, Beyond Pesticides reported that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for EPA issued a damning report on the agency’s progress in protecting the population from potentially damaging endocrine disruption impacts of exposure to synthetic chemical pesticides (and other chemicals of concern). For more context on EPA’s failure to regulate endocrine-disrupting pesticides, see When France Bans Common Endocrine Disrupting Pesticide, EPA Goes Silent. For more background, see here.

Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotic (i.e., chemical substances like toxic pesticides foreign to an organism or ecosystem). Many reports demonstrate that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely affect human, animal—and thus environmental—health by altering the natural hormones responsible for conventional reproductive, physical, and mental development. Scientists and health officials already associate pesticide exposure with a decrease in male fertility, including reduced sperm count, quality, and abnormal sperm development. Furthermore, Beyond Pesticides has long highlighted the relationship between reproductive anomalies and toxic pesticides, particularly the role of endocrine-disrupting (ED) compounds. Therefore, reviews like this emphasize the importance of understanding how chemical exposure threatens reproductive health, not just for the current generation but for future generations, as these reproductive harms can prompt genetic changes.

The researchers reviewed animal and human studies on the effects of EDC exposure on testicular development, spermatogenesis (sperm production and development), malformations of the male genital tract, testicular tumors, and the mechanisms involved in testicular damage mediated by EDCs. After reviewing the scientific literature, the review confirms that EDCs harm the male reproductive system, ultimately compromising male fertility. The study notes explicitly that EDCs can bind to hormone receptors, dysregulating hormone receptor expression, disrupting the production and metabolism of the steroid hormone (steroidogenesis), and altering the epigenetic (heritable traits) mechanisms. The resulting reproductive outcomes from EDC exposure include poor semen quality, increased sperm DNA fragmentation, increased gonadotropin levels, a slightly increased risk of hereditary malformations (e.g., cryptorchidism and hypospadias), and testicular tumor development. Regarding prenatal exposure, maternal exposure to EDCs increases the predisposition for testicular tumor development, as well.  

The ubiquity of pesticides in the environment and food supply is concerning, as current measures restricting pesticide use and exposure do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse human health effects (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.). Most concerning is exposure to past and current-use pesticides, as these chemicals display endocrine-disrupting effects. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds as endocrine disruptors, including various household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (e.g., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause infertility, among other health issues.

Like this review, other studies highlight many pesticides can impact male sperm production (and reproduction broadly) through endocrine disruption. This disturbance may happen in several ways, including mimicking a natural hormone and fooling the body into over-responding to a stimulus, responding at inappropriate times, blocking the effects of a hormone from specific receptors, and/or directly stimulating or inhibiting the endocrine system, cause over- or under-production of hormones. The National Institutes of Health explainer says that exposures to ED chemicals can cause “deleterious effects on human reproductive health by interfering with the synthesis and mechanism of action of sex hormones. Any change during the synthesis or action of the sex hormones may result in abnormal reproductive functions, which includes developmental anomalies in the reproductive tract and decline in semen quality.”

In addition to the downward trend in sperm quality, the evidence highlighted by this review is sufficient enough to cause concern. Moreover, science has recognized for years the significant role pesticide exposures likely play in degraded sperm quantity and quality and impaired reproductive functions. Pesticides are ubiquitous — they are found in many industrial products and consumer products, such as plastics, furniture, clothing, canned food, water bottles, toys, cosmetics, electronics, food packaging, fertilizers, and pesticides. People are exposed to pesticides through these products, occupationally and dietarily.

Although this study explicitly evaluates EDCs’ impacts on male fertility, it is not the first to demonstrate the sex-specific effect of pesticide exposure. In 2017, scientists presented a study at the 99th meeting of the Endocrine Society, showing instances of early onset puberty in boys after exposure to common pyrethroid insecticide, which exhibits endocrine-disrupting properties that interfere with the proper regulation of the human body’s hormonal system. Furthermore, a 2021 study demonstrates that exposure to current-use pesticides, like organophosphates, poses a greater health risk to women. In addition to impacts on fertility, the study warns, “Testicular GJIC and connexin dysregulation, especially during critical early stages of development, could partly participate in the etiopathology of human subfertility and infertility and testicular cancer.”

Pesticides and other chemicals undermine the ability of reproduction. Furthermore, studies regarding pesticides reveal mechanisms that show how specific chemical toxicants can alter fertility, including endocrine disruption. Therefore, advocates urge that policies strengthen pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Endocrine Disruption, Body Burdens, and other diseases.

The ubiquity of pesticides in the environment and food supply is concerning, as current measures restricting pesticide use and exposure do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. For instance, 90 percent of Americans have at least one pesticide biomarker (including parent compound and breakdown products) in their body. However, one way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticides in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, from rural to urban, can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. For more information on how organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Endocrine

(Beyond Pesticides, January 9, 2024) A “landscape-level” study finds that typical risk assessment studies used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and European regulators fail to “safeguard bees and other pollinators that support agricultural production and wild plant pollination.” The study, published in Nature (November 2023), evaluates the health of bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) as a sentinel species placed in 106 agricultural landscapes across Europe. The authors’ conclusions challenge “the current assumption of pesticide regulation—that chemicals that individually pass laboratory tests and semifield trials are considered environmentally benign”—calling into question EPA’s persistent failure to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world.

This study adds to the body of science on pesticide mixtures adversely affecting bee and pollinator health. See here, here, and here. The failure to capture real-world exposure to pesticide mixtures in its regulatory assessments extends to EPA’s systemic failure to evaluate a range of serious adverse impacts, as noted by the agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) report. And, aquatic environments also have documented mixtures of pesticides, with the U.S. Geological Survey finding 90 percent of water samples containing at least five or more different pesticides.

“We can take no comfort in a regulatory system that continuously ignores, despite a plethora of studies over decades, the reality of pesticide exposure and adverse effects, yet continuously claims to the public that pesticides are adequately regulated, and business-as-usual dependency on pesticides is just fine,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “This latest study in Nature reminds us yet again, at the beginning of this new year, that we are not doing enough to expedite and escalate the transition to organic land management,” he continued.

The study found a combination of insecticides and fungicides, including ten compounds found in colony pollen stores, which the authors consider to present the highest risk, based on acute toxicity. The ten pesticides (nine insecticides and one fungicide) include indoxacarb, spinosad, chlorpyrifos-ethyl, deltamethrin, dimethoate, imidacloprid, cyfluthrin, dithianon, etofenprox, and chlorpyrifos-methyl. Concern about impacts on bees extends beyond acute effects to a range of adverse impacts, including disorientation, other sublethal effects, reproductive effects and development delays, and vulnerability to disease and mite infestation.

The study authors, Charlie Nicholson, PhD (post-doctoral fellow at Lund University, Lund, Sweden), et al., show a reduction in “bee colony performance.” This is especially true in what the authors call “simplified landscapes,” characterized by a predominance of non-flowering plants, “potentially stressing colonies and interacting with pesticide effects.” The authors conclude, “Our results show that ambitious sustainability goals related to pesticide reduction—objectives of the COP 15 meeting on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the European Farm to Fork strategy—would benefit bee populations and potentially the pollination services they provide.

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the international legal instrument for “the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.” It has been ratified by 196 nations—all the members of the United Nations except the United States and the Vatican. The CBD includes 21 action targets to be achieved by 2030, including reducing pesticide use by two-thirds, eliminating plastic waste, and “fully integrating biodiversity values into policies, regulations, planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies, accounts, and assessments of environmental impacts at all levels of government and across all sectors of the economy, ensuring that all activities and financial flows are aligned with biodiversity values.”

In a 2017 Science magazine article, “Toward pesticidovigilance,” authors Alice Milner, PhD, professor in the Department of Geography at the University of London, Surrey, and Ian Boyd, PhD, professor in the School of Biology, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, argue, “Without knowledge of safe environmental limits, the total pesticides used—and therefore the total environmental dose—is governed by market demand rather than by a limit on what the environment can endure.” Standard toxicity tests on individual pesticides, according to the authors, is of “limited use” when considering wide, “diffuse environmental effects that arise from ecosystem connectivity at a landscape scale.” The study in Nature adds to the empirical evidence of devastation wrought by pesticides and the ineffectiveness of current European as well as U.S. regulatory approaches. 

Beyond Pesticides has agreed with the conclusion of Drs. Milner and Boyd that there is a lack of “effective global governance of pesticides and their use” and advocates for the urgent need to adopt organic land management practices in agricultural and nonagricultural settings, including an immediate ban, like in France, on the use of lawn and landscape pesticides in both public and private areas frequently used by the public. 

The failure of EPA to consider the effect of pesticide mixtures in the environment extends to the formulation of pesticide products. While the Nature study identifies active pesticide ingredients, advocates and scientists have long asked EPA to evaluate and regulate full formulations of pesticides. Last year, EPA rejected a citizen petition filed in 2017 requesting that the agency evaluate complete formulations of pesticide products, not just the ingredients the manufacturer claims attack the target pest (so-called “active” ingredients). The citizen petition [see more background] was followed by a lawsuit for the same purpose in 2022.

Because of the three existential crises of health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency, Beyond Pesticides has called for a broad phase out of all petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers and a shift to organic land management by 2032.

For more information on hazards and alternatives, see Beyond Pesticides, Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management, the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, and the Organic Agriculture webpage. For communities that would like to partner with Beyond Pesticides in shifting community land management to organic, see Parks for a Sustainable Future.

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

Source: Pesticide use negatively affects bumble bees across European landscapes; Toward pesticidovigilance

(Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2024) Despite successful litigation that stopped the unnecessary use of an antibiotic (streptomycin) in citrus production in December 2023, the court’s reasoning fails to grasp the science behind the biggest emerging threat to U.S. and global health—antibiotic resistance. What is most disturbing and challenging is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), responsible for applying science in the protection of the public’s health, misled the court on the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on the contribution of agricultural antibiotic use to the human death and disability rate linked to antibiotic resistance. On this subject, Beyond Pesticides has written extensively about horizontal gene transfer, which explains the movement of antibiotic resistant bacteria throughout the environment, ultimately making their way to people, as medically necessary drugs become ineffective. As we’ve written, “The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely “vertical,” that is from parent to progeny—but can be “horizontal”— from one bacterial species to another.”

[Regarding the reliance of the court on EPA’s misrepresentation of the science, the court found, ”EPA emphasized that ‘there is no data that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to the presence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria of human health concern,’ and that ‘[a]t the present time, there is little evidence for or against the presence of microbes of human health concern in the plant agricultural environment.'” And yet, on May 19, 2019, The New York Times reported, “The agency [EPA] approved the expanded use [of streptomycin] despite strenuous objections from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which warn that the heavy use of antimicrobial drugs in agriculture could spur germs to mutate so they become resistant to the drugs, threatening the lives of millions of people.”]

Tell EPA and Congress that antibiotic pesticides must be eliminated.

We like victories, so let’s soak up the victory of the court decision and the protection it affords farmworkers in the short-term. Of note is the court finding, for procedural reasons, that EPA review of direct streptomycin exposure to pollinators “does not pass muster.” We have always said that when we protect pollinators and ecosystems, we protect people. But, now we must urgently zero in on how the nation’s pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the chemical-intensive agricultural practices it effectively promotes, is contributing to what can already be considered a worldwide pandemic. Yes, antibiotic resistance is another pandemic that some call the “silent pandemic,” but the numbers belie that characterization.

Let’s look at the numbers and the threat and then ask ourselves whether our federal agencies should be doing everything they can, from every perspective, to take action. It certainly is true that there is a confluence of factors that contribute to this worldwide pandemic, which will be the focus of a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) High-Level meeting on antimicrobial (e.g. bacterial and fungal) resistance (AMR) in September, 2024 in New York. However, we cannot afford to ignore any cause of resistance, given the health implications of ineffective treatments for bacterial and fungal diseases. While there are many statistics with a range of numbers that we cite, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “More than 2.8 million antimicrobial-resistant infections occur in the U.S. each year, and more than 35,000 people die as a result. When Clostridioides difficile—a bacterium that is not typically resistant but can cause deadly diarrhea is associated with antibiotic use—is added to these, the U.S. toll of all the threats in the report exceeds 3 million infections and 48,000 deaths.” According to a 2021 article in Current Research in Microbial Sciences, “Antibiotic resistance in agriculture: Perspectives on upcoming strategies to overcome upsurge in resistance,” the leading consumers of antibiotics in developed countries are U.S. consumers. So, it would appear that the U.S. population may have the most to lose from antibiotic resistance.

A report evaluating 204 countries published by the University of Washington’s Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation, “Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis,” generated the following statistics:

13.66 million people who died globally had sepsis as an immediate cause of death or in the chain of events leading to their death (intermediate cause).

4.95 million people who died in 2019 suffered from drug-resistant infections, such as lower respiratory, bloodstream, and intra-abdominal infections.

1.27 million deaths in 2019 were directly caused by AMR [antimicrobial resistance].

1 in 5 people who died from AMR was a child under 5 years old, often from previously treatable infections.

For those who prefer to talk about public health in economic terms, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N., the Global Research on Antimicrobial Resistance study found, “If action is not taken, the rise of AMR cumulatively may result in over 3.4 trillion USD loss in the world’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) in ten short years.

ReAct, an independent worldwide network focused on antibiotic resistance, founded in 2005, has characterized the problem from perspectives around the world.

ReAct Africa Director Mirfin Mpundu says:

“Addressing antibiotic resistance effectively will require big changes – to governance, financing, systems transformation and the change of behaviors and practices. But at the end of the day the end goal must be to ensure that everyone who has a resistant infection, or requires surgery, or needs cancer treatment, or is born premature can in fact access effective antibiotics in the future – this is the expectation that we should all voice to governments from now to September next year.”

ReAct Europe Director Anna Sjöblom says:

“The UNGA High-level meeting must be a turning point in the global response to AMR – and more specifically to antibiotic resistance. Enough with the talk of ‘a silent pandemic’ –  antibiotic resistance is here now and is a global leading cause of suffering and unnecessary loss of lives across the world. The global response must finally start to reflect this fact.”

Ultimately, EPA must get out in front and start thinking and acting holistically in its analyses and restrictions of pesticides. The challenge of antimicrobial resistance is an example of the agency moving along with a limited focus that undermines the protection of the environment and people, as existential crises continue to emerge—whether it’s the chemical-induced or exacerbated human health crises, biodiversity collapse, or the climate emergency. Even under existing law, EPA has the opportunity and responsibility to deem the adverse effects associated with petrochemical pesticide use related to these existential crises “unreasonable” (the statutory standard under FIFRA), given the availability of alternative practices, principally organic land management, that are viable, accessible, productive, profitable, and, most importantly, enabling of a livable future.

Tell EPA and Congress that antibiotic pesticides must be eliminated.

Letter to EPA:

Antimicrobial resistance is rising to dangerously high levels. In the May 1, 2022, issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Samira Choudhury, PhD, et al. write, “Often referred to as the silent pandemic, antimicrobial resistance claims the lives of over 700,000 people annually.” They continue, “A study suggests that if no actions are taken, antimicrobial resistance will cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050 and an economic impact of over 100 trillion United States dollars.”

A federal district court decision blocked EPA’s decision to register the antibiotic streptomycin for use in Florida citrus to control Huanglongbing (HLB), also known as “citrus greening,” a plant disease spread by the Asian citrus psyllid, finding, “[EPA] admits it did not comply with the ESA.” The court also found that EPA failed to show that streptomycin would achieve benefits in preventing the disease. However, the court was not convinced that EPA fails to protect against the spread of antibiotic resistance and assumed that the restrictions that EPA required for personal protective equipment (PPE) and drift control would adequately mitigate risks.

When antimicrobial pesticides are sprayed on a crop, they induce resistance in bacteria that are present by killing susceptible bacteria—which may or may not be pathogenic—allowing resistant bacteria to proliferate. The resistant bacteria move off the site on crops, workers, and the wind. Prevention of chemical drift is thus inadequate to protect against the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The fact of horizontal gene transfer means that antibiotic resistance genes in those (possibly harmless) bacteria can move to pathogens.

In 2017, EPA permitted use of these antibiotics in Florida citrus crops. In January 2019, EPA moved to make the authorization permanent, despite, according to the New York Times, “strenuous objections from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which warn that the heavy use of antimicrobial drugs in agriculture could spur germs to mutate so they become resistant to the drugs, threatening the lives of millions of people.” Two years prior oxytetracycline was approved for use on the same citrus crops.

In addition to crops, antimicrobials are used to manage synthetic turf. A builder of sports facilities, American Athletic, states, “Beyond surface cleaning, the artificial turf should be sanitized weekly or monthly to protect the players’ and coaches’ health. This disinfection requires special solvents, cleansers, and antimicrobial products to remove invisible particles and bacterial growth. You should strive to sanitize the field after every game and throughout the school day if it’s used for physical education classes.”

Finally, focusing on materials sold as antibiotics or antimicrobials is too shortsighted. First, science shows that use of any antibiotics anywhere can increase antibiotic resistance everywhere. Second, many pesticides not intended to kill microbes—such as the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba—also induce antibiotic resistance in deadly human pathogens. Thus, we must stop broadcasting pesticides in the environment. The crisis in antibiotic resistance, which creates a threat of another pandemic, is ignored in the registration of pesticides. The antibiotic impacts of pesticides cited above were discovered only after the pesticides had been disseminated in the environment for decades.

EPA must not register pesticides unless they have been demonstrated not to contribute to antibiotic resistance and must cancel the registration of those that do.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

Antibiotic resistance is rising to dangerously high levels. In the May 1, 2022, issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Samira Choudhury, PhD, et al. write, “Often referred to as the silent pandemic, antimicrobial resistance claims the lives of over 700,000 people annually.” They continue, “A study suggests that if no actions are taken, antimicrobial resistance will cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050 and an economic impact of over 100 trillion United States dollars.”

A federal district court decision blocked EPA’s decision to register the antibiotic streptomycin for use in Florida citrus to control Huanglongbing (HLB), also known as “citrus greening,” a plant disease spread by the Asian citrus psyllid, citing failure to comply with the ESA and to show benefits. However, the court was not convinced that EPA fails to protect against the spread of antibiotic resistance and assumed that the restrictions that EPA required for personal protective equipment (PPE) and drift control would adequately mitigate risks.

When antimicrobial pesticides are sprayed on a crop, they induce antimicrobial resistance in bacteria that are present by killing susceptible bacteria—which may or may not be pathogenic—allowing resistant bacteria to proliferate. The resistant bacteria move off the site on crops, workers, and the wind. Prevention of chemical drift is thus inadequate to protect against the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The fact of horizontal gene transfer means that antibiotic resistance genes in those (possibly harmless) bacteria can move to pathogens.

In 2017, EPA permitted expanding use of these antibiotics in Florida citrus crops. In January 2019, EPA moved to make the authorization permanent, despite, according to the New York Times, “strenuous objections from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which warn that the heavy use of antimicrobial drugs in agriculture could spur germs to mutate so they become resistant to the drugs, threatening the lives of millions of people.” Two years prior oxytetracycline was approved for use on the same citrus crops.

In addition to crops, antimicrobials are used to manage synthetic turf. A builder of sports facilities, American Athletic, states, “Beyond surface cleaning, the artificial turf should be sanitized weekly or monthly to protect the players’ and coaches’ health. This disinfection requires special solvents, cleansers, and anti-microbial products to remove invisible particles and bacterial growth. You should strive to sanitize the field after every game and throughout the school day if it’s used for physical education classes.”

Finally, focusing on materials sold as antibiotics or antimicrobials is too shortsighted. First, science shows that use of any antibiotics anywhere can increase antibiotic resistance everywhere. Second, many pesticides not intended to kill microbes—such as the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba—also induce antibiotic resistance in deadly human pathogens. Thus, we must stop broadcasting pesticides in the environment. The crisis in antibiotic resistance, which creates a threat of another pandemic, is ignored in the registration of pesticides. The antibiotic impacts of pesticides cited above were discovered only after the pesticides had been disseminated in the environment for decades.

Please ensure EPA does not register pesticides unless they have been demonstrated not to contribute to antibiotic resistance and cancels the registration of those that do.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 5, 2023) The 28^th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP28) wrapped up in Dubai on December 13 with what some hailed as a breakthrough agreement among almost 200 countries to reduce fossil fuel consumption that signals “the eventual end of the oil age.” To be successful and assure human survival, eliminating oil, gas, and coal use, Beyond Pesticides is calling for the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers and support for organic, regenerative agriculture around the world.

Because of the insurmountable crises that are caused or exacerbated by petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, the adoption of organic land management practices and the need for foundational change in federal, state, and local policies and practices has come into focus. Under organic management, healthy soil can absorb and store 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre foot of soil annually. This translates to about 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre drawn down from the air and sequestered into organic matter in soil. (It is noteworthy that use of synthetic fertilizers actually compromises the carbon-capture ability of some kinds of terrain, such as salt marshes.) A fact often overlooked by policy makers in generating climate strategies is that carbon-sequestering soil practices are federally mandated in certified organic agriculture.

As reported by Beyond Pesticides in October 2021 before COP26, the use of synthetic fertilizers is a particular and noxious contributor to the rising planetary temperature. This happens largely through these products’ emissions of nitrous oxide, or NO_x — another potent greenhouse gas that also pollutes the air and feeds the development of ozone. NO_x is roughly 300 times as potent in trapping heat as CO₂. (In addition, runoff of high-nitrogen, synthetic fertilizers contaminate water bodies and contributes to eutrophication.) Nitrous oxide levels have increased, compared to pre-industrial levels, by 20% from all sources. Earlier in 2021, Beyond Pesticides asserted, “The excess nitrogen in these fertilizers is . . . driving global nitrous oxide emissions dangerously high, exacerbating the climate crisis.” For more on climate-friendly organic agriculture, see Daily News and the groundbreaking work of the Rodale Institute, as captured in its Farming Systems Trial — 40-Year Report. California Certified Organic Farmers Association’s Roadmap to an Organic California provides a policy framework for advancing agricultural programs that combat climate change. 

COP28’s call for an end to fossil fuels aligns with Beyond Pesticides’ call for the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers by 2032. This grows out of the experience with the viability of organic land management as a productive and profitable alternative to chemical-intensive land management (including agriculture, parks, playing fields, schoolyards, and home landscapes and gardens).

At the Beyond Pesticides November 2022 National Forum session on climate, scientists discussed the science and the urgent need for a strategic response to the climate crisis as part of a constellation of crises that intersect. Whether talking about a health crisis borne out of chemical-induced diseases, the collapse of life-sustaining biodiversity, or the dramatic catastrophes caused by greenhouse gases and rising temperatures—the interconnectedness of the crises, advocates say, requires solutions that are holistic and nurturing of humans’ relationship with nature—interrelationship that have been neglected as a matter of policy and practice.

Leading up to COP28, in October, 2023, an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) captures the urgency of the climate and biodiversity crisis in Time to Treat the Climate and Nature Crisis as One Indivisible Global Health Emergency. The authors state: “Over 200 health journals call on the United Nations, political leaders, and health professionals to recognize that climate change and biodiversity loss are one indivisible crisis and must be tackled together to preserve health and avoid catastrophe. This overall environmental crisis is now so severe as to be a global health emergency.”

There is a particularly noxious feedback loop involving climate and pesticides. Beyond Pesticides covered a Nature Communications study in 2021 showing that as the climate warms, pests form a permanent population in places where they were formerly seasonal. Permanent or endemic pests are often repeatedly exposed to the same pesticide and become resistant. Seasonally abundant pests are not exposed year-round and tend to be less resistant. Warmer temperatures enable larger year-round pest populations that can expand into new habitats, resulting in more pesticide use. It is essential to restrict warming as much as possible while adopting agricultural coping methods that do not involve pesticides. The temptation to use them will be powerful: For every degree of global surface warming, crop losses from insects are projected to increase some 10-25 percent, primarily in temperate regions where rice, maize and wheat are grown.

The problem of pests benefiting from warmer temperatures to expand their ranges and their food sources has been starkly evident in western Canada, where the boreal forest has been harvested for two centuries. The mountain pine beetle, endemic to western British Columbia, was historically killed off every year by cold weather. Further, healthy trees could fight off the beetles with toxic resin if the beetle population was low. But in the early 1990s, as British Columbia temperatures rose, the beetle population grew and expanded its range northward and eastward. By 2007 the pests in British Columbia reached epidemic proportions and crossed the Continental Divide into Alberta. Millions of trees died, contributing to ever more dire wildfires, with dense smoke from the conflagration in 2023 joining that of U.S. wildfires and covering much of the United States and Canada. To make matters worse, climate change has transformed much of Canada’s boreal forest from a sink to a source of atmospheric carbon. The beetle has also become a problem in U.S. forests. The primary insecticide used in futile attempts to control the beetle is carbaryl, a carcinogen and acetylcholinesterase inhibitor with neurotoxic effects.

It seems obvious that the rationales underpinning fossil fuel extraction and use in myriad ways is a case of humans shooting themselves in the foot. There is no solution to this wide array of crises that includes continued fossil fuel use. Beyond Pesticides has a rich archive of information and action plans to bring to bear on these entwined crises. The organization established the Parks for a Sustainable Future program, which underwrites horticultural consultation to plan the transition to organic land management in communities across the U.S. It also strives to maintain the integrity of organic standards through Keeping Organic Strong campaign and historical work to transition agriculture to organic practices. In 2022, Beyond Pesticides sponsored a Climate Change Calls for Phase Out of Fossil Fuels Linked to Petrochemical Pesticides and Fertilizer series of national virtual seminars (with archived videos) covering health, biodiversity and climate. And Rodale Institute’s work to show the efficacy and benefits of organic agriculture is cited.

The primary document emerging from COP28, called the “First Global Stocktake,” released at the end of the meeting, mentions the phrase “fossil fuels” just once, and the word “food” occurs only six times. But the fact that the phrase “fossil fuels” is used at all reflects a triumph over the resistance of the fossil fuel industry. More importantly, the agreement is the first time the parties have explicitly stated the intention to transition away from fossil fuels entirely. This is remarkable considering the intense wrangling that went on before agreement on the wording was reached.

On the other hand, the fossil fuel sector—including the host of the conference, the United Arab Emirates—continued to drag its feet, reprising old arguments for carbon capture rather than a complete phaseout of fossil fuels. Carbon capture has been studied, discussed and tested for two decades at least, but has yet to be implemented on anywhere near the scale necessary to prevent catastrophic warming. In fact, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, “Failed/underperforming projects considerably [outnumber] successful [carbon capture] experiences,” and the technology exists mostly as an excuse to continue extracting oil and natural gas.

Yet focusing on the fossil fuel undertow and the less-than-perfect commitment to ending the fossil fuel era may obscure other encouraging developments. In a further sign of forward momentum, COP28 was the first time a full day was devoted to food and agriculture at a U.N. climate conference. The U.S. delegation said many of the right things—a change from the Trump administration’s abrupt withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement. U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) Secretary Tom Vilsack touted President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which provides close to $20 billion to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural production and protect communities vulnerable to climate change impacts. The U.S.D.A. share of the IRA also includes more than $13 billion to “provide rural America with clean, affordable energy,” according to a U.S.D.A. press release.

The COP28 executive issued a call to develop “resilient food systems” in its UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action. There were 153 national government signatories to the declaration, with some 200 non-party stakeholder organizations signing a companion Call to Action for Transforming Food Systems for People, Nature and Climate. Next year, at COP29 in Azerbaijan, there will be an opportunity to evaluate progress on these declarations’ stated commitments.

Given the number of countries that participated and the number and variety of other organizations, including non-governmental organizations and nonprofits, that held side meetings and observed, COP28 can be considered a success. Across many climate and agriculture activist constituencies, there is strong grassroots motivation to change what can be changed as soon as possible. Keeping the pressure up on the entwined issues of climate and food protection will lift all ships—that is, advancing the cause of organic agriculture will also be advancing the goal of net zero carbon emissions.

As noted  Beyond Pesticides’ 2022 post about the insect apocalypse, “While the solutions are in reach, tremendous public action is needed to stop the fossil fuel and agrichemical industries from their short-sighted pursuit of profit at any cost….Arguments are made that high intensity, industrial chemical agriculture is the only way to feed the world, and the fossil fuels are the only way to provide energy. Scientific data is now spelling out exactly what we are in for if we continue to endorse these dangerous myths.”

Ironically, the fossil fuel industry may not be considering a major possibility—that not only is continued fossil fuel use the highway to catastrophe, but in a drastically warming world, high intensity agriculture as currently practiced may not even be possible. On the present course pollinators and other helpful insects are being lost, along with water, topsoil, soil microbes and fungi, and all the other natural contributors to food production. No amount of fertilizer or pesticides can overcome these losses. Nor are high-tech, complex industrial processes likely to solve these problems. It is recognizing the dependence on the species, landscapes and natural processes of the planet that will deflect oncoming collapse.

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

Sources:
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement Fifth session United Arab Emirates, 30 November to 12 December 2023
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2023_L17_adv.pdf

Nations strike deal at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/countries-push-cop28-deal-fossil-fuels-talks-spill-into-overtime-2023-12-12/

The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned|https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-crux-lessons-learned

(Beyond Pesticides, January 4, 2024) A review published in the Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice finds an association between farmers’ pesticide exposure and cognitive impairment. Specifically, farmers suffer from attention deficit, lack of information processing, non-comprehension of verbal cues, slow processing speed, memory loss, sluggishness, speech difficulties, and impaired motor function. Additionally, the risk of adverse effects from exposure increases with time spent around pesticides, like in other occupational (work-related) settings. Although pesticide exposure may not be the only factor involved in cognitive impairment, exposure can work synergistically (together) with other factors, triggering neurotoxicity.

Pesticides play various roles in causing or exacerbating adverse health outcomes like neurotoxic effects and chemical damage to the brain. Numerous pesticides impair neurological function, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farmworkers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Mounting evidence over the past years shows that chronic exposure to sublethal (low) levels of pesticides adversely affects the central nervous system (CNS) and neural receptors, such as connections between nerves, the brain, enzymes, and DNA. Specifically, researchers identify agricultural chemical exposure as a cause of many adverse CNS impacts and neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease.

The researchers reviewed scientific articles published in the Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and PubMed databases between 2000 and 2021, all related to “pesticides and cognition” and “pesticides and memory.” The review follows the preferred reporting methodology for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review results find that ten studies match the specific criteria, with researchers highlighting the lack of comprehensive scientific literature on cognition (or the process of understanding and thought) and pesticide exposure. Half of the studies in the review measure organophosphate (OP) exposure impact on cholinesterase (enzymes necessary for the transmission of nerve impulses), confirming neurotoxicity.

Numerous occupational hazards are associated with chemical exposure, especially among individuals with occupations that involve regular exposure to xenobiotic (foreign substance) compounds. The agricultural sector has a long-standing history of synthetic chemical use, which disproportionally affects farmworkers’ health. Furthermore, farmworkers’ children are at greater risk as their immune system response is immature and especially vulnerable to stressors from pesticide exposure. Synthetic chemicals in pesticides can accumulate in bodies, causing an amalgamation of health effects. These effects can range from heightened risks of various cancers (e.g., prostate, hepatic, liver, etc.) and endocrine disruption to mental health problems (e.g., depression), respiratory illnesses (asthma), and many other pesticide-induced diseases. However, pesticide exposure is ubiquitous and not confined to where the chemicals are applied. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals can enter homes from the workplace via clothes, shoes, and home-based personal protective equipment (PPE) and accumulate residues on laundry, on carpets, and in art/house dust. Some cases demonstrate that levels of chemicals transported into the house can be high enough to cause an adverse health effect in a resident child or spouse.

Many pesticide compounds remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. These compounds have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. The continuing ubiquity of pesticides concerns public health advocates as current measures safeguarding against pesticide use do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. Therefore, individuals will continuously encounter varying concentrations of pesticides and other toxic chemicals, adding to the body’s burden of current-use chemicals.

Although studies demonstrate developmental and learning-based deficiencies from prenatal and early life exposure, this review is one of the few to highlight how pesticides can induce neurological issues that manifest over time, especially in chemical-intensive occupations like farming. However, many studies find a stark association between pesticide exposure and neurotoxic impacts that manifest as physical ailments like Alzheimer’s Disease, Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease, brain tumors, and more. Additionally, the notes state that anticholinesterase compounds like OPs are found in farmers and individuals close to agricultural areas, suggesting that direct and indirect chronic low-level exposure influences cognitive functioning. Overstimulation and continued activation of muscarinic and nicotinic receptors from acetylcholine accumulation are potential mechanisms involved in cognitive impairment from OP exposure. The review suggests “that future studies engage in similar projects, addressing the aspects mentioned above and assessing the specific categories of pesticides most harmful to cognition and the toxicological mechanisms by which they act. Finally, [they review] consider[s] the monitoring of the mode of pesticide application to be important, favoring lower occupational exposure of farmers to pesticides and, consequently, lower cognitive impairment.”

There is a lack of complete understanding of the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Pesticides themselves can possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Pesticides’ impact on the brain is mainly of concern for chronically exposed individuals or during critical windows of vulnerability and development. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and neurological disorders can help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that cause neurodegenerative diseases. Although occupational and environmental factors, like pesticide exposure, adversely affect human health, regulatory reviews are plagued by numerous limitations in defining real-world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) and Daily News Blog. The adverse health effects of pesticides, exposure, and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for a precautionary approach to regulating pesticides as more precise research is conducted on occupational and residential pesticide exposure—allowing more complete determinations. Existing information, including this study, supports the clear need for a strategic shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the effects of pesticide exposure on neurological health, see Beyond Pesticides’ PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders and other impacts on cognitive function. 

Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace regenerative, organic practices, consumers to purchase organic, and gardeners and municipalities to adopt organic land management practices. A complement to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do. 

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

Source: Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2024) A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds elevated, chronic exposure to glyphosate throughout one’s lifetime increases the risk of mosaic loss of chromosome Y (loss of chromosome Y occurs to many men in some cells due to aging [mLOY]) that impacts a noticeable fraction of cells. Although the loss of this sex chromosome does not cause cell death, like the loss of autosomal chromosomes, the risk of mLOY is a biomarker for genotoxicity (the damage of genetic information within a cell causing mutations from chemical exposure, which may lead to cancer) and expansion of cellular response to glyphosate, resulting in the precursor for hematological (blood) cancers. This study is one of the first to identify sex-specific chromosome degradation, with stark evidence demonstrating links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the glyphosate as a probable carcinogen or cancer-causing chemical. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) allowance of widespread use of glyphosate allows for adverse impacts, especially among vulnerable individuals, like pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly. Glyphosate exposure levels and resulting residues in urine has been documented with recent data showing that four out of five (81.6%) U.S. residents have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies. Despite these concerning data, evidence of widespread exposure to a carcinogen has so far failed to influence regulators at EPA, which puts increasing responsibility on local elected officials and consumers, according to advocates, to stop glyphosate use in their community’s land management.

The study notes, “Although future studies are needed to confirm the observed associations, our findings for glyphosate add to the limited literature on occupational and environmental exposures as contributors to mLOY, the most common acquired chromosomal alteration in men, and provide novel mechanistic evidence supporting the potential carcinogenicity of this widely used herbicide.”

The study analyzes blood-derived DNA from 1,606 farmers to detect mLOY using genotype assessments of the sex chromosomes in the cells. Researchers gathered self-reported pesticide exposure from the farmers and estimated the association between mLOY and glyphosate use, employing a multivariable logistic regression. The results find that mLOY is detectable in 21.4 percent of farmers, with mLOY expanding throughout most cells in 9.8 percent of farmers. Most farmers with mLOY expanding throughout most cells are older in age, with a greater lifetime exposure and intensity of exposure to glyphosate. However, these individuals are non-smokers and non-obese, which are other risk factors for mLOY.

Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, including Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup®. The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate over two decades ago. Glyphosate is often promoted by industry as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals, yet it has been shown to have detrimental impacts on humans and the environment. The toxic herbicide readily contaminates the ecosystem, with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, decades of accumulated scientific literature commonly associates glyphosate with human, biotic, and ecosystem harm. Additionally, glyphosate’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion, loss of services, and trophic cascades). Moreover, chemical use has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate. Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health and ecological effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. Thus, glyphosate has been extensively controversial about its safety for humans, nonhuman organisms, and ecosystems. For instance, the presence of glyphosate in human bodies has risen dramatically during the past three decades. Research at the University of California San Diego found that, between two data collection periods (1993–1996 and 2014–2016), the percentage of people testing positive for the presence of glyphosate (or its metabolites) in urine rose by an average of 500 percent, peaking at 1,208 percent.

Although the EPA classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, glyphosate exposure has implications for the development of various health anomalies, including the distortion of DNA function, leading to several chronic diseases like cancer, Parkinson’s disease, metabolic disorders, gut dysbiosis, nervous system disorders, and neurodevelopment disorders like autism. In recent years, numerous lawsuits have targeted Monsanto (now Bayer), which contains glyphosate, alleging that the herbicide contributes to the plaintiffs’ cancers. Beyond Pesticides has reported on EPA’s ongoing failures to protect people and the environment from glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) compounds. Therefore, advocates say it is crucial to comprehend the full spectrum of glyphosate’s effects on human health from its potential carcinogenicity.

This study is one of the first to investigate mLOY as a biomarker for genomic instability (loss of sex chromosome), providing new insight into the biological mechanism involved in carcinogenicity beyond general genotoxicity (i.e., DNA damage) and oxidative stress. However, considering the co-occurring effects of glyphosate exposure, including the chemical’s breakdown product AMPA, is essential. Since glyphosate and its formulations have long been associated with oxidative stress and strong evidence of genotoxicity, multiple biological mechanisms can work synergically (together) to increase the risk, time of onset, or disease severity.

It is essential to understand the effects of widely used pesticides and their breakdown products on the health of current and future generations. Beyond Pesticides challenges the EPA registration of chemicals like glyphosate in court due to their impacts on soil, air, water, and health. However, emphasis on converting to regenerative-organic systems and using least-toxic pest control can mitigate harmful exposure concerns. Public policy must advance this shift rather than allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides. Considering glyphosate levels in the human body can decrease by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and adverse health effects. Learn more about pesticides’ impacts on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. Moreover, Beyond Pesticides provides tools, information, and support to take local action: check out our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup and our report, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed. Contact us for help with local efforts and stay informed of developments through our Daily News Blog and our journal, Pesticides and You. Additionally, check out Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption on glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum.

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

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, January 2, 2024) [photo credit: Alessandro Marongui, Bhopal Medical Appeal, Bhopal, 2009] The new year begins with numerous critical decisions before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Office of Pesticide Programs, along with other federal agencies and the U.S. Congress, that determine whether the agency will continue to erode its leadership position in meeting the existential crises that threaten health, biodiversity, and climate. Given these crises, EPA under its current authority could take the action necessary to advance a transition away from the use of petrochemical pesticides, since under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) the hazards associated with pesticides are “unreasonable”—given the availability and viability of organic systems that do not utilize toxic pesticides.

As EPA fails to meet the catastrophic environmental and health challenges of the day, communities and states across the U.S. are increasingly exercising their authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the federal government. FIFRA, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier (1991), does not prohibit or preempt local municipalities from adopting more stringent pesticide restrictions throughout their jurisdictions than the federal government. The U.S. Congress over the next several weeks will continue debating the inclusion in the Farm Bill statutory language that will preempt local authority.

One of the more outrageous proposals now under consideration by EPA is a chemical industry proposal to register the use of the highly neurotoxic, carbamate, insecticide aldicarb on citrus. While the adverse impact of pesticides often remains hidden from public view, especially in communities where pesticides are produced or used, the catastrophic explosion involving the chemical used in aldicarb production cannot be ignored. Forty years ago this year (December 1984), a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India released a cloud of highly toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, the precursor chemical used in carbamate manufacture, in the middle of the night, killing thousands of people immediately—estimates range from 1,754 to 10,000—and up to 20,000 subsequently. Estimates of the number suffering permanent disabilities or chronic disease range up to 95% of the affected population of 531,881. Continuing research released this year (June 2023) has found that fetuses in the womb during the disaster exhibited lower birth weights and remained more susceptible to respiratory problems, cognitive impairments, and other health issues later in life. Moreover, those born just after the gas leak were found to have lower educational attainment and reduced earning potential as adults. (For background on the Bhopal explosion and immediate and long-term effects, see Daily News.)

In 2021, the use of aldicarb on citrus was rejected  by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (April 2021) and the U.S. Court of Appeals (June 2021). Both EPA and the World Health Organization (WHO) classify the chemical in the highest toxicity category. Over 100 countries have banned aldicarb under the Rotterdam Convention, an international agreement on toxic chemicals that the United States has signed but not ratified.    

>>Tell EPA not to revive the use of aldicarb. Tell your Congressional Senators and Representative to ensure that EPA decisions are not dictated by the chemical industry.

Less than a year after the Bhopal tragedy, a cloud containing aldicarb oxime—which is combined with MIC to make aldicarb—leaked from a Union Carbide plant in Institute, WV. This time, at least 135 residents were treated for eye, throat, and lung irritation. In 1991, seven cars of a freight train derailed near Dunsmuir, CA. A tank car ruptured, dumping 19,000 gallons of the soil sterilant metam sodium into the Sacramento River. Several hundred people were hospitalized after inhaling fumes. The chemical causes birth defects and fetal death and is a known mutagen, so the total impact on human health is unknown. However, the chemical sterilized a 41-mile stretch of the river, killing over a million fish and thousands of trees. Such events are not in the distant past, as shown by the derailment of about 50 out of 141 cars on the Norfolk Southern train that exploded in a towering fireball over the town of East Palestine, OH in February 2023. Among the compounds on board those cars were “inert” pesticide ingredients (vinyl chloride, ethylhexyl acrylate, and isobutylene), an antimicrobial compound (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether [EGBE]), benzene (a carcinogenic solvent), and butyl acrylate. In 2022, train accidents resulted in releases of hazardous chemicals 11 times.

These examples of injuries to humans and the environment show that the harm caused by pesticides goes far beyond the impacts to consumers, farmworkers, other organisms, air, water, and soil caused by the application of those poisons, which are also extensive. We are all potentially affected. In some cases—including aldicarb—the damages caused by use alone have been shown many times to be, in the words of FIFRA, “unreasonable adverse effects.”

In fact, no pesticide epitomizes the “cradle-to-grave” dangers of pesticides better than aldicarb. In short, it is a suspected endocrine disruptor and is linked to neurotoxic and reproductive effects, asthma, and learning behavior problems. It has been detected in groundwater, is a potential leacher, and is toxic to birds and fish/aquatic organisms. In use, it has been implicated in poisoning of workers and their children, poisoning deer and other game consuming contaminated seeds, and notably, poisoning food grown in soil treated with the chemical. The effects don’t stop there—aldicarb is also notorious for contaminating groundwater. 

Aldicarb may persist in groundwater for decades due to its long half-life between 200 to 2,000 days, and ingestion of aldicarb-contaminated groundwater by residents adversely affects immune system function. Furthermore, aldicarb is a systemic pesticide that plant roots and leaves readily uptake, leading to toxic chemical residues in pollen and guttation droplets, poisoning pollinators like bees. Evidence demonstrates that past use of the aldicarb product Temik 15G on citrus fruit crops exclusively posed the highest risk to children and infants, ultimately leading to its 2010 cancellation.

Organic growers know that soil biology and soil health is important to protection from diseases like citrus greening. The use of aldicarb, on the other hand, destroys healthy soil biota.

This revival of consideration of aldicarb use demonstrates the danger of regulating pesticides through negotiated voluntary cancellations, which do not produce a record on which EPA or the public can depend for future decisions. See the Daily News of December 14, 2023 for more about aldicarb.

EPA must not revive the use of aldicarb, which is responsible for so much death and destruction, beginning with its manufacture and continuing through its use.

>>Tell EPA not to revive the use of aldicarb. Tell your Congressional Senators and Representative to ensure that EPA decisions are not dictated by the chemical industry.

Letter to EPA:

Thirty-nine years ago last month, a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India released a cloud of highly toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas in the middle of the night, killing thousands of people immediately—estimates range from 1754 to 10,000—and up to 20,000 subsequently. Estimates of the number suffering permanent disabilities or chronic disease range up to 500,000. MIC is a precursor used in the manufacture of carbamate insecticides, including aldicarb, carbofuran, and carbaryl. In spite of this history and the many adverse effects of aldicarb, EPA is now considering reviving the pesticide’s use.

Less than a year later, a cloud containing aldicarb oxime—which is combined with MIC to make aldicarb—leaked from a Union Carbide plant in Institute, WV, and at least 135 residents were treated for eye, throat, and lung irritation. In 1991, seven cars of a freight train derailed near Dunsmuir, CA, dumping 19,000 gallons of the soil sterilant metam sodium into the Sacramento River, resulting in the hospitalization of several hundred people, with unknown future impacts from birth defects, fetal death, and mutations. Miles of the river were sterilized, killing over a million fish and thousands of trees. In February 2023, about 50 out of 141 cars on a Norfolk Southern train exploded in a towering fireball over East Palestine, OH. Among the compounds on board those cars were “inert” pesticide ingredients, an antimicrobial compound, benzene, and butyl acrylate.

Thus, the harm caused by pesticides goes far beyond the impacts caused by the application of those poisons, which are also extensive. We are all potentially affected. In fact, no pesticide epitomizes the “cradle-to-grave” dangers of pesticides better than aldicarb. It is a suspected endocrine disruptor, linked to neurotoxic and reproductive effects, asthma, and learning behavior problems. It has been detected in groundwater, is a potential leacher, and is toxic to birds and fish/aquatic organisms. It is a systemic pesticide readily taken up by plant roots and leaves, leading to toxic chemical residues in pollen and guttation droplets, poisoning pollinators like bees.

It has been implicated in poisoning of workers and their children, game consuming contaminated seeds, and notably, food grown in soil treated with the chemical. Aldicarb is also notorious for contaminating groundwater, where it may persist for decades due to its long half-life between 200 to 2,000 days. Ingestion of aldicarb-contaminated groundwater by residents adversely affects immune system function. Aldicarb is a highly toxic, systemic carbamate insecticide banned by over 100 countries under the Rotterdam Convention. Both EPA and the World Health Organization (WHO) classify the chemical in the highest toxicity category.

Evidence demonstrates that past use of aldicarb on citrus fruit crops exclusively posed the highest risk to children and infants, ultimately leading to its 2010 cancellation. In 2017 and 2018, the Florida Department of Agriculture denied “Special Local Needs” approval for use on Florida citrus because the registrant was unable to demonstrate that aldicarb is safer than alternatives.

Organic growers know that soil biology and soil health are important to protection from diseases like citrus greening. The use of aldicarb, on the other hand, destroys healthy soil biota.

I am appalled that despite previous cancellations due to unreasonable adverse effects, particularly on the health of children, EPA is now considering approving the use of aldicarb for use on Florida oranges and grapefruits. This reconsideration of aldicarb use demonstrates the danger of regulating pesticides through negotiated voluntary cancellations, which do not produce a record on which EPA or the public can depend for future decisions.

EPA must not revive the use of aldicarb, which is responsible for so much death and destruction, beginning with its manufacture and continuing through its use.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative:

Thirty-nine years ago last month, a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India released a cloud of highly toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas in the middle of the night, killing thousands of people immediately—estimates range from 1754 to 10,000—and up to 20,000 subsequently. Estimates of the number suffering permanent disabilities or chronic disease range up to 500,000. MIC is a precursor used in the manufacture of carbamate insecticides, including aldicarb, carbofuran, and carbaryl. In spite of this history and the many adverse effects of aldicarb, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now considering reviving the pesticide’s use.

Less than a year later, a cloud containing aldicarb oxime—which is combined with MIC to make aldicarb—leaked from a Union Carbide plant in Institute, WV, and at least 135 residents were treated for eye, throat, and lung irritation. In 1991, seven cars of a freight train derailed near Dunsmuir, CA, dumping 19,000 gallons of the soil sterilant metam sodium into the Sacramento River, resulting in the hospitalization of several hundred people, with unknown future impacts from birth defects, fetal death, and mutations. Miles of the river were sterilized, killing over a million fish and thousands of trees. In February 2023, about 50 out of 141 cars on a Norfolk Southern train exploded in a towering fireball over East Palestine, OH. Among the compounds on board those cars were “inert” pesticide ingredients, an antimicrobial compound, benzene, and butyl acrylate.

Thus, the harm caused by pesticides goes far beyond the impacts caused by the application of those poisons, which are also extensive. We are all potentially affected. In fact, no pesticide epitomizes the “cradle-to-grave” dangers of pesticides better than aldicarb. It is a suspected endocrine disruptor, linked to neurotoxic and reproductive effects, asthma, and learning behavior problems. It has been detected in groundwater, is a potential leacher, and is toxic to birds and fish/aquatic organisms. It is a systemic pesticide readily taken up by plant roots and leaves, leading to toxic chemical residues in pollen and guttation droplets, poisoning pollinators like bees.

Aldicarb has been implicated in poisoning of workers and their children, game consuming contaminated seeds, and notably, food grown in soil treated with the chemical. It is also notorious for contaminating groundwater, where it may persist for decades due to its long half-life between 200 to 2,000 days. Ingestion of aldicarb-contaminated groundwater by residents adversely affects immune system function. Aldicarb is a highly toxic, systemic insecticide banned by over 100 countries under the Rotterdam Convention. Both EPA and the World Health Organization (WHO) classify the chemical in the highest toxicity category.

Evidence demonstrates that past use of aldicarb on citrus fruit crops exclusively posed the highest risk to children and infants, ultimately leading to its 2010 cancellation. In 2017 and 2018, the Florida Department of Agriculture denied “Special Local Needs” approval for use on Florida citrus because the registrant was unable to demonstrate that aldicarb is safer than alternatives.

Organic growers know that soil biology and soil health are important to protection from diseases like citrus greening. The use of aldicarb, on the other hand, destroys healthy soil biota.

I am appalled that despite previous cancellations due to unreasonable adverse effects, particularly on the health of children, EPA is now considering approving the use of aldicarb for use on Florida oranges and grapefruits. This reconsideration of aldicarb use demonstrates the danger of regulating pesticides through negotiated voluntary cancellations, which do not produce a record on which EPA or the public can depend for future decisions.

Please ensure that EPA does not revive the use of aldicarb, which is responsible for so much death and destruction, beginning with its manufacture and continuing through its use.

Thank you.

On behalf of the Beyond Pesticides team, we wish you and your loved ones a happy and healthy holiday season! We deeply appreciate the vital community-based work taking place across the country as we join together to confront the existential health and environmental challenges of our time.

Meeting the challenges ahead with a transformative strategy 

Beyond Pesticides shares the vision of people and communities that are striving to ensure a future that protects health and sustains life. We are facing existential crises—the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and severe public health threats—from cancer to neurological, reproductive, and endocrine system effects, including brain and behavioral impacts. To reverse these threats —which we can do— we advance model organic solutions that eliminate billions of pounds of fossil fuel-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and nurture biological systems that take dangerous pollutants out of our environment, protecting health and the ecosystems that sustain life.    

• Our audacious goal: to phase out petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers by 2032.
• Our solution: to provide hands-on assistance, funded by our supporters, to assist in the transition to organic land management in community parks, playing fields, and schoolyards. 
• The path moving forward: Advancing sustainable, organic practices and policies to solve the pesticide poisoning and contamination problem and the range of existential adverse effects in partnership with local communities and governments.

Over this past year, the urgency of our work has never been more palpable. Our daily collaboration with communities across the country—via the Parks for a Sustainable Future program—to adopt organic land management policies and practices in public spaces (parks, playing fields, and schoolyards) defined the path forward as a model to eliminate toxic pesticides and fertilizers, protect children, pets, and families, and sustain local ecosystems. 

Our program bridges policy and practice—reframing strategies that go after an endless list of toxic chemicals—and advancing a holistic approach that recognizes complex biological communities, the importance of soil microbiota, complex biological communities, and ecosystem services in the context of broader human health and environmental protection. By developing organic systems plans and training parks and public works departments on organic-compatible practices and products, we engage in a systems approach that works with soil biology, enriches nutrient cycling, and cultivates more resilient landscapes that meet community expectations while delivering long-term cost savings. 

It is imperative that, as we focus national attention on meaningful systemic change, we address the disproportionate risk to people of color communities and workers, from landscapers to farmworkers. 

Elevating science that calls for the urgent need to act 

Local science-based advocacy is vital, in tandem with practical hands-on support, to drive the changes critical to a livable future as scientific facts coupled with action advance the adoption of solutions within our reach. Believing in the empowerment of advocates and decision-makers, our team provides up-to-date information on the independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature on our website and on a daily basis, five days a week, published in our Daily News blog in articles that analyze complex scientific findings, judicial rulings, regulatory decisions, and legislative action.  

In addition, our unique databases offer tools to empower local activists and more to take action in their communities, schools, workplaces, and homes—including our Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management, Eating with a Conscience (on ecological and worker effects), What the Science Shows (pollinators), Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, and ManageSafe (how to manage homes and gardens without pesticides). Our updated resources, such as the health and environmental effects in our 40 Most Commonly Used Lawn Pesticides, are “tools for change.”    

Elevating our voice and networking for change 

In the face of the chemical industry and related service providers wielding tremendous power across levels of government, and agencies not keeping pace with the escalating environmental and public health challenges, it is the communities and their elected officials that have chosen to actively engage in democratic decision making to protect the health of their residents.  

As a key example, during the 2023 National Forum in November—Forging a Future with Nature—a mom and advocate from Maine spoke side-by-side with a parks supervisor from Colorado to share what change looks like—from two of dozens of our partner communities!

Our work in collaboration with these communities is a bright spot at a time when solutions may seem out of reach. In these perilous times, your support helps us to elevate these voices and empower grassroots-based strategies that lead the way in the face of federal and state inaction.  

Online, our Action of the Week platform provides our network with one concrete action that can be taken each week to have our collective voice heard to advance specific actions that are protective of public and worker health, eliminate toxic pesticide use, and put in organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies. 

Taking a stand 

Having worked with organic systems since our founding in 1981, we know that this change can be achieved. We continue—through campaigns such as Keeping Organic Strong—to push for the growth of organic agriculture as the only acceptable and foundational form of land management for the future.    

[Plus, with a 43-year+ history of successfully advancing systemic change, we know the solutions are within our grasp!] 

Our team at Beyond Pesticides looks forward to continuing to partner with you in the new year to meet the existential environmental and public health challenges with truly organic solutions through policy, science, and action—one day at a time for ourselves and for future generations.  

For more information and to discover actions that have defended democratic decision making to adopt organic land management on public land, informed action, and met the challenges of 2023, please click on the image above or the link to access our Year in Review page for 2023.

It’s a fact. Your support makes our work possible. 

A special thank you to all our donors and supporters this year. Without your engagement and incredible generosity, it would not be possible to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides. Our team provides up-to-date information about the health and environmental hazards of pesticides, pesticide regulation and policy, holistic nontoxic management systems, and cutting-edge science—free of charge to the public. This program is not possible without the generosity of people like you!  

Please make your secure tax-deductible donation at bp-dc.org/donate2023 or by clicking/scanning the QR code below!

(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2023) A new study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology adds to prior research indicating glyphosate promotes the occurrence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) through diet by causing liver inflammation and oxidative stress. More importantly, the predisposition for NAFLD occurred at levels within toxicological limits, which are doses of glyphosate classified as causing no adverse effects or No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). NAFLD is a condition that causes swelling of the liver and can eventually lead to cirrhosis, cancer, or liver failure. This study highlights the Westernized diet (WD), comprised of foods enriched in saturated fats, cholesterol, and simple carbohydrates (e.g., fructose, glucose, and sucrose), plays a role in the nearly 40 percent increased risk of NAFLD. Although glyphosate disrupts gut microbes and induces liver inflammation, oxidative stress, and fatty acid levels that promote NAFLD, the combination of WD and glyphosate reduces the threshold risk for NAFLD development.

NAFLD is a growing worldwide epidemic, becoming the most prevalent form of liver disease and impacting at least 25 percent of the globe. Therefore, studies like this shed light on how diet and chemical exposure can work synergistically (together) to exacerbate disease risk.

The study evaluates whether choric (long-term) glyphosate exposure at the NOAEL or lower promotes the occurrence of diet-induced NAFLD. Over six months, researchers fed mice a Westernized diet consisting of high-calorie, high-sugar, high-fat foods with a high-sugar liquid while the control mice ate a balanced diet. The researchers also exposed the mice to the lowest dose of glyphosate (under the acceptable daily intake representing the estimated human environmental exposure) and another amount below or within the NOAEL. Lastly, research collected blood samples and liver tissue to evaluate the morphological, biochemical, and transcriptomic changes. Although WD induces obesity, high cholesterol, and glucose intolerance (as seen in diabetes), glyphosate did not exacerbate these risks. However, glyphosate did increase the rate (upregulation) of 212 genes associated with oxidative stress and inflammation in the liver while downregulating 731 genes related to cell division.

Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, including Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup.® The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate over two decades ago. Glyphosate is often promoted by industry as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals, yet it has been shown to have detrimental impacts on humans and the environment. The toxic herbicide readily contaminates the ecosystem, with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, decades of accumulated scientific literature commonly associates glyphosate with human, biotic, and ecosystem harm. Thus, glyphosate has been the subject of extensive controversy about its safety for humans, nonhuman organisms, and ecosystems. For instance, the presence of glyphosate in human bodies has risen dramatically during the past three decades. Research at the University of California San Diego found that, between two data collection periods (1993–1996 and 2014–2016), the percentage of people testing positive for the presence of glyphosate (or its metabolites) in urine rose by an average of 500 percent, peaking at 1,208 percent. Today, four out of five U.S. individuals over six years old have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies, with adolescents having higher bodily concentrations of glyphosate than adults. Glyphosate exposure has implications for the development of various health anomalies, including the distortion of DNA function, leading to several chronic diseases like cancer, Parkinson’s disease, metabolic disorders, gut dysbiosis, nervous system disorders, and neurodevelopment disorders like autism. In recent years, numerous lawsuits have targeted Monsanto (now Bayer), which contains glyphosate, alleging that the herbicide contributes to the plaintiffs’ cancers. Therefore, advocates say that it is crucial to comprehend the full spectrum of glyphosate’s effects on human health, from its potential carcinogenicity to its neurological and emotional ramifications.

Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” stark evidence demonstrates links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. For instance, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the chemical as a probable carcinogen or cancer-causing chemical. EPA’s classification perpetuates adverse impacts, especially among vulnerable individuals, like pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly. Therefore, Beyond Pesticides has reported on EPA’s ongoing failures to protect people and the environment from glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) compounds. Additionally, glyphosate’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion, loss of services, and trophic cascades). Moreover, chemical use has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate. Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health and ecological effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. This increase in resistance is evident among herbicide-tolerant GE crops, including seeds genetically engineered to be glyphosate-tolerant.

Previous research confirms what this study finds, that low doses of glyphosate exposure have implications for fatty liver disease. A 2015 study found that chronically exposing rats to ultra-low amounts of glyphosate in drinking water results in tissue and organ damage, including changes to gene expression within the liver and kidneys. A 2017 study, which also fed minuscule doses of glyphosate weed killer to rats, found an increased likelihood that exposed animals would develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Roundup formulations can also induce a dose-dependent formation of DNA adducts (altered forms of DNA linked to chemical exposure, playing a pivotal role in chemical carcinogenesis) in the kidneys and liver of mice. While the study notes glyphosate did not influence obesity-induced NAFLD through high cholesterol, glucose intolerance, fat retention, and liver scarring, mechanisms that promote NAFLD still include oxidative stress and inflammation. This study suggests that glyphosate exposure upregulates oxidative metabolism, causing mitochondrial disruption and oxidative stress. Additionally, the study indicates lipid peroxidation (degradation of lipids) in the liver may play a role in upregulating proinflammatory proteins (cytokines) that play a role in inflammatory response. These two processes from glyphosate exposure can promote the risk of NAFLD in conjunction with WD.

Health officials estimate about 100 million individuals in the U.S. have NAFLD, with NAFLD being the most common liver disease among children. Cases of NAFLD have doubled over the past 20 years. Therefore, it is essential to mitigate preventable exposure to disease-inducing pesticides. For more information about pesticides’ effects on human and animal health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, including pages on immune system disorders (e.g., hepatitis [liver condition], cancer (including lymphoma), and more.

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies show that switching to an organic diet can rapidly and drastically reduce the levels of synthetic pesticides in one’s body. A 2020 study found a one-week switch to an organic diet reduced an individual’s glyphosate body burden by 70 percent. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, these methods can promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Moreover, Beyond Pesticides provides tools, information, and support to take local action: check out our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup and our report, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed. Contact us for help with local efforts and stay informed of developments through our Daily News Blog and our journal, Pesticides and You. Additionally, check out Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption involving glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum.

Please see the petition to remove glyphosate from the market submitted to EPA by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of Beyond Pesticides, Farmworker Association of Florida, Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, and the Rural Coalition.

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

Source: Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology

(Beyond Pesticides, December 20, 2023) A federal district court decision last week (December 13) found illegal the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to register the antibiotic streptomycin for use in Florida citrus to control Huanglongbing (HLB), also known as “citrus greening,” a plant disease spread by the Asian citrus psyllid. This decision comes just as EPA may allow yet another controversial pesticide, aldicarb, whose registration faces similar issues of agency malfeasance. The streptomycin lawsuit, filed in 2021 by a coalition of farmworker and public interest groups including Beyond Pesticides, raises critical issues of antibiotic resistance, public health protection, and impacts on bees.

The case was filed by: Natural Resources Defense Council and U.S. PIRG, represented by NRDC; Beyond Pesticides, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida (ECOSWF), Farmworker Association of Florida, Farmworker Justice, and Migrant Clinicians Network, represented by Earthjustice; and the Center for Biological Diversity, represented by in-house counsel.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took EPA to task for its failure to conduct required analyses and issue findings to support the use of streptomycin for citrus greening. The court is particularly concerned about the agency’s failure to reach findings on the impacts on bees and the agency’s responsibility for evaluation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ruling states, as a part of the agency’s analysis under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), “EPA was thus required to analyze whether the amended registration of streptomycin would have an unreasonable adverse effect on pollinators. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the EPA’s evaluation of streptomycin’s effects on bees does not pass muster.”

The court continues, “[EPA] admits it did not comply with the ESA. Indeed, the EPA acknowledged that in the thousands of pesticide registrations it has approved in the past decades under FIFRA, it has met its ESA obligations for less than 5% of those actions. The EPA attributes this “multifold” failure to the high volume of pesticide applications, “the unusual complexity” of ESA pesticide reviews, and the proliferation of lawsuits challenging pesticide products. ,. . Even under the new workplan, the EPA does not anticipate being able to complete the effects determination for streptomycin any sooner than fall 2026.”

“In stopping the use of streptomycin on citrus, this court decision holds EPA accountable at the same time that it exposes weaknesses in federal pesticide law and judicial rulings that accept EPA’s limited scientific analysis and unrealistic and unprotective mitigation measures,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. When the case was filed, Mr. Feldman said, “It is past time to take urgent action to transition away from practices in agriculture that are dependent on antibiotics, advance organic farm management, and avoid new deadly pandemics [associated with antibiotic resistance].”

Streptomycin has been banned for agricultural use on crops in many countries, but in the U.S. its use and the use of oxytetracycline in fruit and vegetable production has been permitted. Under the Trump administration, EPA permitted an emergency use authorization in 2017 to expand use of these antibiotics to Florida citrus crops to control citrus greening. That emergency authorization was to have run out in 2019, but, in January of that year, EPA moved to make the authorization permanent. The decision greenlighted the use of more than 650,000 pounds of streptomycin on citrus crops in Florida and California alone, and followed an approval two years prior of oxytetracycline for use on the same citrus crops.

The court also found that EPA failed to show that streptomycin would achieve benefits as a tool for preventing the target disease. The court found, “[W]e have now concluded that the EPA did not fully comply with FIFRA because it (1) failed to include additional data in its pollinator risk assessment or explain why such data was not necessary and (2) suggested that streptomycin could be used to prevent disease without providing evidentiary support for such a claim.

The court was not convinced that EPA failed to protect against the spread of antibiotic resistance and assumed that the restrictions that EPA required for personal protective equipment (PPE) and drift control would adequately mitigate risks, despite a history of noncompliance and uncontrollable movement of pesticides off the target site. The court said, “The EPA acknowledged that it did not account for noncompliance with PPE requirements in its risk assessment.” However, rather than focus on known limitations in enforcement and compliance with mitigation measures across the agricultural industry, the ruling states, “[T]here is no evidence that it is “difficult or impossible to comply with” the labels’ PPE requirements, which include such standard measures as wearing gloves, coveralls, and respirators. Petitioners cite surveys indicating that non-compliance with PPE requirements is common. But these surveys are not specific to the PPE requirements for streptomycin or citrus growers, nor do they involve use labels akin to the one here. Petitioners have not demonstrated material flaws in the EPA’s determination that mandatory PPE use will reduce direct contact between streptomycin and human bacteria.” The court accepts EPA’s conclusion that there would be no drift of the chemical, given restrictions on spray nozzles. The court notes, “The EPA’s registration label also requires applicators to spray the streptomycin pesticide directly into the orchard canopy and to “turn off outward pointing nozzles at row ends” “to help reduce off-target drift.””

Despite the scientific literature on horizontal gene transfer (movement of genes in bacteria from one bacterial species to another) through agricultural use of pesticides, the court found, ”EPA emphasized that “there is no data that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to the presence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria of human health concern,” and that “[a]t the present time, there is little evidence for or against the presence of microbes of human health concern in the plant agricultural environment.” And yet, on May 19, 2019, The New York Times reported, “The agency approved the expanded use despite strenuous objections from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which warn that the heavy use of antimicrobial drugs in agriculture could spur germs to mutate so they become resistant to the drugs, threatening the lives of millions of people.”

Citrus greening has been successfully managed organically in Florida, with a combination of biological controls and cultural practices. While citrus greening is causing significant disruptions for many growers, organic farms are finding nontoxic and less toxic measures of addressing the problem. Watch the talk given by Benny McLean of Uncle Matt’s Orange Juice at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum held in Orlando, Florida in 2015 for more information about innovative, organic methods to tackle problems in citrus production. see Beyond Pesticides Organic Agriculture page. 

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

Source: Federal Appeals Court Rules Use of Antibiotic as Citrus Pesticide Is Unlawful, Vacates EPA Approval

(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2023) Last week, farmworker organizations and Beyond Pesticides, represented by the Center for Food Safety, filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging that the weed killer glyphosate be removed from the market. The petition cites 200 studies, which represent a fraction of the independent scientific literature on the hazards of glyphosate and formulation ingredients of glyphosate products. This action follows previous litigation in 2022 in which a federal court of appeals struck down EPA’s human health assessment, finding that the agency wrongfully dismissed glyphosate’s cancer risk. The farmworker groups petitioning include Farmworker Association of Florida, Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, and the Rural Coalition.  

Meanwhile, verdicts against glyphosate’s manufacturer, Bayer, continue to pile up with a December jury verdict in Pennsylvania awarding $3.5 million and a November jury in Missouri ordering $1.56 billion to be paid to four plaintiffs. All link their cancer to use of the Roundup. Bayer has lost almost all of the cases filed against it for compensation and punitive damages associated with plaintiffs’ charge that its product (previously manufactured by Monsanto) caused them harm. 

The petition summarizes its purpose and justification as follows: 

“This Petition seeks to immediately suspend and cancel all glyphosate registrations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with regulating pesticides in the United States, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §136 et seq. In accordance with FIFRA, EPA can register a pesticide only upon determining that it will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice. Id. § 136a(c)(5)(A)-(D). To remain registered, a pesticide must continue to meet this FIFRA safety standard. To ensure this, EPA is required to periodically review pesticide registrations in light of new science and uses. Id. § 136a(g)(1)(A). EPA began this review process for glyphosate in 2009 and despite spending eleven years, produced a review decision that was vacated by the Ninth Circuit because it was deemed insufficient with regard to its human health assessment and cancer classification decision. EPA subsequently withdrew the remainder of glyphosate’s registration review decision, but has taken no further action. The result is that today, glyphosate remains registered despite no demonstration by EPA that it can meet the required FIFRA safety standard for this herbicide’s currently approved uses. In other words, glyphosate as it’s currently used has no legal safety assessment on record.” 

“The threat of glyphosate is way outside the bounds of any reasonable person’s definition of acceptable harm, surpasses allowable risk under federal pesticide law, and represents the poster child for what has gone dangerously wrong with EPA’s program to control toxic pesticides in our environment, homes, workplaces, and communities, with disproportionate injury to farmworkers and landscapers,” said Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides. “This petition attempts to hold EPA accountable to the rule of law, while recognizing that glyphosate, which causes adverse effects to biological systems—from soil microbiota to the gut microbiome, can be replaced by cost-effective organic food production and land management of parks, playing fields, or lawns.” 

In June 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a ruling that held EPA’s 2020 approval of glyphosate was  unlawful. In the Ninth Circuit decision, the court voided EPA’s “interim registration review” decision approving continued use of glyphosate, issued in early 2020. “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),” the court wrote in its opinion. 

The court held that EPA unlawfully concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk. Despite overwhelming evidence and Bayer’s high profile lawsuits, EPA came to “no conclusion” on glyphosate’s connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Notably, the agency did not assess how much glyphosate gets into a user’s bloodstream after skin contact with the herbicide, a major route of exposure for the chemical. Skin irritation was noted as one of the initial concerns for Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the school groundskeeper who won the first legal case against Bayer/Monsanto after contracting NHL.   

“This petition is a blueprint for the Biden administration to do what the law and science require and finally cancel glyphosate’s registration,” said Pegga Mosavi, an attorney at the Center for Food Safety and counsel for the petitioners. “There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that glyphosate endangers public health, and poses cancer risks to farmers and other Roundup users. Glyphosate formulations are also an environmental hazard and have driven an epidemic of resistant weeds that plague farmers. After last year’s court decision, EPA has no legal legs to stand on. EPA must take action now.” 

Glyphosate (N-phosphono-methyl glycine) is associated with a wide range of illnesses, including cancer—non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), genetic damage, liver and kidney damage, endocrine disruption, as well as environmental damage, including water contamination and harm to amphibians. Glyphosate has been associated with antibiotic resistance, adverse impacts on the gut biome, and damage to soil microbiota that is critical to soil cycling of nutrients. Researchers have also determined that the “inert” ingredients in glyphosate products, especially polyethoxylated tallow amine or POEA —a surfactant commonly used in glyphosate and other herbicidal products—are even more toxic than glyphosate itself. Monsanto, manufacturer of glyphosate, formulates many products such as Roundup™ and Rodeo™ and markets formulations exclusively used on genetically engineered (GE) crops.  

Glyphosate, cited as the most widely used herbicide in the world, is used in agriculture, most commonly in genetically engineered (GE) crop production, and throughout communities for weed control. In a statement of concern, “Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement,” the scientists writing find: “Genetically engineered crops with tolerance to glyphosate are widely grown, and their use has led to increased application of GBHs [glyphosate-based herbicides]. This increased use has contributed to widespread growth of glyphosate-resistant weeds. To combat the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds, GE plant varieties have been approved for commercial use that are resistant to multiple herbicides, including several older compounds that are possibly more toxic and environmentally disruptive than GBHs (for example, 2,4-D and dicamba).” 

Bayer announced in August 2021 that it would stop selling glyphosate in its formulation of home and garden products in 2023. However, it is widely known that other manufacturers/formulators may pick up active ingredients for its products that have been withdrawn from the market by the basic manufacturer. See DN on aldicarb.  

Given the issues associated with the ingredients in glyphosate (Roundup) formulations, advocates and scientists remain deeply concerned about EPA’s rejection in October 2023 (after six years), of a citizen petition requesting that the agency evaluate complete formulations of pesticide products, not just the ingredients the manufacturer claims attack the target pest (so-called “active” ingredients). Nowhere in EPA’s denial of the need for a more robust toxicological analysis is the problem more evident than in its refusal to require analyses of the so-called “inert ingredients” or “adjuvants” included in various formulations of pesticide products. The citizen petition [see more background] was followed by a lawsuit for the same purpose in 2022. Inerts and formulants are substances that enhance the distribution or adhesion of the active ingredient; adjuvants enhance the effectiveness of the active ingredient. These terms suggest that those chemicals have no effect on anything in the area where the pesticide is applied—a wildly inaccurate implication. At least as early as 1987, EPA had recognized that some inerts and adjuvants were “of toxicological concern,” yet it still requires very few toxicological tests of whole-formula pesticides or their purportedly inactive components. 

While the agrichemical industry continues argue that chemical-intensive farming is needed for higher yields, the data says that is not the case. See Research on organic agriculture shows it can  provide quadruple the performance, synergizing financial, human health, ecological, and socio-economic well-being. See Beyond Pesticides webpage on  Organic Agriculture for more information. Additionally, toxic herbicides are not needed for beautiful turf systems, whether playing fields, parks, school yards, or open space. Please see Parks for a Sustainable Future and join with Beyond Pesticides to convert community parks and playing fields to organic land management. 

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

Source: Farmworkers, Environmental Groups File Legal Action Demanding Roundup Ban 

(Beyond Pesticides, December 18, 2023) Since nearly three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California, new regulations being proposed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), governing public disclosure of pesticide use, concern all food eaters. Food consumers are increasingly concerned about not only the residues of pesticides and other toxic materials in their food, but the impact of the production practices to the workers, the communities, and the environment where their food is grown. While the precedent-setting DPR proposal is an important step in providing the public with information on the chemicals used in California food production, advocates are asking that the regulations include information on the exact location of planned pesticide applications so that people in the toxic chemical application area can take protective action.

Tell DPR to require exact field locations for dangerous pesticide applications and commit to improvements based on community input.

The DPR proposal, while precedent-setting in providing Californians with the basic right-to-know about planned use of toxic chemicals in their neighborhoods, will not provide the exact location of planned pesticide applications. Under the DPR proposal, the public would be provided with an application location of one square mile—even though the exact field location is known to county officials in advance.

The limitation of the one square mile approach to notification has been shown to be inadequate in four small pilot notification projects last year. In those pilots, DPR received unanimous feedback: Without exact location, these notifications do not provide the information people need to protect themselves. 

DPR has also repeatedly promised that the proposed notification program is just a starting point, and the regulation will be revised in future. However, the proposed notification does not provide any opportunity for communities to weigh in—just a report by DPR staff after three years with zero commitment to make any changes. 

Advocates are asking DPR to use this historic opportunity to ensure full transparency for communities where pesticides are being used with disclosure of the exact location of pesticide applications in California, and a commitment to listen to impacted residents and to make real changes if the regulation is not working.

Tell DPR to require exact field locations for dangerous pesticide applications and commit to improvements based on community input.

Letter to DPR Director

The state of California is often in the lead in regulating pesticides. The state’s protective actions provide a model for the nation. In addition, California supplies the nation with a third of the country’s vegetables and nearly three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts, so people throughout the country have a stake in California’s regulation of pesticides.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has proposed a new regulation to provide advance notification to all Californians of some of the most hazardous pesticides used in agriculture. This proposed regulation does not go far enough.

I applaud this precedent-setting proposal to provide Californians with the basic right to know about planned use of toxic chemicals in our neighborhoods. However, DPR’s proposal will not provide the exact location of planned pesticide applications, instead giving only the 1×1 square mile “section”—even though the exact field location is known to county officials in advance.

This has been shown to be inadequate in four small pilot notification projects last year. In those pilots, DPR received unanimous feedback: Without exact location, these notifications do not provide the information people need to protect themselves. 

DPR has also repeatedly promised that the proposed notification program is just a starting point, and the regulation will be revised in future. But the proposed notification doesn’t provide any opportunity for communities to weigh in – just a report by DPR staff after three years with zero commitment to make any changes. 

Please do not to waste this historic opportunity to protect Californians and provide a model for the nation. We want the exact location of pesticide applications in California, and a commitment to listen to impacted residents and to make real changes if the regulation is not working.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2023) Drawing on a recent gathering of international scientists, a group of 34 scientists published a call for much stricter scrutiny of researchers’ conflicts of interest by agencies that regulate and register chemicals, with recommendations for the newly formed Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel. Writing in Environmental Science & Technology, the authors, led by Andreas Schäffer of Aachen University in Germany and Martin Scheringer of Masaryk University in the Czech Republic, cite an abundance of examples of chemical companies and their trade associations manufacturing doubt via an array of techniques, resulting in agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dropping certain provisions from rulemaking, ignoring scientific consensus, and keeping chemicals on the market—and in the environment—that many scientists say should be entirely banned. The authors produced the article in response to this webinar to discuss how to ensure that U.N. panels dealing with global crises get the most sound scientific advice conducted by the International Panel on Chemical Pollution.

Over the last four decades or so, the notion that conflicts of interest affect the validity of scientific research and professional opinions has been steadily eroded. Regulators wallow in compromised research, hamstrung by political pressure and pinched funding even as they face some 350,000 chemicals registered for use globally, only a tiny fraction of which have been tested for safety. Arguments in favor of enforcing rigorous conflict of interest (COI) policies in evaluation and registration of pesticides and other industrial chemicals have been repeatedly emphasized in scientific journals and the press, yet almost nothing has reduced the amount of industry influence over that process. In 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly decided to create a new advisory group called the Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel to provide expert advice to the U.N.’s existing intergovernmental panels on climate change and biodiversity.

The problem of industry interference applies to almost every industrial chemical, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, flame retardants, and asbestos. The tactics remain the same across fields, and are derived from the campaigns waged by climate deniers, tobacco companies, and fossil fuel companies as detailed in 2010 in Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

One of the most obvious routes to affect policy, namely lobbying, cost chemical interests $65.9 million in 2022, according to an Open Secrets report. The American Chemistry Council’s pressure on legislators accounted for $19.8 million of that.

But more subtle industry influences also pervade the regulatory process. There are at least 24 strategies industry uses to disguise its conflicts of interest and further its economic goals, according to Rebecca Goldberg and Laura Vandenberg, researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. These include, the authors write, “‘revolving doors’ between a regulatory authority and the industry it is meant to regulate; reliance for safety data on unpublished industry documents while largely ignoring publications by independent scientists; and covert influence by the industry.” They also often threaten lawsuits against researchers whose work conflicts with their goals.

More types of industry manipulation were offered in 2019 by Xaver Baur, Colin Soskolne and Lisa Bero in Environmental Health:

Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting “causation” criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers’ access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas.

And yet another perspective on the problem was offered by University of Notre Dame biologist Jason Rohr in a 2021 article:

The first tool is shaping science, which is the art of creating research to produce a desired outcome, often referred to as outcome-oriented research. When efforts to shape science fail, advocates will often attempt to hide science associated with unwelcome information or attack this science by launching illegitimate critiques in an effort to turn reliable science into “junk” [references omitted]. To discourage future damaging research, advocates will also harass or bully scientists who produce damaging research. Packaging science is the art of assembling an expert group to advance a favored outcome, whereas spinning science is the art of manipulating public perception about credible science.

For a painful example of the personal toll such practices take on individual scientists, read Herbert Needleman’s 1992 story of persecution by fossil fuel interests when he published research showing that inner-city children’s teeth contained high levels of lead. This was 14 years after lead was banned in paint, but just the beginning of the fight to further reduce children’s lead exposure, which has seen considerable success, but the lead industry was still lobbying against regulation by 1996, and today there are still nearly half a million U.S. children with elevated levels.

Beyond Pesticides has covered many aspects of industry influence at EPA, FDA, USDA and other regulatory agencies. See our 2017 commentary for more details. That year we also critiqued the nomination of Michael L. Dourson to be assistant administrator for chemical safety on the grounds that he had spent years “helping companies resist constraints on their use of potentially toxic compounds in consumer products.” Dourson founded a consultancy whose clients included Dow Chemical Company, Koch Industries, Inc. and Chevron Corporation. His research funders included the American Chemistry Council, which endorsed his EPA nomination. However, vigorous resistance from Beyond Pesticides and many other activist groups and unflattering press coverage led Dourson to withdraw his nomination. Thus the revolving door did not operate as intended this time.

Pesticide regulation is a major target for industry influence. For example, the herbicide atrazine, which EPA acknowledges is an endocrine disrupter, is very common in U.S drinking water. The E.U. banned it in 2004, but it remains the second most-used herbicide in the U.S. Atrazine’s manufacturer, Syngenta, notoriously attacked University of California Berkeley researcher Tyrone Hayes when he published results of atrazine’s hormonal effects on frogs. The company went so far as to hire a public relations flack to gin up rumors about Hayes’s mental health in order to discredit his work.

One of industry’s most appalling successes has been keeping asbestos on the market despite reams of evidence that it is extremely damaging to humans, causing mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other respiratory diseases, and it has been associated with ovarian, colorectal, stomach and pharyngeal cancers. In an especially scurrilous turn of events, from 2012 to 2016 an international corporate intelligence firm called K2 hired a former television producer to misrepresent himself as a crusading filmmaker eager to document the tragic effects of asbestos in India. The firm was working for asbestos interests. The so-called filmmaker, Robert Moore, ingratiated himself with anti-asbestos activists, recording phone calls and meetings and reporting to K2. The World Health Organization hired him to make a film called “Victims of Chrysotile Asbestos.” The whole story unraveled in court in 2018, but even this outrage did not overcome industry influence. EPA tried to ban asbestos in the U.S. in 1989 but caved to political pressure from the George H.W. Bush administration. It remains importable and usable in the U.S.

Not all biases create conflicts of interest. The Schäffer group distinguishes three different conditions that affect scientific validity, namely conflicts of interest, bias and just plain interest. The latter two are unavoidable, as they arise from professional obligations or participation in the work of activist groups advocating for public health. The authors cite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s definition of bias as “a point of view or perspective” that “every expert holds” by virtue of his or her expertise. They support IPCC statement that “Holding a view that one believes to be correct, but that one does not stand to gain from personally, is not a conflict of interest.” In contrast, a true conflict derives from “a direct and material gain” in the form of money, political loyalties, or social connections. The conflicts that do the real damage are those associated with for-profit entities, their linked nonprofit trade groups, and the consultancies they hire. Money, prestige and power are tempting rewards.

Funding source has been identified numerous times as an indicator of industry influence. For example, a 2016 analysis of 39 studies of atrazine’s effects on reproduction found that only 9.1 percent of industry-funded studies showed evidence of harm, compared to 50 percent of non-industry sponsored studies.

In the late 1990s bisphenol A (BPA) was shown to disrupt prostate development in animals. After these results were successfully replicated, the American Plastics Council paid the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to produce an argument that the evidence of endocrine disruption was very weak. A subsequent analysis of the BPA literature by Frederick vom Saal and Claude Hughes revealed that the 19 studies considered by Harvard were a small and cherry-picked fraction of the full range of studies available. Further, vom Saal and Hughes showed that out of 115 in vivo studies conducted by academic scientists, 94 found evidence of significant effects at low doses, yet none of the industry studies did so.

Clearly there has not been widespread progress on eliminating corporate and industrial interests’ influence on chemical policies, including pesticides. But the body of evidence is large and eloquent. The newly-formed Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel proposes that its own membership be subject to rigorous conflict of interest disclosure and that experts who have such conflicts should participate only as observers. The panel should also be monitored by an independent audit team to ensure that the panel’s work is “transparent, impartial, credible and scientifically robust” as specified by the United Nations resolution establishing the panel. If scientists who are free of industry tentacles join with environmental groups and the global public to push back against manipulation and misinformation, progress can be achieved.

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

Sources:

Conflicts of Interest in the Assessment of Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution
Andreas Schäffer, et al.

Environmental Science & Technology 2023 57 (48), 19066-19077
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c04213, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c04213

Why the U.S. Is Losing the Fight to Ban Toxic Chemicals, by Neil Bedi, Sharon Lerner and Kathleen McGrory, Dec. 14, 2022, https://www.propublica.org/article/toxic-chemicals-epa-regulation-failures

Conflict of Interest Concerns Cloud Glyphosate Review
https://usrtk.org/pesticides/conflict-of-interest-concerns-cloud-meeting-as-international-experts-review-herbicide-risks/

IPCP. Webinar: Unwrapping Conflict of Interest in Chemicals and Waste Governance. 2023, January 26. https://www.ipcp.ch/activities/webinar-unwrapping-conflict-of-interest-in-chemicals-and-waste-governance

https://www.ipcp.ch/activities/webinar-unwrapping-conflict-of-interest-in-chemicals-and-waste-governance  RECORDING

Oreskes, N.; Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming; Bloomsbury Press, 2010.

https://books.google.de/books?id=fpMh3nh3JI0C&pg=PP4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Goldberg, R. F.; Vandenberg, L. N. The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health. Environ. Health 2021, 20 (1), 33 DOI: 10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0.

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0

UNEP. Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022 – Science-policy panel to contribute further to the sound management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution. 2022.

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39944/SCIENCE-POLICY%20PANEL%20TO%20CONTRIBUTE%20FURTHER%20TO%20THE%20SOUND%20MANAGEMENT%20OF%20CHEMICALS%20AND%20WASTE%20AND%20TO%20PREVENT%20POLLUTION.%20English.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

(Beyond Pesticides, December 14, 2023) It has been reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is again considering allowing the use of the highly neurotoxic, carbamate insecticide aldicarb for use in Florida citrus, 13 years after the agency and the chemical’s manufacturer, Bayer Crop Science, announced that it was being banned (technically voluntarily canceled). A version of the current EPA proposal and the resource-intensive review process in EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs—all being done at taxpayers’ expense—was rebuffed, first by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (April 2021), then by a U.S. Court of Appeals (June 2021). Internal EPA emails, as reported in The New Lede (November 21, 2023), expose the extent to which the agency’s science and political staff have tried to downplay aldicarb’s adverse health and environmental outcomes in order to meet the EPA’s broad, and often described as loose, risk parameters. 

This Daily News piece on aldicarb is part of an ongoing story of the politicization of science by political appointees to an agency that is charged with protecting public health and the environment. The degree to which agency scientific staff are complicit in advancing agency positions that are not supported by the scientific data continues to be an emerging story. The debacle of aldicarb, which would appear—given its history—to be an easy agency decision to reject any use, raises serious questions about dependency on an EPA that is beset by political and industry capture issues. And, this is still happening during a period in which there is an unprecedented escalation in threats of serious illness, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency—all intersecting in critical ways with pesticide use in agriculture and communities. (See Daily News.) Advocates argue that the now ongoing regulatory discussion of aldicarb use is a critical example of the urgent need to shift away from pesticide use to currently available, cost-effective, organic land management and agricultural practices. 

The chemical’s manufacturer is seeking aldicarb’s registration to control citrus greening, a disease transmitted by the Asian citrus psyllid. The bacterial disease has been successfully managed organically in Florida, with a combination of biological controls and cultural practices. While citrus greening is causing significant disruptions for many growers, organic farms are finding nontoxic and less toxic measures of addressing the problem. Watch the talk given by Benny McLean of Uncle Matt’s Orange Juice at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum held in Orlando, Florida in 2015 for more information about innovative, organic methods to tackle problems in citrus production. 

For those tracking the history of the Office of Pesticide Programs, this is yet another example of what advocates have called the manipulation of science by chemical manufacturers pressuring EPA to meet a predetermined outcome, which many have characterized as corruption of the regulatory process from external and internal pressure. A report by EPA’s Office of Inspector General in July 2022 on another deadly chemical, 1,3-Dichloropropane (1,3-D; brand name: Telone), concluded, “[D]epartures from established standards during the cancer assessment for 1,3-D undermine the EPA’s credibility, as well as public confidence in and the transparency of the Agency’s scientific approaches, in its efforts to prevent unreasonable impacts on human health.” Now, according to news reports, emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Center for Biological Diversity, for the period leading up to EPA’s failed attempt to approve aldicarb in Florida citrus uses in 2021, identify apparent data manipulation and scientific reversals based on no new scientific information.  

According to The New Lede, in a series of internal emails, in December 2019 the agency unequivocally states that aldicarb poses unacceptable exposure risks through food, drinking water and groundwater, in addition to threats to small and medium birds, mammals, most aquatic organisms, and honey bees. Then, nearly a year later, November 2020, an EPA staffer writes about a conversation with the chemical company lobbyist, saying, “I told her the team is working very hard and there is a chance that we may have found a path forward, but that there are still a lot of moving pieces needed to fall into place.” With pressure from the chemical company and the Florida citrus industry, this became a priority for the Trump administration before leaving office. However, the trajectory of aldicarb did not change with the Biden administration and was only stopped by a state regulatory decision by then-Agriculture Commission Nikki Fried (D) and litigation filed by the Farmworker Association of Florida, Center for Biological Diversity, and Environmental Working Group.    

The chemical company behind the effort to bring back aldicarb is AgLogic Chemical, LLC. According to its website, AgLogic, based in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, “is the only formulator of aldicarb pesticides, which is sold as AgLogic 15GG aldicarb across the United States.” The company indicates that the product is registered for use on cotton, peanuts, dry beans, soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet potatoes in 24 states to control thrips, aphids, leafhoppers, whiteflies, mites, and nematodes. It is not registered for use in California, the upper Midwest (with the exception of Michigan), the mid-Atlantic, and all of New England.  

While news reports in 2010 proclaimed the end of aldicarb, EPA’s actions at that time actually laid the groundwork for the chemical’s return. The voluntary cancellation allowed Bayer to continue to label aldicarb for use on certain crops, including cotton, peanuts, and beans during a “phase out” until August 2018. Despite the arrangement with Bayer, the agency allowed AgLogic to register in 2011 an aldicarb product for use on cotton and sweet potatoes. Now, EPA may be permitting AgLogic to do what it told Bayer over a decade ago was too risky for children’s health. 

In 2010, Beyond Pesticides reported the cancellation of aldicarb in Daily News: ”Behind closed doors this past Monday (August 16, 2010), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Bayer Crop Science reached an agreement on a set of measures to gradually reduce and ultimately ban fully the use of the insecticide aldicarb in the U.S. This decision arrives on the heels of a revised risk assessment in which EPA found that babies and children under the age of five can ingest levels of the insecticide through food and drinking water at levels that exceed limits that the agency finds safe and 25 years after 2,000 people fell ill after eating watermelons that were tainted with the pesticide. Though Beyond Pesticides applauds any decision to remove toxic chemicals from the environment, the problem with this cancellation, as with virtually all voluntary cancellations, is that the chemical can be legally used for years —eight years in this case — leaving open the opportunity for continued human and environmental exposure and harm.” In retrospect, it is now known that Bayer pulling out of the market still left the door open for others to keep this hazardous chemical on the market, another failure, advocates note, of EPA’s approach to negotiating pesticide restrictions that compromise public health and environmental protection. 

Problems with aldicarb are complex and intersect with one of the worst industrial accidents when a manufacturing facility in Bhopal, India in 1984 leaked methyl isocyanate (MIC), a precursor chemical used in the production of carbamate pesticides including aldicarb. The chemical leak and plant explosion killed an estimated 25,000 people in Bhopal and left more than 120,000 people with severe health problems throughout their lives. Continuing research released this year (June 2023) has found that fetuses in the womb during the disaster exhibited lower birth weights and remained more susceptible to respiratory problems, cognitive impairments, and other health issues later in life. Moreover, those born just after the gas leak were found to have lower educational attainment and reduced earning potential as adults. (For background on the Bhopal explosion and immediate and long-term effects, see Daily News.) 

Over 100 countries have banned aldicarb under the Rotterdam Convention, an international agreement on toxic chemicals that the United States has signed but not ratified.  

For more background information on EPA’s earlier attempt in 2021 to allow the use of aldicarb in citrus, see Beyond Pesticides’ action on the previous EPA proposal; and for more information on aldicarb, see Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Archives. For more information on the organic alternative to replace chemical-intensive practices that rely on hazardous options like aldicarb, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Agriculture page. 

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

Sources: The New Lede 

(Beyond Pesticides, December 13, 2023) A study published in Environmental Health finds occupational (work-related) exposure to pesticides increases the risk of endometrial (uterine) cancer development. Endometrial cancer is the most common cancer of the female reproductive system and the fourth most common cancer among women, primarily affecting the uterine lining rather than the uterus itself, like uterine sarcoma. Despite data predicting the disease rate to increase, few studies evaluate the connection environmental contaminants have on endometrial cancer occurrence. Like most cancers, non-genetic factors account for a majority of endometrial cancer risk, including diabetes, age, contraceptive (birth-control) use, and hormone (endocrine) disruption. However, three percent of all cases are hereditary, primarily from Lynch syndrome. The study notes, “Identifying other modifiable risk factors may help develop strategies to reduce the expected increasing incidence of these neoplasms.”

Many pesticides have a long history associated with endocrine-disrupting properties that induce various molecular changes, prompting disease development. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies many of these chemicals as potent carcinogens in animal studies. Cancer development also depends on genetic susceptibility, as impaired genes responsible for xenobiotic detoxification (elimination) increase disease risk sensitivity. Adding to the science, a review published in Environmental Exposure, Biomonitoring, and Exposure Assessment highlights how specific estrogen-mimicking pesticides increase the risk of disease, particularly hormone-related cancers among women (e.g., breast, ovarian, endometrial cancer) and men (e.g., testicular, prostate cancer). Endocrine disruptors, including many pesticides, are xenobiotic (i.e., chemical substances foreign to an organism or ecosystem). Many reports demonstrate that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely affect human, animal—and thus environmental—health by altering the natural bodily hormones responsible for conventional reproductive, physical, and mental development. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (e.g., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular, reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause cancer, among other health issues.

Using a questionnaire and job-exposure matrix (JEM) in the Screenwide case-control study, the study analyzed the association between occupational exposure to pesticides and endometrial cancer. The data includes 174 consecutive incidents of endometrial cancer cases and 216 controls of the individuals occupationally exposed to pesticides, whether fungicides, herbicides, or insecticides; there is a positive association with endometrial cancer. Although past exposure shows a higher occurrence of endometrial cancer, this can be explained through the latency (delayed) development of cancer, as the illness is primarily chronic. As for occupation, agricultural jobs have a higher association with cancer prognosis than custodial jobs (e.g., disinfectants).

The connection between pesticides and associated cancer risks is not a new finding. Many pesticides are “known or probable” carcinogens (cancer-causing agents), and widespread uses only amplify chemical hazards, adversely affecting human health. Several studies link pesticide use and residue to various cancers, from the more prevalent breast cancer to the rare kidney cancer, nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor). Sixty-six percent of all cancers have links to environmental factors, especially in occupations of high chemical use. At least 45 different cancers have associations with work-related chemical exposure. Although the link between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses is stark, over 63 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent of commonly used school pesticides have links to cancer. Many cancer-causing substances are endocrine disruptors, directly affecting traditional endocrine glands and their hormones and receptors (e.g., estrogens, anti-androgens, thyroid hormones) while greatly influencing hormone cancer incidents among humans (e.g., unrein, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers). Moreover, several studies and reports, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, identify hundreds of chemicals as influential factors associated with hormone-related cancer risk. 

This study is one of the first to evaluate the association between work-related exposure to pesticides and endometrial cancer, accounting for confounding factors like age, comorbidities (presence of multiple health conditions), and medication. Additionally, the study highlights potential mechanisms involved in disease development, including oxidative stress, disruption of enzymatic activity, and epigenetic changes from pesticide exposure. However, the specific molecular pathway needs further investigation. Similarly, external factors such as exposure rate, pesticide type, and pesticide (including breakdown product) persistence in the organism can play a role in carcinogenicity (cancer development).

There is a lack of understanding of the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developing chronic illnesses. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with over eight million people succumbing to the disease every year. Notably, IARC predicts an increase in new cancer cases from 19.3 million to 30.2 million per year by 2040. Therefore, studies related to pesticides and cancer will aid in understanding the underlying mechanisms that cause the disease. Consequently, it is essential to understand the health implications of pesticide use and exposure for humans, particularly when pesticides increase chronic disease risk. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent news and studies on pesticides and related topics through the Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). For more information on the adverse effects of pesticides on human health, see PIDD pages on cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases.

Moreover, proper prevention practices, like buying, growing, and supporting organics, can eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental, benefits, as it curtails the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Regenerative organic agriculture nurtures soil health through organic carbon sequestration, preventing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. For more information on why organic is the right choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Environmental Health

(Beyond Pesticides, December 12, 2023) A review published in Nature Reviews Microbiology finds pesticides can disrupt honeybee (Apis mellifera) microbiota (bacteria) in their gut, altering the immune system, metabolism, behavior, and development. Many studies emphasize chemical-driven agricultural systems dependent upon pollinators and products that harm or kill off these sensitive species. Previous studies have linked adverse impacts to bee microbiome to pesticide exposure. Toxic (manufactured poison) pesticides readily contaminate the ecosystem with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, the scientific literature commonly associates pesticides with human, biotic, and ecosystem harm, as a doubling of toxic effects on invertebrates, like pollinators, has been recorded since 2004. 

Pollinator declines directly affect the environment, society, and the economy. Many agricultural and nonagricultural plant species will decline or cease to exist without pollinators. In turn, the economy will take a hit, since much of the economy (65%) depends upon the strength of the agricultural sector. As the science shows, pesticides are one of the most significant stressors for pollinators. Additionally, pesticides have a devastating impact on bees and other pollinators and the larger context of what has been called by scientists as the “insect apocalypse.” In a world where habitat loss and fragmentation show no sign of abating, scientists have concluded that the globe cannot afford to subject its critically important wild insects to these combined threats. Therefore, studies like these emphasize the need for improved assessment of environmentally relevant chemical exposure levels to honey bees.

The review explores the relationship between microbiota in the gut of bees and the effects on bees’ health and biological function: microbial interactions within the stomach, processes in bee biology and health, impact of agricultural practices, and potential for probiotics in bees (which remains unclear). Since bacteria in the bees’ gut occupy differing niches, their interaction with the host and each other can vary. Gut microbiota protects against pathogens and parasites, processes dietary or bodily components, and interacts with species within the host. Decreased microbial abundance and diversity can negatively affect honey bee health and survival. Without these microbiota, gene expression (a gene relaying information to produce a function) can change, weakening immune response, metabolic process, and development. Additionally, antibiotic exposure is a concern among agricultural exposure as antibiotic treatments lessen microbial abundance in the gut, hampering the absorption of nutrients, weight gain, immunity, and development of bee larvae.

The intestines host a group of microorganisms (microbiota) that form the gut microbiome. Gut microbiota, including bacteria, archaea, viruses, and fungi, play a crucial role in regulating lifelong digestion, immune, and central nervous system. Ample evidence demonstrates environmental contaminants like pesticides negatively affect gut microbes. Through the gut microbiome, 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. However, honey bees are not the only insects facing harm from environmental contaminants like pesticides, as all pollinators are in peril from exposure to environmental pollutants.

Like gut microbes, soil microbes are essential for the standard functionality of the soil ecosystem. Toxic chemicals damage the soil microbiota by decreasing and altering microbial biomass and soil microbiome composition (diversity). Pesticide use contaminates soil and results in a bacteria-dominant ecosystem as these chemicals cause “vacant ecological niches, so rare organisms become abundant and vice versa.” The bacteria outcompete beneficial fungi, which improves soil productivity and increases carbon sequestration capacity. The resulting soil ecosystem is unhealthy and imbalanced, with a reduction in the natural cycling of nutrients and resilience. Thus, plants grown in such conditions are more vulnerable to parasites and pathogens. 

Like previous literature cited above, this review shows that pesticide use can disturb and shift the abundance of specific microbes in the bee gut microbiome. Pesticide-induced disturbances occur primarily in one of two ways—either directly harming microbes or indirectly harming the host’s (bee) health and subsequently shifting the microbiome. An unfavorable environment produced by the bee’s gut can create an environment less suitable for certain microbes. Moreover, regarding the impacts of exposure, the duration of pesticide exposure is more important than the amount of pesticide to which a bee is exposed. Longer exposure times result in more significant disturbances but likely vary by pesticide mode of action. A 2018 study found that it disrupts honey bee microbiota, and a 2015 study found that it results in sublethal effects on honey bee navigation and foraging success. However, studies suggest inerts may play a role in pollinator harm.

Three out of four food crops globally depend on pollinators, and honey bees account for a significant portion of pollination of some U.S. crops. To protect honey bees and other pollinators, check out what you can do by using pollinator-friendly landscapes and pollinator-friendly seeds, engaging in organic gardening and landscaping, and supporting organic agriculture through purchasing decisions. Learn more about the science and resources behind the adverse effects of pesticides on pollinators and take action against the use of pesticides. Buying, growing, and supporting organic will help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management and regenerative organic agriculture eliminate the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. For more information on the organic choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpages, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture, Lawns and Landscapes, and Parks for a Sustainable Future. 

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

Source: Nature Reviews Microbiology

Update: This Daily News is updated to address the organic status of the company cited in the piece, Merchant’s Garden. The article now indicates that the company is certified as organic under a different name (Merchant’s Garden Agrotech) than the name used in the USDA press release.  As a result, their name did not appear in USDA’s Organic Integrity Database (OID) at the time of the original Daily News and Action of the Week posting. USDA updated OID on December 8, 2023, the same day that it received a complaint on this matter from former National Organic Standard Board chair Jim Riddle. The critical focus of the piece remains the same: It is not disclosed to consumers on food products labeled “organic” when that food or ingredients are grown hydroponically. Beyond Pesticides, as indicated in the article, views hydroponic as a conventional growing practice that does not meet the spirit and intent of the organic system, as defined in the Organic Foods Production Act. 

(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2023) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack announced on November 27, 2023 funding that appears to be supporting the expansion of “organic” hydroponic, an approach to food production that has been criticized by the vast majority of the organic community as a process that violates foundational organic principles. The funding, under USDA’s Rural Business and Value-Added Producer Grants program, is intended to assist in financing an expansion of rural businesses, including 185 projects worth nearly $196 million. Organizations representing organic producers and consumers have told the USDA’s National Organic Program that hydroponic food production, as a form of conventional chemical-intensive agriculture, does not meet the standards of soil-based food production required for USDA organic labeling. Currently, federal law does not require that hydroponically produced food be labeled, leaving consumers unable to distinguish production practices at the point of sale. 

One of the projects highlighted in the USDA announcement states, “Merchant’s Garden LLC is a hydroponic and aquaponic farm in Tucson, Arizona. The company will use a $250,000 Value-Added Producer Grant to expand marketing and sales of prepackaged salad mixes to help them become a local supplier of organic leafy greens for southern Arizona.” However, Merchant’s Garden’s website does not make any organic claims for its produce, so advocates question why USDA is promoting this hydroponic/aquaponic producer as “organic.”

Tell Secretary Vilsack and your Congressional representatives to ensure that USDA ceases promotion of hydroponically-grown products as “organic.”

Beyond Pesticides has said: “Taxpayer dollars should not used to finance a hydroponic/aquaponic operation that does not comply with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). If products from this operation are to be sold as “organic,” it will cause harm to producers who comply with OFPA. It will also deceive consumers who purchase organic products believing that such products are produced in healthy, fertile soil, as required by the organic law and regulations. To the extent that hydoponic operations supplant soil-based (real) organic operations, these subsidies negate the climate and biodiversity benefits of organic agriculture.”

The Organic Foods Production Act, at 6513(b), requires that all organic crop production operations submit and follow organic plans that “shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” The same section of OFPA goes on to state, “An organic plan shall not include any production or handling practices that are inconsistent with this chapter.”

It is widely understood that organic farms support soil health, help sequester carbon dioxide, and avoid the use of materials like soluble nitrogen fertilizers that contribute many times as much warming potential as carbon dioxide. Beyond Pesticides advocates that USDA’s financial support should go to new and transitioning organic farms.

By decisive vote in 2010, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board determined that hydroponic and aquaponic operations are inconsistent with OFPA and do not qualify for organic certification. Under the law, the National Organic Program (NOP) is required to determine whether Merchant’s Garden LLC complies with section 6513(b) of the Organic Foods Production Act and whether the operation intends to sell their hydroponically-grown products as “organic.” If the operation does not comply, NOP is required to ensure that it is not certified organic.

Tell Secretary Vilsack and your Congressional representatives to ensure that USDA ceases promotion of hydroponically-grown products as “organic.”

Historically, perhaps the most important principle of organic production is the “Law of Return,” which, together with the rule “Feed the soil, not the plant” and the promotion of biodiversity, provide the ecological basis for organic production. (Sir Albert Howard. The Soil and Health: The Study of Organic Agriculture (1940), and An Agricultural Testament (1947).) Together, these three principles describe a production system that mimics natural systems. The Law of Return says that we must return to the soil what we take from the soil. Non-crop organic matter is returned directly or through composting plant materials or manures. To the extent that the cash crop removes nutrients, they must be replaced by cover crops, crop rotation, or additions of off-site materials when necessary.

The dictum to “Feed the soil, not the plant” reinforces the fact that soil is a living superorganism that supports plant life as part of an ecological community. Soil organisms are not fed to plants in isolation to have them process nutrients for crop plants. The soil is fed to support a healthy soil ecology, which is the basis of terrestrial life.

Finally, biological diversity is important to the health of natural ecosystems and agroecosystems. Biodiversity promotes balance, which protects farms from outbreaks of damaging insects and disease. It supports the health of the soil through the progression of the seasons and stresses associated with weather and farming. It supports our health by offering a diversity of foods.

A 2010 National Organic Standards Board report embraces these foundational principles but also contrasts organic production and “conventional” chemical-intensive agriculture. At the time of the passage of OFPA, the organic community’s characterization of soil as alive was viewed with amusement by the “conventional” agriculture experts, who saw soil as a structure for supporting plants, while farmers poured on synthetic nutrients—and the poisons that had become necessary to protect the plants growing without the protection of their ecological community. Interestingly, organic producers at that time compared conventional agriculture to hydroponics.

Conventional agriculture has now learned something about soil life—enough to promote some use of cover crops despite continued reliance on petrochemical nitrogen. On a parallel track, practitioners of hydroponics have learned the value of biology in their nutrient solutions. However, in both cases, the lessons have not been completely understood. This is made very clear from the hydroponics industry explanation that “bioponics” (non-sterile hydroponics) depends on biological activity.

It is the case that bioponics relies on biological activity in the nutrient solution to break down complex molecules and make them available to the plants. It is also true that the nutrient solution in bioponics has an ecology—as all biological systems do. However, the hydroponics industry repeatedly calls this a “soil ecology,” although it is merely an artificial mimic of soil ecology and a reductionist approach to manipulating nature.

A quote from the Omnivore’s Dilemma (2006) by Michael Pollan can provide some perspective on the importance of organic as envisioned by the early adopters of the practices and the drafters of OFPA:

To reduce such a vast biological complexity to NPK [nitrogen-phosphorous-potassium] represented the scientific method at its reductionist worst. Complex qualities are reduced to simple quantities; biology gives way to chemistry. As [Sir Albert] Howard was not the first to point out, that method can only deal with one or two variables at a time. The problem is that once science has reduced a complex phenomenon to a couple of variables, however important they may be, the natural tendency is to overlook everything else, to assume that what you can measure is all there is, or at least all that really matters. When we mistake what we can know for all there is to know, a healthy appreciation of one’s ignorance in the face of a mystery like soil fertility gives way to the hubris that we can treat nature as a machine.

The ecological system of a hydroponic nutrient system is described by the hydroponics industry to be more like a fermentation chamber—a means of processing plant nutrients—than the soil ecosystem of an organic farm. The three principles cited above are explained in further detail below:

The Law of Return. In a soil-based system, residues are returned to the soil by tillage, composting, or mulching. In a bioponics system, the residues may be composted; the residue is not returned to the bioponic system, closing the loop. The inputs that are typically identified in bioponics include many agricultural products—animal-based compost, soy protein, molasses, bone meal, alfalfa meal, plant-based compost, hydrolyzed plant and animal protein, composted poultry manure, dairy manure, blood meal, cottonseed meal, and neem seed meal—and these are produced off-site, with no return to their production system. While most organic growers depend on some off-site inputs, most of the fertility in a soil-based system comes from practices that recycle organic matter produced on-site. The cycling of organic matter and on-site production of nutrients—as from nitrogen-fixing bacteria and microorganisms that make nutrients in native mineral soil fractions available to plants—is essential to organic production. The Law of Return is not about feeding plants but about conserving the biodiversity of the soil-plant-animal ecological community.

Feed the soil, not the plant. The description of the bioponics system and case studies reveal how much bioponics relies on added plant nutrients. These nutrients may be made available through biological processes, but they are added to feed the plants, not the ecosystem. Here is an example of a case study of bioponic tomatoes:

After planting the seedlings in this growing media, it is necessary to add supplemental nutrition throughout the growing cycle (approximately one year). About once per week, solid and liquid nutrients are added to the growing media. Some fertilizers can be applied through the irrigation lines because they are soluble enough and will not clog the lines. The use of soluble nitrogen fertilizers is limited because of their high costs, for instance, for plant-based amino acids. [S]odium nitrate. . .will be used as a lower cost nitrogen source. Soluble organic-compliant inorganic minerals, such as potassium and magnesium sulfate, are also added through the irrigation system.

Biodiversity. The definition of “organic production” in the organic regulations requires the conservation of biodiversity. As stated in the National Organic Program Guidance on Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation (NOP 5020),

The preamble to the final rule establishing the NOP explained, “[t]he use of ‘conserve’ [in the definition of organic production] establishes that the producer must initiate practices to support biodiversity and avoid, to the extent practicable, any activities that would diminish it. Compliance with the requirement to conserve biodiversity requires that a producer incorporate practices in his or her organic system plan that are beneficial to biodiversity on his or her operation.” (76 FR 80563) [Emphasis added.]

Under this guidance, while the hydroponics industry may say it is not diminishing soil and plant biodiversity, certified organic operations must take active steps to support biodiversity. On a soil-based organic farm, many practices support—from crop rotations to interplanting to devoting space to hedgerows and other nonproductive uses. These practices are also used by organic farmers producing food in greenhouses. However, bioponics is a monocultural environment that does not support biodiversity.

Tell Secretary Vilsack and your Congressional representatives to ensure that USDA ceases promotion of hydroponically-grown products as “organic.”

Letter to Secretary Agriculture Tom Vilsack:

On November 27, you announced the release of funds from the USDA Rural Business Development and Value-Added Producer Grant Programs to assist in the financing or expansion of rural businesses. In total, 185 projects worth nearly $196 million are being funded to create new and better market opportunities for agricultural producers.

One of the projects highlighted in the USDA announcement is very troubling. The announcement states, “Merchant’s Garden LLC is a hydroponic and aquaponic farm in Tucson, Arizona. The company will use a $250,000 Value-Added Producer Grant to expand marketing and sales of prepackaged salad mixes to help them become a local supplier of organic leafy greens for southern Arizona.” However, Merchant’s Garden’s website does not make any organic claims for its produce, so it is curious that USDA is promoting this hydroponic/aquaponic producer as “organic.”

Taxpayer dollars should not be used to assist a hydroponic/aquaponic operation that does not comply with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to sell products as organic. If products from this operation are to be sold as organic, it will cause harm to producers who comply with OFPA. It will also deceive consumers who purchase organic products believing that such products are produced in healthy, fertile soil, as required by the OFPA and regulations. To the extent that hydroponic operations supplant soil-based (real) organic operations, these subsidies negate the climate and biodiversity benefits of organic agriculture.

The Organic Foods Production Act, at 6513(b), requires that all organic crop production operations submit and follow organic plans that, “shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” The same section of OFPA goes on to state, “An organic plan shall not include any production or handling practices that are inconsistent with this chapter.”

The Earth needs many more real organic farms that support soil life, help sequester carbon dioxide, and avoid the use of materials like soluble nitrogen fertilizers that contribute many times as much warming potential as carbon dioxide. USDA’s financial support should go to new and transitioning organic farms.

By decisive vote in 2010, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board determined that hydroponic and aquaponic operations are inconsistent with OFPA and do not qualify for organic certification. The National Organic Program (NOP) must use its accreditation system to determine whether Merchant’s Garden LLC’s certifier, Where Food Comes From Organic, complies with section 6513(b) of the Organic Foods Production Act. If the certification agency does not comply with OFPA, NOP should revoke their accreditation for certification of organic crops. 

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

On November 27, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the release of funds from the USDA Rural Business Development and Value-Added Producer Grant Programs to assist in the financing or expansion of rural businesses. In total, 185 projects worth nearly $196 million are being funded to create new and better market opportunities for agricultural producers.

One of the projects highlighted in the USDA announcement is very troubling. The announcement stated, “Merchant’s Garden LLC is a hydroponic and aquaponic farm in Tucson, Arizona. The company will use a $250,000 Value-Added Producer Grant to expand marketing and sales of prepackaged salad mixes to help them become a local supplier of organic leafy greens for southern Arizona.” However, Merchant’s Garden’s website does not make any organic claims for its produce, so it is curious that USDA is promoting this hydroponic/aquaponic producer as “organic.”

Taxpayer dollars should not used to assist a hydroponic/aquaponic operation that does not comply with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to sell products as organic. If products from this operation are to be sold as organic, it will cause harm to producers who comply with OFPA. It will also deceive consumers who purchase organic products believing that such products are produced in healthy, fertile soil, as required by the OFPA and regulations. To the extent that hydroponic operations supplant soil-based (real) organic operations, these subsidies negate the climate and biodiversity benefits of organic agriculture.

The Organic Foods Production Act, at 6513(b), requires that all organic crop production operations submit and follow organic plans that, “shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” The same section of OFPA goes on to state, “An organic plan shall not include any production or handling practices that are inconsistent with this chapter.”

The Earth needs many more real organic farms that support soil life, help sequester carbon dioxide, and avoid the use of materials like soluble nitrogen fertilizers that contribute many times as much warming potential as carbon dioxide. USDA’s financial support should go to new and transitioning organic farms.

By decisive vote in 2010, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board determined that hydroponic and aquaponic operations are inconsistent with OFPA and do not qualify for organic certification. The National Organic Program (NOP) must use its accreditation system to determine whether Merchant’s Garden LLC’s certifier, Where Food Comes From Organic, complies with section 6513(b) of the Organic Foods Production Act. If the certification agency does not comply with OFPA, NOP should revoke their accreditation for certification of organic crops. 

Please tell Secretary Vilsack to ensure that all certifiers are consistently preventing organic certification of operations that do not comply with section 6513(b) of the Organic Foods Production Act.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 8, 2023) Nine pesticides have been found in nearly 40% of nonorganic conventional baby foods tested, according to a study conducted by Environmental Working Group (EWG). The study found no residues of the pesticides studied in a sample of certified organic baby food. While the study finds no traces of the highly neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos, associated with brain damage in children, the chemical has been allowed back on the agricultural market after being removed in 2021—raising an alarm for parents who purchase baby food with ingredients grown in chemical-intensive (“conventional”) agriculture. In November 2023, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2021 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision to ban chlorpyrifos’ agricultural uses, which came after a 2021 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision found that the agency’s inaction violated federal pesticide law. Because of its neurotoxic effects on children, EPA had in 2000 negotiated Dow Chemical’s voluntary cancellation of most residential uses of the chemical, but left virtually all of the chemical’s agricultural uses in place.

While the EWG study focuses on pesticide residues in food and the hazards associated with ingestion of dangerous chemicals, raising alarms, purchasing baby food processed with nonorganic ingredients results in a cascade of adverse effects associated with the farmworker and farmworker children’s (bystander) exposure during agricultural production and adverse effects to the ecosystem where the crops are grown, including impacts on wildlife (including pollinators and threatened and endangered species), waterways and aquatic life, in addition to fenceline communities suffering from chemical drift. See Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database for a crop-by-crop (ingredient-by-ingredient) rundown of pesticides used in chemical-intensive agricultural production that may not show up as residues in baby food and the food supply.

News reports in the last several years have warned that baby foods may have dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, which prompted two Congressional Reports in 2021. Amidst parental worries about toxins, recent evidence indicates the presence of toxic pesticides in baby food, compounding the toxic load that disproportionately impacts underserved communities.

EWG examined 73 baby food products, including 58 conventional and 15 organic baby foods from Beech-Nut, Gerber, and Parent’s Choice. Among the conventional baby foods, EWG identified pesticide residues in 22 samples. The cohort of organic products tested, with a finding of no residues, includes 15 products.

Health risks of the identified pesticides include cancers, reproductive toxicity, nervous system damage, harm to the immune system, and possible harm to fetal development. See the links below for more information on the nine pesticides that were detected in the conventional baby food:

1. Captan:11 baby foods
2. Acetamiprid: 5 baby foods
3. Fludioxonil: 5 baby foods
4. Pyrimethanil: 4 baby foods
5. Imidacloprid : 3 baby foods
6. Methoxyfenozide: 2 baby foods
7. Propiconazole: 1 baby food
8. Chlorantraniliprole: 1 baby food
9. Dodine: 1 baby food

Children’s developing organs are especially vulnerable to toxic pesticides and infant exposure to pesticides can result in significant harm. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reports, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.” Kids are more at risk of pesticide exposure compared to adults due to factors such as the timing of organ development, their inclination to play close to the ground, the frequent hand-to-mouth behavior, and the higher intake of air and food relative to their body weight. Scientists use the term “critical windows of vulnerability,” to describe the periods in childhood development that are linked to increased likelihood of long-term effects like cancer.

Jay Feldman, the director of Beyond Pesticides said, “The juxtaposition between pesticides in conventional baby food and no pesticides in organic baby food underscores the importance of purchasing organic. In addition to the individual residues found, EPA’s risk assessment process does not account for dietary exposure to chemical mixtures from  pesticides in conventional foods. Consumers, through their purchasing decisions, have tremendous power in not only limiting their children’s exposure to pesticides, but also limiting exposure to those working and living in agricultural communities where pesticides are used, in addition to the ecosystems that support life. These constellation of factors is what makes purchasing organic products so important.”

Many argue that organic food comes with a higher price tag compared to “conventional” food produced through chemical-intensive farming. However, this assessment overlooks the significant externalities associated with the chemical-intensive system. In other words, these costs are not directly covered by the farmer or the consumer but are eventually borne by society as a whole including air, soil, and water contamination, health effects suffered by consumers, farmworkers, and the public. To learn more about eating organic on a budget, reference Beyond Pesticides articles on eating local on a budget and how to get access to organic food economically which includes advice on eating less-expensive home-prepared foods, eating seasonally and local produce from farmers markets, stocking up on food, and choosing simple recipes.

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

Source: Pesticides still found in baby food, but biggest toxic threats eliminated

(Beyond Pesticides, December 7, 2023) A new review published in Ecotoxicology reiterates what past studies have repeatedly stated: the herbicide paraquat (PQ) has profound adverse effects on wildlife at environmentally relevant concentrations. Moreover, these adverse effects span beyond the wilderness, as exposure to this highly toxic herbicide also impacts the health of people working with this chemical (e.g., pesticide applicators) or living adjacent to areas of chemical use.

Current data gaps regarding the effects of environmentally relevant concentrations and exposure times, population- or ecosystem-level effects, and biomagnification potential contribute to the uncertainty of predicting risk from environmental PQ exposure. Furthermore, Beyond Pesticides has previously pointed out deficiencies in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ecological risk assessments for paraquat, highlighting failures to perform complete evaluations of the impacts of pesticides on threatened and endangered species. All this occurs amid documented threats to biodiversity from the combined effects of pesticides and climate change. 

The review investigated paraquat in the environment, the chemical’s toxicity to nontarget species, and significant data gaps. Overall, the long-term risks of environmental PQ contamination for human and ecological communities can be challenging since the potential chronic effects from extended use are nearly unstudied. Most concerning is that PQ is immobile in soil and remarkably hydrophilic (remaining in water columns and sediment), thus having a long environmental half-life with nonselective toxicity. Although the review highlights that nontarget plants are most at risk from environmentally relevant concentrations of PQ, vertebrates, and invertebrates still receive nonselective toxicity mainly through oxidative stress, with the review noting that PQ has one of the highest acute toxicity values among all herbicides.

Paraquat is the most acutely dangerous herbicide on the market. As EPA readily admits, “One small sip [of paraquat] can be fatal, and there is no antidote.” Importantly, in addition to its high acute toxicity, it also presents a range of chronic concerns, including cancer, damage to the reproductive system and organs like the kidney and liver, and most notably, Parkinson’s disease (PD). Standing out among the wide range of impacts that makes clear that this chemical poses unreasonable risks are its neurotoxic effects. Inhalation of low doses can disrupt one’s sense of smell, and past research has found the chemical can cause damage to the lungs of farmers who apply it. Data is increasingly showing that cumulative exposures over one’s life increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, and other factors such as genetics and exposure to other chemicals further elevate the threat. Recent studies have even found that one’s zip code and proximity to paraquat’s use in farm fields is likely playing a role in an individual’s Parkinson’s Disease risk. Strong links to this chronic condition are incredibly concerning, given emerging evidence of a Parkinson’s pandemic, predicting that rates of the disease will double between now and 2040.

Agricultural land is subject to chemical-intensive farming that uses toxic pesticides to manage pests (e.g., weeds, insects, fungi) on animal feed crops. In the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD) report No Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) data demonstrate a 34 percent increase in the number of acres to which agricultural pesticides were applied to wildlife refuges from 2016-2018, encompassing 363,000 acres of refuge land treated with 350,000 pounds of pesticides. Furthermore, the data reveals an increase in the aerial spraying of pesticides by 35 percent. Lastly, wildlife refuges have experienced a 70 percent higher level of dangerous pesticide inputs, including a 100 percent increase in paraquat. The chemical poses hazards to birds and bees and is prone to leaching into groundwater, disrupting the stability of aquatic ecosystems. The impact of pesticides on wildlife—including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other marine organisms, birds, and the biota within the soil—is extensive. A plethora of studies document how exposure to toxic chemicals causes reproductive, neurological, renal, hepatic, endocrine disruptive, and developmental anomalies, as well as cancers, in a wide range of species. Despite statutory language in place to protect wildlife from harm, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, a 2013 report by the National Academy of Sciences detected shortcomings in EPA’s evaluation and analysis of pesticides on endangered species, with the agency regularly disregarding the ESA’s requirement to confer with federal wildlife agencies on how to take precaution to protect threatened and endangered species from pesticide harms. Therefore, EPA and other federal government agencies, including FWS, reformed the pesticide review process to meet the pesticide approval requirements for the ESA. 

This review notes that the high use of PQ over the years without proper research on environmental effects offers much uncertainty regarding the benefits and harm to ecosystem health and function. In addition to health and environmental risks from using paraquat, there are growing legal troubles for its primary manufacturer, Syngenta, a Switzerland-based company purchased by the Chinese National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) in 2016. Mounting lawsuits against Syngenta/ChemChina were consolidated and are set to begin jury trials next year for farmworkers and other individuals who worked with paraquat and are now suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Plaintiffs in the suit claim “that manufacturers and sellers of paraquat deliberately concealed the dangers of paraquat for at least four decades, hid evidence of its dangers from government safety agencies, and knowingly unleashed a product they knew caused Parkinson’s Disease on the public.” Therefore, advocates are uncertain how far the EPA will go in restricting paraquat and underline that more public pressure is needed for the EPA to act meaningfully.

This review concludes, “The discrepancy between the known and the unknown of PQ toxicity (i.e., effects on certain taxonomic groups, habitats, and ecosystem services; biomagnification potential; role in the development of Parkinson’s disease in humans, etc.) despite being commercially available for over 60 years should serve as a call for scientists and regulators to be more aware of novel chemicals that are being synthesized and then introduced into the environment, especially in light of accelerating trends of chemical production. It has been estimated that we have already far exceeded the safe planetary boundaries for novel chemicals and that we, therefore, have surpassed the planet’s threshold to be safely handle these new chemicals. It is clear there is an urgent need for enhanced regulation and testing of chemicals as well as better engineering and regulatory controls to limit the introduction of hazardous chemicals into the environment. This is particularly important for herbicides like PQ, which are purposefully applied to the land and then unintentionally introduced to the biosphere, including human populations.”

Comment from Beyond Pesticides. The use of pesticides should be phased out and ultimately eliminated to protect global wildlife and reduce the number of dangerous pesticides exposed to all species, whether residing in wildlife refuges or urban spaces. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides has long fought against pesticide use, advocating for federal regulations that consider all potential impacts of pesticides on ecosystems and organisms. Current regulations fail to consider the environment holistically, thus creating a blind spot that limits our ability to adopt widespread change that improves ecosystem health. It is vital to understand how pesticide use can increase biodiversity loss, especially since the globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk of extinction. However, advocating for local and state pesticide reform policies and the adoption of organic land management can protect wildlife from pesticide contamination. For more information on pesticide impacts on wildlife, visit Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife page. 

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

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

Source: Ecotoxicology