(Beyond Pesticides, April 20, 2021) Roundup products manufactured by Bayer-Monsanto kill exposed bumblebees at high rates, according to a new study published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, which points to undisclosed inert ingredients (those that typically make up a majority of the product formulation) as the primary culprit. Roundup products have become synonymous with their main active ingredient glyphosate, but Bayer-Monsanto has been quietly reformulating its flagship product with different herbicides in a likely attempt to rebrand as glyphosate cancer lawsuits drag down the company’s performance. The new study reveals that these new Roundup products present the same hazards to pollinators as glyphosate-based formulations, raising important questions about the pesticide regulatory process.

Researchers based at Royal Holloway University of London, UK conducted the present study to better understand the hazards posed by herbicides often characterized as “bee safe” to the public. To do so, 10 healthy bumblebee (Bombus spp) colonies were retained, split into small groups, and sprayed with a particular herbicide. Four different herbicide products were employed, including: i) Fast Action Roundup^® Ready‐To‐Use (containing glyphosate); ii) Roundup^® Speed Ultra (containing acetic acid and no glyphosate); iii) Weedol^® Gun! Rootkill Plus (containing glyphosate) and; iv) Roundup^® ProActive (contains glyphosate – for agricultural use). Each group of bumblebees received two sprays of the ready to use substance, or in the case of the agricultural Roundup, received an amount similar to that applied when farming. Although these amounts were not what is considered field realistic, the aim of the study was to determine the harm pollinators experience from direct exposure to a product claimed to be safe for pollinators. In the authors’ words, “Fundamentally, our experiment was designed to enable the detection of hazardous effects from substances previously reported to be non‐hazardous.”

Interestingly, the “no glyphosate” formulation of Roundup being sold in the UK and European Union is different than “no glyphosate” formulations being sold in the United States. In the U.S., Bayer-Monsanto is selling a product line called Roundup^® for Lawns which contains four different main active ingredients: dicamba, MCPA, quinclorac, and sulfenzatrone. The UK/EU version of the product appears to only contain acetic acid (vinegar), a least toxic substance that presents moderate hazards to pollinators from exposure. However, the results raise the likelihood that it is primarily the so called “inert” materials not disclosed on the Roundup label that are harming pollinators.

Bumblebees sprayed with consumer use Roundup Ready-To-Use (contains glyphosate) experienced a shocking 94% mortality. Subsequent experiments were conducted at lower application rates for that product, and significant mortality was seen for the 1:1 dilution (98% mortality) as well as the 1:3 dilution rate (78% mortality). The agricultural use Roundup Proactive (contains glyphosate) saw lower rates of death at 30%. Weedol, a glyphosate-based consumer product, displayed a mortality rate (6%) similar to the unexposed control group of bumblebees (4%). However, Roundup Speed Ultra (no glyphosate) was found to kill 96% of exposed pollinators.  

The combined results indicate a serious problem with Roundup formulations. “Together, this demonstrates that the co‐formulants in these Roundup^® products, not the active ingredient glyphosate, are driving mortality,” the researchers indicate. The scientists note that surfactants or other inert ingredients may be smothering exposed pollinators, noting that only Roundup products caused “comprehensive matting of bee body hair.” The authors’ write, “We suggest that the mechanism driving this mortality may be surfactants in the formulations blocking the tracheal system of the bees, which is essential for gas exchange.”

While the evidence appears to strongly favor inerts as the primary culprit in this research, it is worth noting that studies have found technical grade (pure) glyphosate can harm pollinators. A 2018 study found that it disrupts honey bee microbiota, and a 2015 study found that it result in sublethal effects on honey bee navigation and foraging success.

Inerts, like surfactants, emulsifiers, and other co-formulants, or not required to undergo the same level of scrutiny for the harm they may cause – as strong regulations for these other ingredients are lacking on both sides of the Atlantic. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has refused to disclose these ingredients to the public on the label of pesticide products despite repeated attempts by Beyond Pesticides and other advocacy organizations to petition the agency.

This is not the first time inert ingredients have been cited for their danger to pollinators. A 2014 study found that pesticide mixtures and inert ingredients – particularly one inert able to be identified by researchers, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone – resulted in high rates of larval honey bee mortality. In 2017, a study published in the journal Nature found that a specific inert called Slygard 309, an organosilicone surfactant, increased honey bee’s susceptibility to a deadly virus.

The latest concerning news on inert ingredients revolves around widespread findings that PFAS chemicals are contaminating pesticide products. A 2017 study detected PFAS chemicals in bee hives, and a study published earlier this month indicates that PFOS (a certain type of PFAS chemical) can increase honey bee mortality and halt brood development.

It is little wonder why regulatory agencies have been brought to task by the scientific community for inaction on inert ingredients. A 2018 report published in Frontiers in Public Health reviewed the literature on commonly used formulations of glyphosate, finding a wide range of different inert ingredients and toxicity levels from different glyphosate products. Despite this variability, researchers note how many studies conducting research on glyphosate as the active ingredient actually use formulated products in their studies, potentially botching results.

As the authors of that study recommend, regulatory agencies should not be treating inert ingredients separately from active ingredients. When both active and inert ingredients can be equally hazardous, there is no reason to ignore up to 99% of a pesticide’s formulation simply because the manufacturer claims that only the active ingredient will harm the target pest.

We can work to protect the natural world from pesticide hazards when we know what those hazards are, making complete inert ingredient disclosure an urgent necessity. “Our research has shown that manufacturers need to be more transparent in their list of ingredients and also look at what they are using in their formulas which makes one weed spray safer than another,” said study coauthor Edward Carpentier, PhD. And once we know these hazards, we can work to avoid their use by embracing a more precautionary approach to farming and landscaping. With Earth Day fast approaching, pledge to eliminate toxic pesticide use by signing the ladybug love pledge and follow up with other actions that will make a difference.

To learn more about the hidden dangers of pesticides from experts throughout the US and the world, as well as how you can eliminate their use in your yard and community, attend Beyond Pesticides National Pesticide Forum: Cultivating Healthy Communities. Register today to ensure your spot!

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

Source: Journal of Applied Ecology, Royal Holloway University press release

(Beyond Pesticides, April 19, 2021) In celebration of Earth Day and its fourth annual Ladybug Love campaign throughout the month of April, Natural Grocers is supporting Beyond Pesticides. The campaign celebrates insects that play a crucial role in food supply stability, and regenerative farming practices that use ladybugs and other beneficial insects instead of harmful synthetic pesticides to control pests. Natural Grocers will donate $1 to Beyond Pesticides for each person who pledges (including renewals) “not use chemicals that harm ladybugs and other beneficial insects on their lawn or garden, and to support 100% organic produce.” 

>>1. Sign the Ladybug Pledge and support Beyond Pesticides. 

You do not have to be a Natural Grocers shopper to sign this nationwide pledge. For shoppers at any of Natural Grocers’ 161 stores—all in 20 states west of the Mississippi—you can donate to Beyond Pesticides at checkout. Thank you! Ladybug Love also features in-store promotions.

>>2. Advertise your commitment with a Beyond Pesticides “Pesticide Free Zone” sign.

Natural Grocers’ fundraising efforts have supported Beyond Pesticides and local leaders in converting the following parks and recreational areas to convert exclusively to organic practices and to eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers: Roosevelt Park in Longmont, CO, Chief Garry Park in Spokane, WA, Reid Park and Silverlake Fields in Tucson, AZ, Tempe Sports Complex in Tempe, AZ, Irwin Park in Eugene, OR, and Island Park in Springfield, OR. Beyond Pesticides has assisted other cities in such a transformation and invites people and local governments to contact us about the program at [email protected].

>>3. Sign the letter below to ask your Mayor to convert to organic landcare in city parks and other public places.

A growing body of evidence in scientific literature shows that pesticide exposure can adversely affect neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine systems in humans, even at low levels. Children are especially sensitive to pesticide exposure because they (1) take up more pesticides (relative to their body weight) than do adults, and (2) have developing organ systems that are more vulnerable to pesticide impacts and less able to detoxify harmful chemicals. Fortunately, there are proven safe, effective, and affordable ways to maintain attractive lawns and playing fields without the use of toxic pesticides.

On this Earth Day, please commit to converting care of public lands in our city to organic practices. Organic practices have been proven to be successful and cost-effective. Avoiding use of toxic pesticides is good for public health, particularly in these times when respiratory assaults can increase the threat of COVID-19. Organic practices are also climate-friendly and support biodiversity.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2021) Recent research, published in Environmental Pollution in late 2020, examines levels and persistence of pesticide pollution in recreational lakes. The study finds: (1) concentrations of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid at levels exceeding ecotoxicity limits for aquatic invertebrates in a recreational lake that receives predominately urban runoff, and (2) that pesticide residues persist in the studied lakes throughout the growing season. Based on their findings, the scientists emphasized the importance of stricter regulation of insecticide compounds, and of better education about their impacts. Beyond Pesticides maintains that neonicotinoid pesticides should be banned for several reasons, not least of which is the extreme damage they cause to pollinators.

The goal of the study was to evaluate potential ecosystem exposure to pesticide contamination in Midwestern recreational lakes, as well as the persistence of pesticide residues in those water bodies over the course of the growing season. Study authors hypothesized that watersheds with significant agricultural land uses would have higher concentrations of pesticides compared to largely urban and herbaceous watersheds.

This research, out of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the University of Kentucky, looked to evaluate the occurrence of neonicotinoid and organothiophosphate insecticides, and some fungicides, in three lakes with differing dominant land uses in watersheds of Nebraska’s Lower Platte River Basin. The land uses of the three context watersheds were classified as: herbaceous (mostly grassy prairie, shrubs, and open vegetated areas, and excluding forested or woody areas); urban (primarily residentially developed areas); and agricultural (largely production fields planted with soybeans and corn). Each watershed had multiple kinds of land uses within it, but the designated categorical use was dominant compared to the others. Researchers aimed to assess the occurrence of commonly used pesticides, such as neonicotinoid and organothiophosphate insecticides, as well as strobilurin and acylamino acid fungicides, in the lakes.

Two of the 12 compounds the study assessed — imidacloprid and clothianidin — are very commonly used neonicotinoids (neonics) found in both urban and agricultural areas. Imidacloprid is used to treat soil, seeds, and foliage of vegetable and cotton crops to control sucking insects such as rice hoppers, aphids, thrips, whiteflies, various turf and soil insects, and some beetles. It is also used in pet flea treatments and in home gardens. Clothianidin is used similarly, on food (e.g., corn, soybean, leafy greens, and fruit) and non-food crops, as well as on turf and residential areas. It is used to control many of the same insects as imidacloprid targets, and is likewise applied to leaves, soil, or seeds.

Clothianidin is toxic for bees, birds, and fish and other aquatic organisms, and so, is very harmful to these creatures’ ecosystems and to biodiversity. Imidacloprid shares those characteristics and more: it also harms human health, wildlife, domestic pets, water quality, and the environment broadly. The fungicide azoxystrobin is toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.

Imidacloprid was the first neonic sold in the U.S. and is the most commonly deployed insecticide globally. Annual agricultural use in the U.S. in 2014 tallied to 2,204,623 pounds. Use of clothianidin, largely on corn crops, rose to 3,747,858 pounds yearly by that same year. Neonics comprise a class of pesticide used intensively in many parts of the world. Though they are applied to plant foliage, or directly to soils as a drench, the dominant use globally is as a seed treatment. Neonic pesticides are banned or restricted in the European Union, France, Germany, and Italy; some states have also worked to rein in their use, but federal regulation in the U.S. continues to be wholly inadequate.

The study methodology included use of multiple sampling techniques — both “grab” sampling and “passive” sampling (in which the collection unit remains in the water for a period of time) — in the subject lakes and in inlet streams contributing to them. Multiple sampling periods were conducted. These strategies enabled averaging of concentrations and, therefore, more comprehensive assessments of pesticide concentrations than would have been gotten through “snapshot” or grab sampling alone. The paper notes, “Concentrations were then used with runoff volume estimates to calculate the total load of individual pesticides entering the monitored lake during each sampling period.”

The study co-authors note that, although low-level concentrations of pesticides are pervasive in both rural-agricultural and urban waterways, recent reports have found pesticides in urban and agricultural lakes, including Midwestern national park lakes (as well as in adjacent groundwater). A 2011 USGS survey found that 61% of agricultural streams and 90% of urban streams had at least one detectable pesticide at levels exceeding aquatic-life benchmarks.

The findings of the research include:

• Azoxystrobin, clothianidin, and imidacloprid were the most frequently detected compounds via both sampling methods at all locations; concentrations were significantly different depending on dominant watershed land use and sampling method.
• Significantly higher pesticide concentrations were found in the urban watershed compared to the others, particularly for imidacloprid. The paper distinguishes between “pesticides” (used for “plant protection”) and “biocides” (used for other, non-plant-protection purposes, such as on domestic pets or in homes), though in some instances, a biocide and a pesticide (or insecticide) can be chemically identical. (Domestic use of biocides is less regulated, generally, than is use of pesticides, according to the co-authors.)
• Whereas concentrations of imidacloprid exceeding acute aquatic toxicity benchmarks were observed in the urban lake for only two of the six sampling periods, chronic aquatic toxicity benchmarks (for aquatic invertebrates) were exceeded for imidacloprid in that lake for every sampling period, and in the agricultural lake for four of the six sampling periods.
• Though clothianidin (and thiamethoxam) in the agricultural lake showed the highest concentrations among compounds sampled, those levels remained well below both chronic and acute toxicity limits for both pesticides.
• Sampling from contributing inlets to the lakes showed imidacloprid concentrations exceeding chronic toxicity limits in both the agricultural and urban settings.

The finding of higher concentrations in the urban watershed was unexpected by the researchers, and did not support their working hypothesis that agricultural watershed bodies would evidence the highest pesticide concentrations. The co-authors wrote: “Overall, the urban watershed was the primary pesticide contributor per unit area. We hypothesize that this is likely due to limited pesticide outreach programs for homeowners regarding ideal timing and quantity of biocide applications along with absent regulations for pesticide applications in nonagricultural areas.”

They added specificity to that explanation: “Directly upstream to the urban lake was a dog park and next to the urban lake there was a golf course. Imidacloprid is used in flea prevention treatment for dogs, rapidly metabolized, and excreted primarily through urine. Further, imidacloprid is often used to protect trees and shrubs from the insect species such as emerald ash borer, grasshoppers, and weevils and is commonly used in the region for insect prevention on residential lawns and golf courses. Therefore, the high concentrations of imidacloprid was suspected to be from biocide usage in the predominately urban watershed from contributions of domestic animals, lawn and tree care, and golf course maintenance.”

Beyond Pesticides has covered the contributions of golf course maintenance, flea treatments for pets, and lawn maintenance to the pesticide problem in the U.S., and advocated for alternative approaches that reduce or eliminate the toxicity issues related to these activities (see more on solutions for golf courses, flea treatment, and lawns). The study co-authors conclude: “Findings from this study are critical for preventing and mitigating potential effects of pesticides, specifically applied as biocides in urban landscapes, from entering and persisting in recreational lakes.”

Impacts of neonics on pollinators, and on bees, in particular, are well documented, and worldwide, detectable levels of pesticides in water resources continue to rise, driven primarily by runoff from agricultural fields treated with herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides. Beyond Pesticides has reported extensively on pesticide water pollution, including by neonics, noting that: “Neonicotinoid insecticides are detected regularly in sampling of the nation’s waterways at concentrations that exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms.” See this deep dive, “Poisoned Waterways,” from Beyond Pesticides’ Spring 2017 issue of Pesticides and You.

The United Kingdom has banned use of several classes of pesticides — including neonics — but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to allow use of thousands of demonstrably harmful pesticide compounds, and nods to “protection” by maintaining databases of acute and chronic toxicity in order to identify “areas of concern” for registered pesticides. This anemic approach continues to allow the myriad water quality, health, ecosystem, and biodiversity harms of pesticide use to continue.

The comprehensive solution to these harms is getting off the toxic pesticide treadmill through a transition from chemically intensive land management (including in agriculture) to management through organic systems. The benefits to water quality, never mind every other impacted sector of the environment and human health, would be enormous and systemic.

As Beyond Pesticides wrote some years ago, “Growing food with a reliance on toxic pesticides has resulted in the nation’s waterways being heavily contaminated with toxic chemicals. Organic farming demonstrates clearly that relying on toxic chemical inputs for crop yields is not only unnecessary, but serves to protect waterways and public health from chemical pollution. Creating healthy soils, which is the foundation of organic systems, conserves water, nurtures fertility, leads to less surface runoff, and reduces the need for nutrient input. With less toxic pesticide use, organic farming helps to protect the quality of the nation’s waterways.”

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749120370883

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2021) Gestational (during pregnancy) and childhood exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) increase cardiometabolic risk, or the risk of heart diseases and metabolic disorders, later in life, according to a Brown University study published in Environment International. Past studies associate exposure to chemical pollutants with increased susceptibility to adverse health effects during critical fetal and childhood developmental periods. Some of these health effects are cardiometabolic risk factors, including obesity, insulin issues, abnormal blood pressure, that increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and metabolic disorders (e.g., type 2 diabetes). PFAS are of particular concern as these endocrine-disrupting chemicals are common in non-stick cookware, cleaning/personal care products, food packaging, and other consumer products. They are now being found in pesticide products. Because of their ubiquitous use in many products, studies report that PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Furthermore, pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta.

Cardiovascular disease and diabetes are among the leading causes of death globally. Additionally, heart conditions are one leading cause of disability in the U.S., as research demonstrates environmental pollutant exposure can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, including stroke, heart attack, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and cardiac arrest. Therefore, it is essential to mitigate harmful chemical exposure to safeguard human health, especially during critical developmental periods. Researchers note, “ [F]uture epidemiolocal studies are needed to investigate the impact of other PFAS and PFAS mixture on cardiometabolic risk and investigate the biological mechanisms underlying these associations.”

Researchers collected blood serum from 221 mother-child pairs to understand the effects PFAS exposure has on children. The collection took place during pregnancy, at birth, and ages three through 12 years. A blood serum analysis examined samples for the presence of four PFAS concentrations (perfluorooctanoate [PFOA], perfluorooctane sulfonate [PFOS], perfluorononanoate [PFNA], and perfluorohexane sulfonate [PFHxS]). Lastly, researchers compared PFAS exposure levels to cardiometabolic risk factors among, including insulin resistance, impaired glucose absorption, high blood pressure, and visceral (abdominal) fat and inflammation.

The study results demonstrate that high exposure to a combination of all four PFAS compounds during pregnancy worsens cardiometabolic health among adolescents at age 12 years. Youth groups with higher PFOA exposure rates during pregnancy and PFOA and PFHxS exposure at birth/during infancy results in elevated adverse cardiometabolic risks.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are a group of over 9,000 human-made chemicals present in various consumer products that people use every day. Although some PFAS compound manufacturing has ceased, these chemicals last forever in the environment as their chemical structure makes them resistant to breakdown. Chemical residues are persistent in food and drinking water, with over 6 million U.S. residents regularly encountering drinking water with PFAS levels above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health advisory of 70 ng/L. Therefore, PFAS are detectable in almost all of the U.S. population—disproportionately afflicting people of color communities—and have implications for human health. EPA links these chemical compounds to adverse health effects. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies PFAS as possible carcinogens based on epidemiological studies identifying instances of kidney, ovarian, testicular, prostate, and thyroid cancer, as well and non-Hodgkin lymphoma and childhood leukemia. Moreover, PFAS are anatomically similar to fatty acids and may impair fatty acid metabolism and lipid synthesis in the liver, resulting in endocrine (hormone) disruption. Some studies even demonstrate PFAS reduces the efficacy of vaccines. Although the presence of PFAS in consumer products is a concern for human health, these substances contaminate some already toxic pesticide products. Neither the manufacturer nor regulators have a good understanding of how chemical contamination occurs, and contamination may increase adverse health outcomes. 

Independent research by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) finds that widely used insecticide Anvil 10+10 contains high levels of PFAS from contamination. Although EPA does not regulate PFAS in pesticide formulas, EPA still lists these substances in the inert ingredient database. Many companies have patents on file for pesticide formulations containing PFAS. However, product labels do not require disclosure of contaminants fundamental for pesticide products through the manufacturing or packaging process. Contamination of a toxic product with other harmful chemicals is glaringly problematic for public health and the environment. Mixtures of various chemicals can induce synergism that may increase pesticide toxicity or result in changes to its characteristics, like penetrative abilities. Therefore, there may be an underestimation of toxicity effects on human, animal, and environmental health.

The study results demonstrate that early life exposure to PFAS has implications for future heart and metabolic health. Echoing past studies, exposure to PFAS in utero may increase obesity risk, insulin and leptin levels, and glucose intolerance more than adult exposure. Therefore, gestation represents a window of increased vulnerability to PFAS exposure. Furthermore, this study employs both traditional and novel cardiometabolic risk scores that better predict subsequent risks. For instance, researchers measured risk factor scores for adiponectin to leptin ratio indicating insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. These risk factor scores are good predictors of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes risk or mortality. The researchers suggest continuous measurement of cardiometabolic risk score can provide opportunities for disease prevention before onset during adulthood. Since EPA fails to regulate these toxic substances, the depth and scope of PFAS contamination may be difficult to assess. Although new “short-chain” PFAS compounds are replacing older, more toxic “long-chain/C8” compounds, some research suggests these new compounds are just as toxic. Researchers, including study co-author Joseph Braun, Ph.D., conclude, “Future epidemiologic studies investigating the health impacts of early life PFAS exposure should consider using continuous cardiometabolic risk summary scores to assess cardiometabolic risk and confirm our findings… [These findings can] give policymakers information so they can prevent exposure at the population level and set health-based regulatory guidelines that protect people’s health because, at the end of the day, that’s what’s really important — protecting people’s health.”

Ubiquitous environmental contaminants like PFAS have severe consequences, especially on the health of vulnerable individuals. There is a consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical periods of development. Various pesticide products act similarly to PFAS, and individuals can encounter these substances simultaneously, resulting in more severe health outcomes. Therefore, advocates urge that policies enforce stricter 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 that pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Birth/Fetal Effects, Learning/Developmental Disorders, Endocrine Disruption, Cancer, Body Burdens, and other diseases. To learn more about how the lack of adequate pesticide regulations can adversely affect human and environmental health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Regulatory Failures Mount, Threatening Health and Safety.”

Many states are issuing regulatory limits on various PFAS in drinking water, groundwater, and soil. However, EPA must require complete product testing and disclosure of ingredients for proper PFAS regulation. Furthermore, the agency must eliminate the need for toxic pesticides by promoting organic and ecological pest management practices. Solutions like buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management and regenerative organic agriculture eliminate the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and agricultural industry workers alike can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers, and the farmworkers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

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

Source: Brown University Press Release, Environment International

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2021) Litigation on the highly toxic herbicide paraquat may soon move into its next phase as lawyers representing victims recently requested cases be consolidated in the federal district court of Northern California. Over a dozen lawsuits have been filed against the Swiss-based agrichemical corporation Syngenta in several states throughout the U.S. The complaints allege that exposure to Syngenta herbicides containing paraquat resulted in their diagnosis of Parkinson’s Disease.

Paraquat dichloride (paraquat) is a highly toxic herbicide that has been registered for use in the United States since 1964. Although not permitted for residential use, the product is registered on a wide range of agricultural land, from row crops to vegetables and trees, and on non-farm areas, including airports, certain industrial sites and commercial buildings. It can be used as a preemergent, post-emergent, and post-harvest as a desiccant or harvest aid in the field.

The lawsuits target both Syngenta and Chevron corporation, which previously held the rights to sell paraquat in the 1960s under an agreement with a company that was eventually purchased by Syngenta. Syngenta itself, while still headquartered in Switzerland, is now owned by the Chinese National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) after a 2016 merger. Despite significant ongoing use in the U.S., concentrated in the South, Central U.S., and California’s central valley, the pesticide has been banned in many other countries, including the EU in 2007 and Brazil in 2020. Switzerland banned the chemical as far back s 1989, and China’s ban came into effect last year.

Paraquat presents a range of health concerns. Recent research shows that inhalation of low doses can disrupt one’s sense of smell, and past research has found the chemical may result in adverse respiratory health among farmers that apply it. However, there are two primary concerns related to this hazardous chemical. The first concern is the rampant poisonings and suicides that have occurred as a result of the fast action and high toxicity of paraquat. Less than a shot glass of the pesticide is enough to kill a grown adult, and there have been far too many instances of accidental poisonings. A recent report from The Intercept, in coordination with French newspaper Le Monde and Unearthed, reveal the Paraquat Papers and insider information on how the company worked to cover up its failure to deter these avoidable poisonings.

The second primary concern with paraquat is strong evidence linking the use of paraquat to the development of Parkinson’s disease. Research finds that cumulative exposures over one’s life increases risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, and other factors such as genetics, exposure to other chemicals further elevate the threat. Recent studies show that one’s zip code and proximity to paraquat use in agriculture likely plays an important role in an individual’s risk of developing Parkinson’s.  “The data is overwhelming” regarding the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s, said Samuel M. Goldman, MD, an epidemiologist in the San Francisco Veterans Affairs health system to the New York Times in 2016. Another expert interviewed by the New York Times, Freya Kamel, PhD, with the National Institutes of Health said the connection was “about as persuasive as these things get.”

All of this overwhelming, persuasive data, did not change the US Environmental Protection Agency’s decision last year to give paraquat another 15 year lease for use on American soil. But, like the ongoing Roundup lawsuits, it is looking increasingly unlikely that EPA’s failure to act will weigh heavily on court cases.

According to reporting in Environmental Health News (EHN), plaintiff lawyers are upbeat about the case. “We are confident that science strongly supports the causal connection between paraquat and the devastation of Parkinson’s disease,” said Mike Miller, lead attorney of the Miller Firm, which also led much of the Roundup litigation. “The Northern District of California is well equipped to handle these cases.” Syngenta/ChemChina and Chevron deny any connection between paraquat and Parkinson’s and are vowing to vigorously defend their products.

EHN reports that some plaintiffs have uncovered important evidence from internal Syngenta documents indicating that, like its foreknowledge of problems from suicides and accidental poisonings, the company may have likewise known for years that paraquat caused Parkinson’s disease.

With another potentially large monetary loss for the agrichemical industry on the horizon, many industry watchdogs are wondering what the game plan is. Notwithstanding the immense human suffering created by the use of paraquat, as the Roundup litigation with Bayer/Monsanto show, short-term, profit motivated thinking can result in significant economic losses down the road. With EPA unable to provide effective cover, and under the new administration likely changing its approach to industry oversight, many are looking to significant reforms on the horizon.

Help make change possible by contacting EPA and telling the agency to stop registering toxic pesticides until an audit is performed on pesticide registrants, and EPA can assure the public that their science and determinations are not corrupt. For more information on the link between paraquat, other pesticides, and Parkinson’s disease, see Beyond Pesticides Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Environmental Health News, Fears Nachawati Law Firm press release

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2021) A new study is making it increasingly clear that current laws are not protecting wild, ground nesting bees from the hazards of neonicotinoid insecticides. According to research conducted under a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) projects, Blue Orchard Mason Bees (Osima spp) are at particular risk from pesticide-contaminated soil they use to create their nest. Authors of the study note that with honey bees already in decline, pollination services provided wild managed bees like Mason bees are growing in importance. “Wild bees such as Osmia are becoming increasingly popular as managed pollinators in many systems, as there is growing concern that honeybees may not be able to continue to meet the increasing demands of agricultural pollination if these trends continue,” the study reads.

The study looked at three overarching threats to mason bee populations, aiming to identify risks from pesticide contaminated soil used as a nest, effects on larvae exposed to contaminated soil, and whether female mason bees could determine the difference between contaminated and uncontaminated soil. “Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid, which is a group of pesticides that are highly toxic to bees,” said Christine Fortuin, PhD, graduate student and lead author of the study. “It has several common uses but my research was focused on the soil-drench application method. This is when it is applied directly to the soil and soaked up through the roots of the tree to prevent beetles and other pests.”

To investigate the risks of neonicotinoid-contaminated soil to mason bees, 120 female bees were separated out into groups and exposed to varying levels of imidacloprid (nil exposure, 50 parts per billion [ppb], 390 ppb, and 780 ppb), representing an unexposed control group, as well as low, medium, and high levels in the environment. This experiment was repeated with varying levels of moisture (20% and 40%) in the soil material used to create the mason bee’s nests. A separate experiment exposed the four-day old larvae of mason bees to similar concentrations of neonicotinoids. A final experiment was conducted providing female mason bees the choice whether to use treated or untreated soil to use in their nests.

The study found no trend to the mason bee’s ability to distinguish between contaminated and uncontaminated soil. Embryos appeared to be particularly resilient to the effects of pesticide exposure. However, female mason bees were harmed by soil contact exposure, with effects on fitness noted at each exposure level. At the highest exposure rate, researchers observed a 66% decline in nesting activity as females produced 40% fewer offspring overall. Nesting activity was similarly reduced by 42% in the medium exposed group. For the lowest exposures at 50 ppb (the equivalent of adding 50 drops of pesticide in a 10,000 gallon swimming pool), the sex ratio for offspring was skewed toward male bees. This group had 50% fewer female bees than the unexposed control group.

Soil moisture has important and surprising implications for toxicity. Soil at 20% moisture shows few effects on the pollinators, but at 40% researchers witnessed over 50% of female Blue Orchard Mason bees dying at every level of exposure.

While researchers note that the study provides evidence on routes to avert risk, such as mulching around areas treated with a toxic pesticide to discourage mason bee access, the evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that no level of use will be safe for pollinators. Although there is relatively little data specifically focused on the harm neonicotinoids inflict on wild-ground nesting bees, this study is already reinforcing existing results. A study published in late 2020 finds that the additive stress of pesticide exposure and food scarcity leads to significant declines in wild mason bees. Scientists exposed female mason bees to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid and found they produce 42% fewer offspring. This effect is exacerbated when food supplies are also low, reducing reproduction by 57%. Not only are the effects on reproduction similar, the study also finds skewed sex ratios – with those exposed to imidacloprid producing 33% fewer daughters.

A study published in March 2021 finds that another wild, ground nesting bee, the hoary squash bee, initiates 85% fewer nests, harvests 5 times less pollen, and produces 89% fewer offspring than bees not exposed to neonicotinoids. A 2019 study may provide insight into the observed effects. That research looks at the effects on larvae after exposure to imidacloprid, recording alterations in development induced by the pesticide. Contaminated larvae display a variety of morphological changes, indicating a hormetic response, wherein changes in development occur in order to compensate for energy the bee diverts into physical and biological protections from pesticide exposure.

Concerns over the long-term ability for honey bees to meet future pollination needs should not be an overarching consideration in exploring methods to protect mason bees. We must protect all pollinators from the hazards of pesticide exposure. Rather than trying to avert risk through changes to label requirements that limit when, where and how a highly hazardous chemical should be sprayed, we must acknowledge that any amount of a bee-toxic pesticide in the environment has the potential to cause harm which is not yet documented. “No pollinator is safe from the harmful effects of neoincotinoid insecticides,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides. “This understanding demands a precautionary approach that stops the use of any pesticide that present unacceptable hazards to pollinators or else we risk a bleak, pollinator-free future that looks like the farm fields of eastern Kenya,” Mr. Toher continued.

Current laws do not come close to implementing such an approach. The Saving America’s Pollinators Act would begin to turn the tide in favor of pollinator protections, but it faces an uphill battle in Congress that requires strong advocacy to move forward. In the absence of a precautionary route to protect pollinators, we must continue to push local, state, and federal leaders to embrace meaningful changes.

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

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

Source:  Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education press release, Project final report

(Beyond Pesticides, April 12, 2021) Are you a regular National Pesticide Forum attendee? Have you always wanted to attend, but couldn’t afford the time and money? Are you new to the pesticide issue and want the best introduction, from Pesticides 101 to deep science? Do you want to meet with others who are taking their communities to natural organic land management? Do you want to meet with people doing amazing work across the country who are fighting the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and environmental injustice. This is your chance!

This year’s Forum is taking place virtually and will be held over four weeks, one day a week, May 25, June 1, 8, and 15. Plus, there’s a special pre-conference session Pesticide Literacy 101: Truth & Advertising on May 24. What’s more, we have registration options for all budgets.

Take Action: Sign-Up for the Forum and join with others across the country and around the world for a toxic-free future – confronting health threats, climate disasters, and biodiversity collapse. See you there!

What’s it all about? Scientific understanding. Collective action. Systemic change. A toxic-free future. Organic transition. The serious and existential environmental and health challenges that we face bring an urgency to the focus of this Forum and the work that is going on in communities around the U.S. and the world. Central to the solution is the elimination of petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers in exchange for regenerative organic land management and nontoxic materials that stop the harm from toxic chemical production, use, and disposal. We recognize that this is the only way to protect our children and families, those in workplaces, pets, pollinators, and the rich diversity of organisms essential to life.

Who attends? The Forum brings together scientists, policymakers, practitioners, advocates, and activists to elevate with greater clarity the threats associated with environmental decline and collapse and the urgency with which we need to adopt solutions that are within our grasp. We hope you will participate! 

While we are celebrating Beyond Pesticides’ 40th anniversary this year, we still have much work to do and you are critical to the successful transition to organic solutions. That’s why we hope you will join us for this important conference! Please take a look at the Forum website, including the stellar list of confirmed speakers (more being added), for more details.

Thanks for being part of the network and for your continued support. We hope to “see” you in May. 

Take Action: Sign-Up for the Forum and join with others across the country and around the world for a toxic-free future – confronting health threats, climate disasters, and biodiversity collapse. See you there!

SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES! Showcase what you’re doing (as a nonprofit, volunteer, or business organization) through our “poster” or “exhibitor” opportunities. Take a look at our sponsorship packages, there’s a cost-effective option for all budgets. If you’d like to discuss a sponsorship, please call 202-543-5450 or send us an email. 

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2021) In early April, the leaking, open-air, Piney Point storage pond near Tampa, Florida necessitated hundreds of resident evacuations over concerns that the “reservoir” would breach and flood a three-county area with what was described as a potential “20-foot wall of water.” Ultimately, controlled releases from the 480-million-gallon “pond” (into Tampa Bay) avoided such a flood, but the event underscores the “ticking bomb” nature of such open-air, toxic-liquid-waste facilities, which are used by multiple industries in the U.S. Among those are, as in this case, the phosphate mining sector, and the synthetic fertilizer industry. The latter is tied directly to the chemical-intensive agriculture crisis, and to the exact kind of waste storage facility at issue in the Florida event. This “double whammy” related to synthetic fertilizers further validates Beyond Pesticides’ advocacy for a global transition to organic land management — which rejects the use of synthetic fertilizers for the myriad harms they cause.

As reported by The New York Times, that Florida storage pond contains “legacy processed water” — code for wastewater with traces of heavy metals and other toxicants — contained by walls of phosphogypsum tailings at least 70 feet high. Phosphygypsum tailings are the leftover waste when phosphate ores are processed to create phosphoric acid, an ingredient used in synthetic fertilizers. Most of the 23 million tons of phosphate mined annually in the U.S. is used in production of such fertilizers, and generates enormous amounts of phosphogypsum waste.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describes the use of phosphogypsum tailings to store toxic wastewater: “Phosphogypsum has little market value and is transferred as a slurry to waste piles called phosphogypsum stacks. The solid portion of the slurry consolidates while the water pools on the stack’s surface. Eventually gypsum is dredged from the pools to build up the edges around the stack forming a reservoir for storing process water. . . . Stacks are generally constructed on unused land or on mined out areas at production sites with little or no prior preparation of the land. They are not covered with soil or any other material. There are over 70 identified stacks in the U.S. with the highest percentage found in Florida. The stacks are of considerable size, ranging from 2–324 hectares (800 acres) in surface area and 3–60 meters in height.”

The phosphogypsum stacks contain uranium and its decay products, such as the isotope radium-226 (which has a half-life of 1,600 years and decays into radon); these are highly radioactive elements. The stacks also contain toxic elements, such as lead and arsenic. In the Piney Point event, the concern — beyond the potential tsunami of wastewater had the holding pond breached — was that the stacks might then collapse and send along radioactive waste in the flood waters.

According to EPA, most phosphate mining occurs in Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee, with some activity in Utah and Idaho. Florida produces 80% of mined phosphate in the country, and is home to the world’s largest phosphate strip mine, which is 100,000 acres wide, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. It is at best mystifying that a state with many areas with relatively high water tables, and multiple regions at fairly low elevations, would permit these open-air pools of toxic wastewater, given that the warming climate is increasing extreme precipitation events and resultant flooding. Flooding in such areas can readily contaminate waterways and drinking water, as well as inundate infrastructure of all kinds. Any sort of compromise of these toxic holding pools can be an extreme threat to public health and safety.

The problem of waste ponds, lagoons, and other “holding features” for the waste from U.S. agricultural and industrial activity is huge, with 70 such phosphogypsum stacks, 700 coal-ash ponds (for waste from nearby coal-burning power generation facilities), and thousands of agricultural lagoons. The latter are primarily at large, industrial CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) raising beef cattle, dairy cows, and hogs. Florida has approximately 2,100 industrial wastewater holding facilities, including those at livestock CAFOs, which are notorious users of waste lagoons. All of these holding facilities are potential disasters come storms, hurricanes, increasing intense precipitation events, or failing infrastructure. Indeed, they’re environmentally noxious even absent such events.

At Piney Point, infrastructure had been failing for a while; that failure includes “tears in the plastic liner that holds wastewater.” There will also be environmental impact from the controlled releases into local waterways, as the NYT notes: “Even though the fear of a wider breach appears to have passed, there is likely to be environmental fallout from the emergency release of the polluted water, which also contains nutrients that could spur harmful algae blooms, followed by fish kills.”

Agricultural/CAFO lagoons — many of which are little more than unlined depressions in the soil — typically hold a mix of animal waste, water, and chemicals. These pools not only contaminate groundwater, but also, pollute the air with ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. When these sites receive heavy precipitation, or are otherwise flooded so that “you can’t manage the amount of water that’s coming in, you can end up with the bacteria, and chemicals, in the surface water, and on the land,” according to D’Ann Williams, a researcher for the Center for a Livable Future at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In 2019, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) put the number of U.S. CAFOs at roughly 7,600. How many of these utilize waste lagoons is unknown, but it is not unreasonable to assume that most do. NRDC reported in 2019 on the incredibly poor state of federal data collection on CAFOs, noting: “A decade ago, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office concluded that the EPA could not fulfill its regulatory duties under the Clean Water Act without accurate and facility-specific information about CAFOs. The EPA, for its part, has admitted that ‘unlike many other point source industries, the EPA does not have facility-specific information for all CAFOs in the United States.’”

Back when farming was not industrial, but conducted on a smaller scale with few (if any) chemical inputs, the manure from livestock was a useful and valued on-farm commodity with which to fertilize corn and other silage and crop fields. As industrial agriculture has become widespread, that practice is less common (except among some smaller-scale farmers, and certainly, organic farmers). Silage corn (for animal feed) is now mostly grown at huge scale with genetically modified seeds, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers. Composted manure still represents a strategy that would (and does) benefit agricultural systems. The obstacle to its broad re-adoption is that large industrial agricultural enterprises find it cumbersome to deploy, and would rather opt for cheap, destructive, synthetic fertilizers. This is a bad bet for a healthful and livable future.

At the scale at which CAFOs operate, there is far more manure generated than can be used on on-farm fields. An Environment America factsheet reports that a 2,500-head dairy farm generates as much waste as a city of 411,000 people. As synthetic fertilizers have largely replaced the use of manure, what to do with all that animal excrement? Basically, it is stored (with water added), untreated, in these huge pools or pits for as long as six months, during which time it decomposes anaerobically and releases methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). After that period, it is spread or sprayed on croplands. With that applied solution travel any pathogens, antibiotic and pesticide residues, and sometimes, trace heavy metals from animal feed, such as copper, zinc, and lead.

Percolating through the ground or running off of compacted or not-yet-thawed fields, this waste can enter and pollute ground and surface waters. Leaks or spills from these (generally unlined, but for a layer of clay) pits can similarly contaminate ground and surface waters (they are not infrequently sited quite close to existing rivers or streams). CAFO waste pits pollute local air, as noted. When this non-composted, untreated waste enters waterways, it can kill fish and other organisms downstream, and contribute to toxic algal blooms. A Chicago Tribune analysis of data from Illinois showed that, for example, hog CAFO spills and leaks killed 492,000 fish from 2005 through 2014. This toxic “storage” strategy is dangerous and unsustainable. The very creation of these huge holding ponds destroys habitat and compromises local ecosystems.

The nearly wholesale agricultural (and other land management) adoption of synthetic chemical fertilizers is contributing to multiple negative environmental and public health and safety problems. The demand for these fertilizers drives the mining of phosphate, with its nasty byproducts — toxic and radioactive waste “process” water and phosphgypsum stacks, respectively. The use of such fertilizers, which use petrochemicals (derived from fossil fuels) and phosphoric acid, among other ingredients, has generated the creation of thousands of manure-holding, noxious-gas-emitting, water-contaminating holding pits. The processing of mined sulfur, another ingredient, causes significant emissions of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere; this gas damages terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems through the increased acidity it causes in rainfall. Sulfur dioxide also contributes to the development and severity of human respiratory disorders. 

The nitrates in synthetic fertilizers degrade soil health, and are a huge cause, via agricultural runoff from fields, of nutrient deposition in waterways that can cause multiple environmental impacts. For example, nitrates not only disrupt the carbon-capturing activity of critical salt marshes, but also, create algal blooms and subsequent dead zones that cause eutrophication and hypoxia, killing off organisms and destroying marine ecosystems. In addition, nitrogen from chemical fertilizers escapes into the air on application, and is deposited in forest soils, where it is having serious ecosystem impacts, including decline of mycorrhizae, changes in species composition and diversity, and overall poorer ecosystem functioning because of trees’ increased vulnerability to insects, disease, freezing, and drought.

The excess nitrogen in these fertilizers is also driving global nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions dangerously high, exacerbating the climate crisis. Manufacturers of these fertilizers often use a nitrogen-heavy ratio of the three famous “NPK” inputs: nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. Nitrogen supports growth and photosynthesis (so plants “green up” readily), but too much can deplete other soil nutrients, inhibit development of flowers and fruit, and contribute to excess nitrate leaching into groundwater.

In its 2020 “Year in Review,” Beyond Pesticides quoted Jessica Shade, PhD of The Organic Center: “Many common organic farming practices — like composting and the use of manure fertilization in place of synthetic fertilizers — can recycle reactive nitrogen that is already in the global system, rather than introducing new reactive nitrogen into the environment, and thus have a much smaller environmental impact.”

A 2019 UN report cites synthetic fertilizers’ role in the “degradation of ecosystems, pollution of water systems from runoff, and contributions to climate change,” and says that “in light of these impacts, current and projected patterns of global pesticide and fertilizer use are not sustainable.”

There are some bright spots in the landscape: in 2020, South Portland, Maine passed legislation that bans the use of synthetic fertilizers, with few exceptions, as part of the city’s commitment to climate action and protection of its coastal waterways. Hyattsville, Maryland has established a law that prohibits the use of synthetic fertilizers on city-owned and -managed property: “The City of Hyattsville shall only use natural organic fertilizers. The use of a synthetic fertilizer is prohibited on City-owned or -managed properties.” Beyond Pesticides encourages communities to recognize that organic land management requires only natural soil supplements that feed microbial soil life and sequester atmospheric carbon, and to work to enact local laws mandating the switch away from synthetics.

The reasons to shift agricultural and other land management practices to organics are legion but boil down to this: do we humans want to continue perpetuating systems that poison and degenerate human and ecosystem health, biodiversity, a livable climate, and functional soils that underlie all of those? Or do we want to make the transition to organic regenerative systems that eliminate the multiple thousands of toxic chemicals now in use, and instead, protect organisms (including people) from them, as well as enrich and vivify soils, sequester carbon, support healthy ecosystems, and nourish the living planet and its biomass? Beyond Pesticides is solidly in favor of the second option. Contact Beyond Pesticides for help with advancing organics in your community.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/climate/florida-ponds-toxic-waste.html

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2021) Pesticide use threatens aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates and plants more than ever, despite declining chemical use and implementation of genetically engineered (GE) crops in the U.S., according to a University Koblenz-Landau, Germany study. Since the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), many environmental agencies have banned the use of pesticides like organochlorines, organophosphates, and carbamates for their devastating toxic—sometimes lethal—effects, particularly on vertebrates, including humans. However, this ban created a pathway for a new generation of pesticides (e.g., neonicotinoids, pyrethroids) to take hold. Although these pesticides are more target-specific, requiring lower chemical concentrations for effectiveness, they have over double the toxic effects on invertebrates, like pollinators. 

Invertebrates and plants are vital for ecosystem function, offering various services, from decomposition to supporting the food web. Furthermore, invertebrates and plants can act as indicator species (bioindicators) that scientists can observe for the presence and impact of environmental changes and stressors. Therefore, reductions in invertebrate and plant life have implications for ecosystem health that can put human well-being at risk. Study lead author Ralf Schulz, PH.D., notes, “[This study] challenge[s] the claims of decreasing environmental impact of chemical pesticides in both conventional and GM [genetically modified or genetically engineered (GE)] crops and call for action to reduce the pesticide toxicity applied in agriculture worldwide.”

Study researchers used data from the U.S. Geological Survey to determine national pesticides use by U.S. farmers over 25 years (1992 to 2016). To assess pesticide toxicity, researchers used U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data on species-specific toxicology thresholds. Lastly, researchers compared the species-specific toxicology threshold data, a calculation for the point at which a substance might harm vegetation or wildlife, to the amount of real-world pesticide concentration on farms.

The study results find a decrease in total pesticide amounts by volume on U.S. farms by 40 percent over the last 25 years. Although bird and mammal toxicity decreases with a reduction in pesticide use (95 percent), invertebrates experience higher toxicity levels. Pyrethroid insecticides cause toxicity to double among aquatic invertebrates. Neonicotinoid insecticides present double the risk to terrestrial invertebrates. Overall, pesticide toxicity for terrestrial plants is highest regardless of whether fields are conventional, non-GE, or GE.

Pesticide residues readily contaminate all ecosystems and are prevalent in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air. Scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of adverse effects to the environment, including wildlife, biodiversity, and human health effects. However, many of these chemicals are older classifications that are more stable and promptly accumulate in the environment and animal tissue. Organophosphates and carbamates impact immune and metabolic function among vertebrates as their mode of action inhibits acetylcholinesterase enzyme activation. Organochlorines induce similar effects on vertebrates’ immune and metabolic systems, but their mechanisms driving mode of action are poorly understood. These pesticides can bioaccumulate and produce severe toxicity outcomes among vertebrates. Therefore, many of these chemicals are phasing out from both commercial and industrial use. However, there is a misconception that the “newer generation” of chemicals, including pyrethroids, sulfoxaflor, fipronil, and neonicotinoids (neonics), are safer. These insecticides are fast-acting, with quick breakdown times, thus less likely to readily accumulate. However, studies find lower concentrations of these chemicals are more toxic than their older counterparts, requiring several kilograms less. These pesticides can promote higher sublethal toxicity levels, which can cause chronic effects on species abundance and biodiversity.

Some invertebrates are the victims of global insect apocalypse or population decline, wiping out roughly a quarter of the population since 1990. Much research attributes the recent population reduction to several factors, including pesticide exposure. Broad-spectrum pesticides indiscriminately kill pests and nontarget organisms alike. Because many nontarget invertebrates and plants share the same physiological features as pests that insecticides and herbicides target, exposure can be disastrous. The sublethal effects of insecticides on non-target organisms are evident. Research shows long-term neonic exposure on some social insects (e.g., bees, butterflies) impacts foraging behavior, learning, orientation, memory abilities, immune functions, growth and development, sleep, colony growth, and reproduction. Sulfoxaflor acts similarity to neonic toxicity. Pyrethroids are widely detectable in bee pollen and impair bee learning and foraging, bee fecundity, butterfly larvae, and bee developmental rate. Fipronil is highly toxic to most, if not all, insects and can reduce behavioral function and learning performances in honey bees. Considering EPA recognizes that pesticides are a risk to pollinators, preventing exposure is essential in avoiding the consequences of insect decline.

A majority of studies detailing the sublethal effects of pesticides focus on pollinators due to their economic and environmental importance. However, pesticides adversely impact the health and nutritional quality of other beneficial terrestrial and aquatic organisms. A University of Bern, Switzerland study finds that long-term exposure to sublethal (low-level) concentrations of the neonics in soil negatively affects the health and behavioral development of black garden ants colonies. Furthermore, other studies find pesticides also adversely affect the health of earthworms that provide essential ecosystem services by aerating the soil, cycling nutrients, and increasing microbial activity. Although insecticides are best known for their hazardous impacts on terrestrial invertebrate populations, it is becoming increasingly clear that the entire food chain is at risk from continuous use. Reports regularly detect pesticides in the nation’s waterways, and some concentrations exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms. Imidacloprid exposure (a neonic) can adversely impact the health of shrimp, oysters, and other benthic invertebrates, resulting in population decline. Exposure to low levels of bifenthrin (a pyrethroid) can impact future generations of major commercial fish, despite future generations having no direct exposure to the chemicals. Moreover, pesticides can interact with chemicals in water from other sources, such as road salts, working together or synergizing to produce a more severe combined effect. Synergism is a common issue among pesticide mixtures and a failure to account for this can result in an underestimation of the toxic impacts on human, animal, and environmental health. As a result of risks to aquatic organisms, the Canadian pesticide regulatory agency has recommended banning imidacloprid which EPA is hesitant to implement.  

This study demonstrates that reducing the number of pesticides in the ecosystem does not indicate that an ecosystem is improving. The study results find a pivot toward pyrethroid and neonicotinoid use is responsible for invertebrate and plant population decline. However, this does not mean older chemicals do not affect invertebrates. Organophosphates are still widely available for use, especially for mosquito control and in agriculture and lawn care. Organophosphates commonly used in mosquito control programs, like malathion and naled, put bee health at risk. Both are highly toxic to bees, and other nontarget organisms, with reports of bee kills from Ultra-low volume (ULV) mosquito spraying. Furthermore, organophosphates can also impact aquatic communities, inducing toxicity among benthic organisms, like zooplankton, that are foundational to the food web structure.

Toxicity from herbicides is now double what it was in 2004, according to the study. Glyphosate is the main contributor to plant toxicity. The chemical’s use has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate. Genetically engineered crops pose an issue for pesticide use and species health and abundance. Resistance to pesticides is growing at similar rates among GE and non-GE conventionally grown crops. This increase in resistance is evident among herbicide-tolerant GE crops or GE crops containing plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) like Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Although one purpose of GE crops is to reduce pesticide use, an increase in resistance can result in additional pesticide use to compensate. However, overuse escalates toxic exposure to organisms that frequent or remain in these habitats, as well as nearby wild plants.

Although this study finds birds and mammals are experiencing less toxicity from current pesticide use, they are not safe from chemical consequences. Pesticide exposure patterns, including dietary exposure, co-exposure, and cumulative effects, put these species at risk. Pyrethroids are highly toxic to cats whose liver cannot process these chemicals, triggering seizures, tremors, muscle spasms that can lead to death. EPA’s preliminary ecological (non-pollinator) assessments for the neonicotinoids find that these pesticides pose both acute and chronic risks to aquatic life and birds. Furthermore, exposure to neonics can disrupt the energy-intensive metabolism of hummingbirds, even for a short period.

Just as residues from foliar spray adversely impact species health, so do pesticide-treated seeds. Most corn, soybeans, and other food crop seeds are pesticides-treated. These seeds have implications for birds who consume coated seeds. Compounds from neonic-coated grain accumulate in birds and reduce their chances of survival in the wild through sublethal impacts (weight reduction, travel delays, and a reduction in reproductive success). EPA finds that 1-5 seeds of treated corn cause acute to chronic levels of harm to large and small birds alike. EPA states, “Dietary exposures from clothianidin treated seeds are noted to result in the highest acute and chronic risks from the terrestrial risk assessment to birds and mammals.”

Furthermore, some common-use pesticides (e.g., neonics) are systemic, meaning plant roots and leaves uptake the chemical. With every type of use, the chemicals work their way into plants, pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets. Both vertebrates (e.g., birds, bats) and invertebrates (e.g., bees, butterflies) encounter indiscriminate exposure during foraging. However, these pesticides do not stay contained to plants, as chemicals can invade soil and surrounding waterways, causing indiscriminate poisoning and contamination.

As a result of this study, scientists outside this research study, including John Tooker, Ph.D. entomologist at Penn State, caution against continuous pesticide use. Dr. Tooker concludes, “The patterns in the US pesticide use and toxicity data should be a cautionary tale for the rest of the world, much of which seems to be leaning more heavily on pesticide use rather than ecological interactions for pest control.”

Chemical contamination is ubiquitous in terrestrial and marine environments, causing severe adverse effects to all species, especially invertebrates, that can span generations. Monarchs are near extinction, and beekeepers continue to experience declines that are putting them out of business. We continue to lose mayflies and fireflies, the foundation of so many food chains. Reducing the number of pesticides in our environment can safeguard insects, human, animal, and ecosystem health alike.

To prevent a future void of vital invertebrate and plant species critical to biodiversity and food production, global leaders must examine the necessity of pesticide use. More than ever, individuals must connect with their local, state, and federal elected officials to demand that we protect insect populations. Now, grassroots advocacy groups in Connecticut, and Maryland, in addition to dozens of local groups, collaborate to create lasting positive changes to pollinator protection policies. Solutions like regenerative organic agriculture and organic land management curtail the need for toxic pesticide use as these practices warrant similar or better results than chemical-intensive ones. Learn more about the science and resources behind pesticides’ pollinator impact and take action against the use of pesticides. To find out more about what you can do to protect insects, check out information on pollinator-friendly landscapes, pollinator-friendly seeds. For more information on the insect apocalypse, see Beyond Pesticides article in our Pesticides and You newsletter, Tracking Biodiversity: Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse. Furthermore, learn more about the dangers pesticides pose to most wildlife on Beyond Pesticides’ Wildlife page.

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

Source: Eurasia Review, ScienceMag, Science

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2021) Toxic pesticides are putting more than half of the Earth’s farmland at risk of pesticide pollution that contaminates water, harms biodiversity, and ultimately undermines food security, according to research published in Nature Geosciences last month.  While there is firm understanding that environmental crises like climate change are affecting the entire globe, the impacts of pesticide pollution are often thought of as local, or regional issues. This study, led by researchers based at the University of Sydney, Australia, underscores the wide-ranging effects of modern civilization’s global dependence on toxic pesticide use. “Although protecting food production is essential for human development, reducing pesticide pollution is equivalently crucial to protect the biodiversity that maintains soil health and functions, contributing towards food security,” said lead study author Fiona Tang, PhD.

To better understand pesticide risks at a global scale, scientists sectioned a world map into 10×10 kilometer (6.2×6.2 mile) squares that were assessed for their pesticide risk. The map also included data relating to water scarcity, biodiversity, and national income, to better determine trends and hot spots of concern. Scientists evaluated 92 different pesticide active ingredients and determined their risk within each square on the map based upon information derived from global databases. A pesticide was deemed to put a location at risk if the predicted environmental concentration of the pesticide was expected to be above the no-effect concentration for ecotoxicological harm. The high risk designation was noted when expected environmental concentrations were more than three orders of magnitude (1,000x) higher than the no-effect concentration.

Scientists determined that 75% of global agricultural land was at risk, with 31% at high risk. Considering the additive effects of pesticide use, researchers found that 64% of ag land was at risk from more than one of the 92 pesticide active ingredients evaluated. Shockingly, 21% of farmland is at risk by more than 10 pesticides.

Specific regions were highlighted by researchers for the risks pesticide use poses to water quality, endangered wildlife, or ecosystem stability.  “Although the agricultural land in Oceania shows the lowest pesticide pollution risk, Australia’s Murray-Darling basin is considered a high-concern region both due to its water scarcity issues, and its high biodiversity,” said co-author Associate Professor Federico Maggi from the School of Civil Engineering and the Sydney Institute of Agriculture. Approximately 35% of land determined to be high risk of pollution overlapped with areas designated as biodiversity hotspots. High risks were also identified for Orange, South Africa; Huang He River Valley, China; Indus River Valley, India; and Parana, Argentina. While these areas were identified as “level 1” – a top tier concern by researchers due to combined risks of pesticide pollution, freshwater contamination/scarcity, and high biodiversity, broad swaths of the globe –  5.2 million square kilometers (~3.2 million sq miles) – are classified as level 2 and comprise large areas in Asia and South America.

The breadth and stretch of pesticide pollution across the Earth raises difficult questions. Although these questions are not new, they remain unanswered, and human civilization must continue to work through them. As Rachel Carson asked in Silent Spring, “How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease and death even to their own kind? Yet this is precisely what we have done. We have done it, moreover, for reasons that collapse the moment we examine them.”

Like the burning of fossil fuels, the use of highly toxic petroleum-based pesticides, has caused untold harm across the earth – making potable water precarious, degrading soil, and causing pollinators and the wildlife humanity depends upon die-off slowly but steadily. But the closer we examine whether pesticides are truly needed, the more we can see their use as Carson did: short-sighted. The global success of organic agriculture reveals that systems that are not reliant on these toxic chemicals can successfully grow food at the scale needed to feed the world.

The authors of this global study recommend a shift towards similar, safer practices in agriculture, noting that pesticide pollution is not a local issue. High pesticide use in other countries may be particularly problematic for the local environment, but that food is part of a global trade system, increasing the likelihood that another region’s pollution is an unwanted ingredient at dinner table far away from its original source.

“We urgently recommend that a global strategy is established to transition towards sustainable agriculture and sustainable living with low pesticide inputs and reduced food loss and food waste to achieve responsible production and consumption in an acceptable, profitable system,” the study reads. Eating with a Conscience means understanding the broad range of impacts pesticides cause – both in terms of how residues can affect our own health, and the areas where our food is grown. Help support this needed transition to organic by buying certified organic products whenever available. And for more information on the importance of organic for our future, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Agriculture program page.

Source: University of Sydney press release, Nature Geosciences

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2021) Pregnant women living within 2.5 miles of agricultural pesticide applications have an increased risk that their child will develop central nervous system (CNS) tumors, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Research by a team at University of California, Los Angeles. The results are particularly concerning as it reveals that individuals do not have to be in close contact with pesticides for risky, health-harming exposures to occur. “This transition from farmland to residential neighborhoods is abrupt across California, and, of course, constantly changing as farmland is developed,” said study co-author Myles Cockburn, PhD. “The simplest way to mitigate these risks is by reductions in exposure to pesticides, through restrictions to aerial spraying and air blast that lead to increased drift, and by farming methods that decrease reliance on pesticides.”

Researchers note that the present study is unique in that it was able to pinpoint the specific pesticides related to the development specific types of tumors. To make these determinations, scientists made use of California’s Cancer Registry records. Diagnosed children aged 0-5 were matched to maternal residences where pesticide applications were made within 4000 meters (~2.5 miles). Pesticide application records were obtained from data recorded by California’s public agencies, as California is one of the only states that require pesticide use reporting to a centralized database. Researchers adjusted for a number of confounders and matched each cancer case selected with twenty controls in order to increase the statistical power of the findings.

Results show that some pesticides increase the risk of certain childhood CNS tumors by 2.5 times compared to an unexposed child. For astrocytoma tumors, the use of the pesticides bromacil, thiophanate-methyl, triforine, and kresoxim-methyl increased risk of tumor development. Medulloblastoma was associated with the use of chlorothalonil, propiconazole, dimethoate, and linuron.  Development of ependymoma was linked to nearby use of thiophanate-methyl. In sum, the pesticides chlorthalonil, bromacil, thiophanate-methyl, triforine, kresoxim-methyl, propiconazole, dimethoate, and linuron were all linked to elevated rates of a CNS tumor.

These data are much more precise than the findings of previous studies, which generally group pesticide use into broad categories based on type (herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, etc.) or chemical class. “This study is the first, to our knowledge, to estimate effects for a large number of specific pesticides in relation to CNS tumor subtypes,” said Julia Heck, PhD, study coauthor. “Our results suggest that exposure to specific pesticides may best explain the results of previous studies that reported relationships between broader pesticide types and central nervous system tumors.”

There is no shortage of studies linking pesticide use to diseases in pregnant women and children. A 2013 study published in Cancer Causes and Control found that women exposed to termite pesticides within a year of pregnancy were nearly twice as likely to have a child develop a brain tumor. Research published in Environmental Health in 2015 ties agricultural crop density closely with the development of leukemia and CNS cancers in children. A 2017 study published in the International Journal of Cancer associates the residential use of pesticides with 1.4 times increased risk of developing a brain tumor by age 15. And a study published in 2020 in Cancer Epidemiology found that pesticide use during pregnancy was associated with childhood development of the Wilms’ tumor of the kidney.

The present study, which found the highest rates of CNS tumors in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white children, reveals cause for concern to all individuals throughout the country that may live near a chemical farming operation. “California’s agricultural work force numbers more than 800,000, according to state estimates,” said Christina Lombardi, PhD, a co-author and epidemiologist with the Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “In addition to the negative health effects of pesticides on workers there are large numbers of pregnant women and young children living adjacent to treated fields who may experience detrimental health effects as well.”

The power of the present study is that is highlights the real risks from specific pesticide active ingredients. While the solution – eliminating the use of these toxic substances – remains the same, this granular data should provide regulators and policymakers greater confidence in decisions to restrict or eliminate use.

As the authors note, it is imperative for the future of our health to embrace farming systems that do not rely on the use of hazardous, cancer-causing chemicals. Children diagnosed with CNS tumors are not only a tragedy for the families that must care of them – these heartbreaks affect us all – from the costs of recovery and delayed development to public health infrastructure and special classes in school, and the loss of earnings over a lifetime. One study published in January of 2020 found that exposure to environmental chemicals since the turn of the century has resulted in trillions of dollars of lost economic activity. And beyond the dollars and cents, contributions to art, culture, or technology that humanity as a whole are lost when a young life’s potential is stolen by the use of chemicals that are known to be unnecessary.

Hazardous synthetic pesticides are not permitted under organic farming standards. It is evident that the more we delve into the details of synthetic pesticide use, the more problems are raised, and the stronger the argument becomes for a broadscale transition to organic agriculture.

Help encourage this transition by growing the organic marketplace and purchasing organic products whenever possible. For those in agricultural areas, it would be prudent to consider one’s proximity to chemical farming if considering a child. For more information on the links between pesticide use and our health, see Beyond Pesticides Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. And see the newly revamped Children and Schools webpage for more information on the hazards of pesticides to children, and how they can best be protected where they learn and play.

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

Source: UCLA Fielding School of Health press release, Environmental Research

(Beyond Pesticides, April 5, 2021) The failure of EPA to meet its statutory responsibility to protect people and wildlife from the dire consequences of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals must end. Over recent decades, evidence has mounted showing that many pesticides interfere with hormones—and are therefore endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). In 1996, the promise of screening pesticides for endocrine disruption generated support from environmentalists and public health advocates for the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which traded the absolute prohibition of carcinogens in food of the Delaney Clause for a risk assessment standard that is subject to manipulation and an underestimation of real-life hazards. And now, 25 years later, we have yet to see EPA use endocrine disruption findings in pesticide registration decisions.

>>Tell EPA that pesticide use cannot continue without findings of no endocrine disruption.

The endocrine system consists of a set of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone and adrenaline), which help guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Hormones are signaling molecules, which travel through the bloodstream and elicit responses in other parts of the body.

More than 50 pesticide active ingredients have been identified as endocrine disruptors by the European Union and the late endocrine disruptor expert Theo Colborn, PhD. Endocrine disruption is the mechanism for several health effect endpoints. Endocrine disruptors function by: (i) Mimicking the action of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (ii) Blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones; or (iii) Affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. Endocrine disruptors have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, early puberty, infertility and other reproductive disorders, childhood and adult cancers, and other metabolic disorders. 

It is not only humans who are affected. Hermaphroditic frogs, polar bears with penis-like stumps, panthers with atrophied testicles and intersex fish with immature eggs in their testicles have all been linked to endocrine disruption. The popular herbicide atrazine chemically castrates and feminizes exposed male tadpoles. The mosquito-killing S-methoprene larvicide alters early frog embryo development. Distorted sex organ development and function in alligators is linked to the organochlorine insecticide dicofol. The ubiquitous antibacterial chemical triclosan alters thyroid function in frogs, while its chemical cousin triclocarban enhances sex hormones in rats and in human cells. In her book, Our Stolen Future, Dr. Colborn states that the decline of animal species can no longer be simply explained by habitat destruction and human disturbance, but also by reproductive failures within populations brought on by the influence of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

According to FQPA, the agency must screen all pesticide chemicals for potential endocrine activity. To ensure timely follow-through, EPA was given a timeline by Congress to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. It started a screening program (Tier 1) and reported results in 2009. Since, according to EPA, Tier 1 Screening (which looks at high exposure chemicals) is not sufficient to implicate a chemical as an endocrine disrupting chemical, but acts as a tool for defining which chemicals must undergo Tier 2 testing, the only stage that can influence regulatory decision-making. Indeed, it is unclear when or how EPA will move forward with Tier 2 testing, and how, if at all, any Tier 2 findings will be used to inform actual regulation.

EPA now issues Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) on pesticide registrations making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the potential for endocrine disruption, or identifying additional data needs to satisfy Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program requirements in the PIDs. EPA cannot make findings of no unreasonable adverse effects without findings concerning endocrine disruption.

>>Demand that EPA test for and act on endocrine disruptors as required by law.

Letter to EPA:

I am writing to ask you to act now to meeting a statutory mandated to protect people and wildlife from dire health consequences.

In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 23 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), established to carry out the act, has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides.

To ensure timely follow-through, EPA was given a timeline by Congress to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. EPA has issued Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) on pesticide registrations making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the potential for endocrine disruption, or identifying additional data needs to satisfy Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program requirements in the PIDs. EPA cannot make findings of no unreasonable adverse effects without findings concerning endocrine disruption. In the absence of such findings, EPA must cancel and suspend the registration of each pesticide lacking data or findings.

Please ensure that your agency meets its responsibility to protect the health of people and wildlife.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

I am writing to ask you elevate a critical public and environmental health issue –the regulation of endocrine disrupting pesticides. The failure of EPA to meet its statutory responsibility to protect people and wildlife from the dire consequences of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals must end. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia. And, EPA has simply not carried out its statutory mandate to regulate endocrine disrupting pesticides.

Endocrine disruptors are linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. This is a public health tragedy that cannot be ignored.

Since EPA announced it was ready to begin testing both active and “inert” (usually the majority of the undisclosed product ingredients that make the solution, dust, or granule) pesticide ingredients for potential endocrine disrupting effects in 2009, the protocols EPA proposed to use have become significantly outdated, having been first recommended in 1998. In the interim, science has progressed such that it offered more sophisticated assumptions than those that informed the EPA test designs. Further, as Beyond Pesticides noted in 2009, “Each of EPA’s tests and assays was designed under the surveillance of corporate lawyers who had bottom lines to protect, and assorted toxicologists who were not trained in endocrinology and developmental biology. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia.” 

In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 21 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), established to carry out the act, has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides. As of 2019, the program has stalled entirely.

To ensure timely follow-through, EPA was given a timeline by Congress to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. That has real costs. Please use the power of your office to push EPA to meet its statutory responsibility to protect the health of people and wildlife.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2021) Having raised the alarm for many years (and most recently in November 2020) on the dangers of the burgeoning antibiotic resistance crisis, Beyond Pesticides has joined a coalition of public interest groups in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its approval of use of the medically important antibiotic streptomycin on citrus trees. Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman comments: “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. This lawsuit is an important action to reverse the previous administration’s decision to ignore the science and allow expanded use of an antibiotic in agriculture.”

According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the suit charges that EPA “failed to ensure that the approved uses of streptomycin as a pesticide would not cause unreasonable harm to human health or the environment and failed to adequately assess impacts to endangered species.” The coalition of plaintiffs includes Beyond Pesticides, NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Farmworker Association of Florida, Farmworker Justice, Migrant Clinicians Network, and U.S. PIRG. The coalition is represented in the suit by Earthjustice and in-house counsel.

In a related action, Beyond Pesticides has also sued Sargento Foods, Inc. for its misleading claims of “no antibiotics” in its products. The lawsuit alleges that the company’s cheese products are made with milk from cows administered antibiotics, and that those antibiotic compounds are detectable in some of the company’s products.

Broadly speaking, all pesticides are “antibiotics” in the sense that they kill biological organisms. But some, such as the commonly used herbicides glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D (as well as some of the “inert” ingredients in their formulations) are demonstrably driving antibiotic resistance in some human pathogenic bacteria, per research Beyond Pesticides covered in 2017. To wit: exposure to these herbicides generally negatively alters bacterial response to antibiotics such as tetracycline, ampicillin, and ciprofloxacin, all of which are used medically to treat a range of serious diseases.

The antibiotic resistance (also referred to as anti-microbial, or AMR resistance) crisis is one of human bacterial infections becoming increasingly resistant to the antibiotics most commonly prescribed by healthcare professionals to resolve such infections. This causes infections to be much harder to treat, to last longer, to require increased medical intervention (incurring the costs that go with that), and sometimes, a complete inability to treat life-threatening infections. This crisis is caused, inevitably, by antibiotics’ very use (and too often, overuse) because they exert strong selection pressure for bacterial strains that exhibit antibiotic resistance. Bacteria can mutate quickly and take rapid advantage of mutations that make them more resistant to antibiotics; thus, resistance develops and spreads as these resistant bacteria reproduce and “thrive.”

Two primary reasons for the rise of AMR — including multi-drug resistance — are the intensive use of antibiotics in agriculture, for both livestock and crops, and unnecessary medical uses. Research reported on by Beyond Pesticides in February 2021 showed that exposure of bacteria (in agricultural soils) to herbicides triggers evolutionary pressures on bacteria similar to those exposed to antibiotics. That Daily News article noted that, “Salmonella and E.coli exposed to the herbicides glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D, triggered a non-specific defense mechanism which, while building resistance to the toxic effects of the herbicides, also resulted in resistance to commonly used antibiotics.” (Learn more about the history of resistance and antibiotics by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Antimicrobials and Antibacterials website page.)

Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2019, “The contribution of antibiotic use in fruit trees to resistance in human pathogens may not be nearly as important as the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock and farmed fish, but it does have an impact on the pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. . . . 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. So, a pool of resistant soil bacteria can provide the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens.”

Streptomycin, the antibiotic at issue in this lawsuit, is used medically to treat multiple diseases, including endocarditis, tularemia, and plague, but especially, multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. The pharmaceutical belongs to a class of antibiotics considered critically important by the World Health Organization for such uses. NRDC notes that, “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have expressed concerns about the use of medically important antibiotics as pesticides and have spoken out publicly against it.”

Streptomycin has been banned for agricultural use on crops in many countries, but in the U.S., use of it and oxytetracycline in fruit and vegetable production has been permitted. Recently, the Trump administration EPA issued an emergency use authorization, in 2017, to expand use of these antibiotics to Florida citrus crops to control the bacterial “citrus greening disease,” also known as Huanglongbing. 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.

Beyond Pesticides issued an action alert at the time, encouraging the public to comment on EPA’s move, and calling for an end to antibiotic use in citrus production, citing the antibiotic resistance crisis. Beyond Pesticides wrote: “Antibiotic resistance is a real and urgent public health threat and represents an existential threat to modern civilization. Antibiotic resistance kills over 23,000 people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition . . . the World Health Organization has cited this escalating problem as among the biggest public health challenges of our time.”

Use of antibiotics is currently proscribed in all U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic production, but this was not always the case. When Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman was a member of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), he was instrumental in the effort to remove antibiotics from organic apple and pear production, which at the time were the last remaining agricultural uses permitted in organic production.

NOSB is now considering a petition to allow use of yet another antibiotic (kasugamycin) for organic apple and pear production. NOSB should reject the petition for this use for the same reasons that streptomycin and tetracycline should be disallowed for crop production. Use of antibiotics in agriculture “feeds the beast” of the antibiotic resistance crisis. Beyond Pesticides offers guidance on speaking out on this issue in the lead-up to the April 2021 NOSB annual meeting.

Uses of antibiotics on crops represent a smaller, but still significant, contributor to the AMR crisis, compared with uses on livestock — largely as additives to animal feed, both to prevent infection and cause unnaturally rapid growth in the animals. Scientists have warned that industrial agriculture’s use of CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) are acting as large-scale petri dishes that will develop increasing amounts of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and potentially contribute to whatever the next pandemic may be.

As humanity is grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, health advocates say such warnings should be heeded. The current pandemic is a viral one, but bacterial pandemics are also a threat; think of tuberculosis or bacterial meningitis, and historically, leprosy or the plague. In September 2020, the esteemed medical journal The Lancet published commentary on AMR, noting: “The rise in multidrug-resistant bacterial infections that are undetected, undiagnosed, and increasingly untreatable threatens the health of people in the USA and globally. In 2020 and beyond, we cannot afford to ignore antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Bacterial infections unsuccessfully treated due to AMR claim at least 700,000 lives per year worldwide and are projected to be associated with the deaths of 10 million people per year by 2050, at a cost of US$100 trillion to the global economy through loss of productivity. In the USA, more than 2.8 million multidrug-resistant bacterial infections occur annually, causing at least 35,000 deaths and $20 billion in health-care expenditures.”

The World Health Organization has declared that, “AMR is one of the ten top global public health threats facing humanity.” The use of antibiotics in agriculture is contributing to the potential for such pandemics. Among The Lancet article’s recommendations is this: that the U.S. ban the use of medically important antibiotics in agribusiness.

In its recent special issue of Pesticides and You, Beyond Pesticides made a compelling case for the urgent need to mount a cross-federal-agency strategy for addressing the antibiotic resistance/AMR crisis before it escalates to a full-blown pandemic of one bacterial disease or another. The article notes that the Obama administration released, in 2015, a comprehensive action plan for reducing antibiotic misuse and ramping up progress on new antimicrobials and vaccines. This was called the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (NAPCARB); its enactment was less than optimal.

What then ensued during the Trump administration is described: “In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock, but [in] the same year . . . USDA rejected WHO’s guidance to limit antibiotic use in livestock feed. There have been unprecedented nationwide budget cuts to hospital-based AMR programs. In 2019, [EPA] approved expansion of medically important antibiotics such as streptomycin and oxytetracycline as pesticides to increase crop yields, and USDA removed federal oversight of meat inspection at pork processing plants.” Taken together, these actions likely advanced the AMR crisis.

Allison Johnson, Sustainable Food Policy Advocate with NRDC, one of the plaintiffs in the subject lawsuit against EPA, sums up the central argument and the spirit of the case: “Allowing life-saving antibiotics to be used as pesticides is an unnecessary and dangerous practice that fuels a growing public health epidemic: antibiotic resistance. The EPA should be championing agricultural practices that protect farm workers and their communities, public health, and the environment — like building healthy soil and diversified farming — not increasing the use of dangerous pesticides.” Beyond Pesticides perennially notes the urgent need for the transition to organic, regenerative agricultural systems. These practices would not only obviate farming’s contribution to the AMR crisis, but also, build healthy soils, support biodiversity, and eliminate toxic inputs and their downstream environmental and health sequelae.

Now, with a new administration in place, Beyond Pesticides reminds federal agencies and the public that continued failure to deal with AMR would “undermine decades of advances in medicine and public health.” COVID-19 ought to be a loud alarm bell for the need to pick up and move forward on NAPCARB through a coordinated and collaborative effort of the agencies whose work is intimately related: EPA, USDA, and FDA. The Biden administration must tackle this, and other, public health and environmental threats with robust systemic change.

Source: https://www.nrdc.org/media/2021/210325

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2021) A legacy of toxic pesticide use in agriculture is showing up as residues on organic farms, emphasizing the threat of a history of weak regulatory standards that has left farmland poisoned and the urgent need to transition to organic. A study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, documents the findings of pesticide residues on organic farmland and shows a decrease in residues after transition, with lingering effects for decades.  Some banned pesticides like organochlorines (e.g., DDT and chlordecone) are stable as research demonstrates these chemicals can bind to and linger in the dirt for years to decades. However, other current-use pesticides also pose a soil contamination risk due to drift, runoff, and leaching. 

Widespread, increasing pesticide use in genetically engineered crops has implications for contamination of natural resources, including soils. Since pesticide residues can kill off beneficial soil life, impacting soil health and function, agricultural production may decline. Past studies examining pesticide residues rarely investigate residue’s presence in the soil where the chemical has never been used, like organic systems. Therefore, studies like these highlight the need to examine the effect potential pesticide contamination has on soil health, especially in organic where reliance on biological soil processes is integral to the natural cycling of nutrients for crops. The researchers note, “…[T]he ubiquitous contamination of agricultural soils with a variety of pesticides can have long-term negative effects on soil life. We demonstrate that organically managed sites experience a legacy effect of past conventional management. Moreover, our data indicate that the persistence of both banned and currently used pesticides is underestimated. Even though low concentrations were detected in soils of organically managed fields, the potential effect of this long-term contamination is especially critical, as fields under organic management rely much more on biological soil processes and beneficial soil life such as [arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi] AMF.”

Conventional pesticide use in agriculture and landscaping contaminates soil and their respective compartments. Using synthetic chemicals and fertilizers to sustain crop output and productivity has a detrimental effect on ecosystem health. Although organic agriculture strategies avoid synthetic chemical use, some organic farms manage land with a history of past pesticide use. Therefore, this study aims to compare pesticide quantities and their influence on soil health in conventional and organic farming practices, including land transitioned into organic.

Researchers gathered soil samples from 100 fields in 60 conventionally managed with chemical-intensive practices and 40 organically managed agricultural sites throughout Switzerland. Using the Swiss Soil Monitoring Network, researchers selected 46 modern pesticides to analyze (16 herbicides, eight herbicide transformation products, 17 fungicides, seven insecticides). Researchers measured soil physicochemical properties including, organic carbon, texture, pH, and soil nutrients (nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus) using the Swiss Federal Agricultural Research Station.

The study finds pesticide residues are present in soils on both conventional and organic agricultural sites. Traditional, chemical-intensive sites have twice as many pesticide residues, and pesticide concentrations are nine times as high as organic sites. Although the amount of synthetic chemical residues decreases significantly with the duration of organic management practices, residues remain in organic soils for decades after the last application. In fields with high levels of pesticides, researchers witness a reduction in microbial abundance and beneficial microorganism concentrations that can have implications for soil health.

Pesticides are pervasive in the environment, affecting all ecosystems, including air, water, soil. Just as clean air and water, healthy soils are integral to ecosystem function, interacting between Earth’s four main spheres (i.e., hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere) to support life. However, soil biology can change due to the presence of synthetic chemical pollutants like pesticides. Studies find some current-use pesticides can induce changes in soil properties that re-release soil-bound chemicals into the ecosystem, contributing to contamination. Past misconceptions assuming stable, banned chemicals like organochlorines, including DDT and chlordecone, would bind to soil and remain immobile are worrisome. A 2020 study finds glyphosate use stimulates soil erosion responsible for soil-based chemical emergence. Continuous pesticide use leaves the dirt bare and more susceptible to decay from lack of organic material, altering the storage compartments of soil sediments from pesticide sinks to sources.

One of the most concerning consequences of soil pesticide contamination is the impact on organisms, including beneficial insects and microbes. Conventional farming technologies promote the use of pesticides that directly and indirectly affect soil organisms.

Many insects are the victims of the global insect apocalypse or population decline. Much research attributes the recent decline to several factors, including pesticide exposure. Broad-spectrum pesticides indiscriminately kill pests and nontarget organisms alike, as their ubiquitous use contaminates soils, even in untreated areas. A University of Bern, Switzerland study finds that long-term exposure to sublethal (low-level) concentrations of the neonicotinoid (neonics) insecticides in soil negatively affects the health and behavioral development of black garden ants (Lasius niger) colonies. Furthermore, other studies find pesticides also adversely affect the health of earthworms that provide essential ecosystem services by aerating the soil, cycling nutrients, and increasing microbial activity.

In addition to insects, soil microbiotas are essential for the proper functionality of the soil ecosystem. Microbiotas are ecological communities of pathogenic microorganisms living and working together. Toxic chemicals damage the soil microbiota by decreasing and altering biomass and microbiome composition (diversity). Pesticide use contaminates soil and results in a bacteria-dominant ecosystem as these chemicals cause “vacant ecological niches, so organisms that were rare 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, reducing the natural cycling of nutrients and resilience. Thus, plants grown in such conditions are more vulnerable to parasites and pathogens. The implications of climate change only exacerbate threats to soil health as studies show a link between global climate change and a high loss of microbial organisms in the soil ecosystem.

The unintentional presence of synthetic chemicals in organic agriculture is an all too ever-present phenomenon plaguing organic farmers and gardeners globally. Pesticide runoff, drift, and leaching from nearby conventional agricultural fields can readily contaminate these organic systems. Although implementing trees and shrubbery around organic farms can act as a buffer for pesticide drift, some organic-approved products (e.g., manure and compost) can contain traces of synthetic chemicals. In 2010, organic farmers and gardeners in Washington state experienced severe crop losses throughout the region. Farmers and gardeners suspected that herbicide-contaminated manure and compost from non-organic farms and dairies were responsible. Soil tests and tissue samples from a local dairy manure mixture sent to organic farms found small amounts of aminopyralid, a potent and persistent herbicide. This revelation raised questions about the adequacy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide registration process. Moreover, contamination from pesticide runoff and leaching can be more difficult to contain as there are various factors to consider, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture: “intrinsic potential of soils to leach or runoff pesticides, the chemical properties of the pesticides, annual rainfall and its relationship to leaching and runoff, and changes in cropping patterns.”

This study reveals that pesticide residues are present in all agricultural fields regardless of management practices. Previous pesticide use accounts for contamination on some organically managed sites. However, study researchers infer other contamination sources can come from pesticides traveling through the air, water, or soil from nearby conventional fields. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that microorganism biomass and concentrations decrease with increasing soil pesticide residues, especially the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), a widespread group of beneficial plant symbionts. Therefore, pesticides, in addition to abiotic factors such as pH, negatively impact overall soil health. Researchers suggest future studies examine the synergistic effects pesticide residues and other environmental pollutant sources have on soil health.

Study researchers conclude, “Our work indicates that future studies should not only focus on single pesticides but also consider a wide range of pesticide combinations (e.g., cocktails) and further investigate to what extent these pesticide residues affect soil organisms and consequently soil processes and functions. Additionally, studies should also investigate interactions of pesticide residues with other global change factors such as drought, antibiotics, or microplastic since these abiotic and anthropogenic stressors can synergistically or antagonistically affect soil microbiota and reduce soil functioning.”

Healthy soils are essential in maintaining normal ecosystem function and interaction, even outside of the soil environment. Chronic, low-level exposure to pesticide residue in soil habitats weakens soil health and productivity and has implications for soil-dwelling organisms. Organic production standards must be strengthened in addressing problems associated with soil contaminants in order to protect soil health and productivity. By protecting soil health from contamination, you keep agriculture safe for food commodities and safeguarding human, animal, and environmental health. The National Organic Standards Board must bring greater attention to the damage that contaminants associated with widespread pesticide use adversely affect the overall soil health for future generations as well as off-target movement of chemicals that degrade soil on an ongoing basis. This necessarily goes beyond the current focus on residues in the finished food commodities.

Solutions like buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management eliminates the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. Furthermore, regenerative organic agriculture nurtures soil health through organic carbon sequestration while preventing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. Moreover, supporting the use of alternative practices such as polyculture rather than monoculture, mulching around the base of the plant, animal integration, and other organic practices can assist in eliminating the need for pesticides and the likelihood of pesticide drift. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic products reduces pesticide exposure.

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

For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Sources: Environmental Science & Technology, EurekAlert! Science News

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2021) Pesticide breakdown products are just as ubiquitous as their parent compounds in urban streams throughout the United States, according to research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and published in Environmental Science and Technology. The first of its kind findings place an important spotlight on the long-term impacts of pesticide use on health and the environment. As new analytical methods provide evidence of dangers that were until now unable to be recorded, the data point to the need for a wholescale rethinking of the way pesticide products are approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and community-based measures to protect local waterways.  

USGS researchers subdivided the U.S. into five regions (Pacific NW, Coastal California, Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast) and took 76 to 100 water samples in small streams for each region over the course of five years. Samples were tested for 108 pesticide active ingredients, and 116 transformation products (also known as breakdown products or metabolites) that arise as active ingredients degrade after a pesticide application.  

Of the active ingredients sampled, at least one pesticide was detected in 418 of 442 total stream samples conducted, representing a 95% detection rate. Breakdown products were just as widespread, with 396 out of 442 – 90% of streams sites showing detects. According to the study, 102 breakdown products were detected at least once, and nearly 30 were detected in over 20% of samples.

Researchers specifically point out the danger of detecting transformation products in small, headwater streams throughout the country. “The presence of pesticides and TPs [transformation products] in headwater streams is of particular interest because such streams comprise the majority of river network length and have a higher proportion of biodiversity than larger water bodies,” the study reads. Moreover, the scientists found that the primary source of metabolite pollution came from groundwater intrusion into streams, rather than surface runoff, indicating a long-term, chronic, and persistent source of toxicity for life that depends upon freshwater streams.  

Herbicide metabolites were detected more frequently than insecticides and fungicides, but one problematic insecticide metabolite alone, fipronil sulfone (breakdown of the active ingredient fipronil), has the potential to significantly increase the toxicity of a steam to aquatic organisms. With fipronil sulfone detected in 20% of sampled streams – more frequently than its parent compound—there are significant implications for the health of U.S. waterways.

There is little data available on the toxicity of most of the breakdown products tested. While some are less toxic than their full active ingredient, some are also more toxic. Running a scenario where the breakdown products were equally as hazardous as the full active ingredient, researchers found risks nearly double those currently established for aquatic life in streams by EPA. The scientists take pains in their research to note that even their worst-case estimates may be too conservative due to lack of data and other issues. “We have new pesticides that are being introduced to the market every year, and each of those active ingredients has transformation products,” said study coauthor Barbara Mahler, PhD, to Chemical and Engineering News. “It’s a challenge to keep up.”

In addition to new pesticides, current use active ingredients and their breakdown products, are concerns related to synergy and mixtures. Another recent report from USGS, published in September 2020, likewise found 90% of U.S. rivers and streams to contain at least five or more different pesticides. Metabolites were not considered in the study, but represent another complexity not adequately accounted for by current regulations.

Next time you take a walk by a freshwater stream in your community, consider the range of products- pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cleaners, and the myriad of other household and industrial products that could make their way into that waterway. As Rachael Carson wrote in Silent Spring, “Water must be thought of in terms of the chains of life it supports…” The life in those streams is the basis for many urban ecosystems—where beavers and otters make their home, mosquito-eating dragonflies lay their eggs, and birds often find an easy meal. Consider that you also rely on that stream—possibly for your own drinking water, as many streams ultimately run into reservoirs, but also as a source of peaceful reprieve.

The concept of a Silent Spring is not one that exists outside our reality—it is an ever-present threat, and one that we continue to move towards with current practices. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Forgoing toxic pesticide use for cosmetic purposes on lawns and landscapes is one of the easiest ways to stop polluting local waterways. You can make change by eliminating pesticides on your own property, and working towards the passage of organic land care policies in your community. To get started, see Beyond Pesticides Tools for Change webpage, and reach out to [email protected] for additional assistance. By acting collectively, we can create a world where we don’t need to worry about the safety of the waterways we rely on.

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

Source: Chemical and Engineering News, Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2021) Florida manatees are experiencing chronic glyphosate exposure that is likely to impact their immune system and make them more susceptible to other environmental stressors such as red tide and cold stress, according to a study published recently in Environment International by a Florida-based team of researchers, led by University of Florida PhD candidate Maite De Maria. Florida manatees, a subpopulation of the West Indian manatee, are listed as threatened under the endangered species act, as populations are under constant threat from human activity in the freshwater ecosystems they rely on. The findings are a call for Florida regulators and lawmakers, particularly communities along the coast, to implement changes in land care practices that eliminate reliance on toxic pesticides like glyphosate.

Researchers collect plasma samples from Florida manatees over the course of a decade, from 2009 to 2019, looking at populations from both sides of the state’s coast. In addition, eight water bodies in Florida were sampled for the presence of glyphosate three times per year in both 2019 and 2020.

Results found glyphosate in the bodies of 55.8% of Florida manatee samples. Most concerning, the amount of pesticide increased in a straight line over the course of the study. One population, however—manatees located closer to the coast of Georgia, did see glyphosate concentrations decline between 2017 and 2019. Scientists found no correlation between the size or sex of the manatee and its glyphosate body burden. The results are unsurprising, given that every test conducted on the water bodies that manatees reside in detected glyphosate contamination. 

Authors of the study indicate that it is appropriate to consider glyphosate a “pseudo-persistent” pollutant, “in which new applications of the herbicide replace the molecules that are being removed,” the study reads. Researchers likewise note that manatees have a number of disadvantages that could increase their exposure. They are alone among marine mammals in that they rely on and drink freshwater, which is more likely to be contaminated. They are also herbivorous, and digest grasses through a process known as hindgut fermentation, whereby microbes help breakdown food in their stomach. This corresponds with a slower digestive process that could result in glyphosate breakdown within the manatee’s stomach, according to researchers.

While manatees may be at particular risk, the ongoing, chronic use of pesticides like glyphosate pose significant threats to all marine mammals. A study published in 2018 found that the genetics of ocean mammals make them more vulnerable to deleterious effects from pesticide exposure. A 2020 study found that dolphins and whales found stranded along the eastern seaboard of the United States are regularly contaminated not only with toxic pesticides, but also plastics, disinfectants, and heavy metals.

The study findings underscore the need to limit the use of glyphosate in farming and landscaping throughout Florida. While sugarcane fields provided an influx of glyphosate loading, it is evident that non-crop uses are also a significant factor in water contamination. In fact, the decline in manatee contamination that researchers observed near the Georgia state line in 2017 likely corresponded with measures put in place by state agencies that placed a hiatus on glyphosate use during the red tide crisis. The study notes that St. Johns River was sprayed with nearly 500 lbs. of glyphosate in 2017, but a mere 11 lbs. in 2018, and in 2019 did not have any applied.

More and more Florida communities are passing restrictions on glyphosate and other toxic pesticides. Key West, Stuart, and Miami have eliminated glyphosate by public agencies. Sarasota and North Miami follow integrated pest management approaches, while South Miami has passed Florida’s first and only organic ordinance, eliminating all toxic pesticide use on public properties. Communities like Oakland Park and Wilton Manors may be close behind, as they pilot organic land care sites. It is possible to manage problematic weeds without resorting to the use of chemicals that harm iconic, endangered species like the Florida Manatee. While the science and alternative practices are available, it will take continued political pressure to move state agencies and elected leaders toward safer approaches. Residents in Florida and throughout the U.S. are encouraged to work with local officials in adopting organic land care policies and practices. For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to wildlife and what you can do to help, see Beyond Pesticides Wildlife program page. 

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

Source: Environment International, Fort Meyers News-Press 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2021) New data on the hazards of neonicotinoid insecticides calls for urgent regulatory action. The same pesticides that are linked to the worldwide decline of insect pollinators also present significant risks to their avian counterparts, hummingbirds. Widely known for their nectar-fueled hovering flight powered by wings beating up to 80 times per second, hummingbirds display unique reactions to toxic pesticides. Research by scientists at the University of Toronto finds that hummingbirds exposed to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides for even a short period of time can disrupt the high-powered metabolism of this important and charismatic animal.

Tell EPA and Congress to save the hummingbirds by suspending use of neonicotinoid insecticides and supporting the transition to organic practices.

While hovering, a hummingbird consumes calories faster than any other bird or mammal. That’s why the finding that exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid slows metabolism up to 25% is so disturbing. Systemic pesticides like imidacloprid and other neonics are transported throughout the plant, including nectar.

Findings on the danger neonicotinoids pose to hummingbirds decades after the chemicals were first permitted to be used in the environment, and by independent scientists, not regulatory agencies, is indicative of a regulatory approach that fails to embrace precaution from the outset. Overwhelming data has already been established on the threat neonicotinoids pose to the health of ecosystems worldwide. The list of animals found to be adversely affected by neonicotinoids is extensive, ranging from humans and other mammals, to insect pollinators, songbirds, amphibians, and other aquatic species.

Of the 338 species of hummingbirds—all found in the Western hemisphere—34 are already endangered. We need to remove this threat to these amazing little birds by replacing chemical-intensive agriculture and horticulture with organic practices.

To help hummingbirds:

• Tell the Biden administration and Congress to halt all new pesticide registrations until science is restored to its rightful place in EPA decision-making.
• Plant an organic garden with nectar-producing flowers.

Tell EPA and Congress to save the hummingbirds.

Letter to Michael Regan, Administrator, EPA

New data on the hazards of neonicotinoid insecticides calls for urgent regulatory action. The same pesticides that are linked to the worldwide decline of insect pollinators also present significant risks to their avian counterparts, hummingbirds. Widely known for their nectar-fueled hovering flight powered by wings beating up to 80 times per second, hummingbirds display unique reactions to toxic pesticides. Research by scientists at the University of Toronto finds that hummingbirds exposed to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides for even a short period of time can disrupt the high-powered metabolism of this important and charismatic animal.

While hovering, a hummingbird consumes calories faster than any other bird or mammal. That’s why the finding that exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid slows metabolism up to 25% is so disturbing. Systemic pesticides like imidacloprid and other neonics are transported throughout the plant, including nectar.

The failure of EPA to act on Independent scientific findings on the danger that neonicotinoids pose to hummingbirds is indicative of clearly inadequate protection of ecosystems critical to our future. Overwhelming data has already been established on the threat neonicotinoids pose to the health of ecosystems worldwide. The list of animals found to be adversely affected by neonicotinoids is extensive, ranging from humans and other mammals, to insect pollinators, songbirds, amphibians, and other aquatic species.

Of the 338 species of hummingbirds—all found in the Western hemisphere—34 are already endangered. We need to remove this threat to these amazing little birds by supporting and incentivizing the transition from chemical-intensive agriculture and horticulture to organic practices.

Please address these threats to hummingbirds by suspending neonicotinoid insecticides. Eliminate pesticides that endanger pollinators and their habitat.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Congress

New data on neonicotinoid insecticides calls for urgent regulatory action. The same pesticides that are linked to the worldwide decline of insect pollinators also present significant risks to their avian counterparts, hummingbirds. Widely known for their nectar-fueled hovering flight powered by wings beating up to 80 times per second, hummingbirds display unique reactions to toxic pesticides. Research by scientists at the University of Toronto finds that hummingbirds exposed to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides for even a short period of time can disrupt the high-powered metabolism of this important and charismatic animal.

While hovering, a hummingbird consumes calories faster than any other bird or mammal. That’s why the finding that exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid slows metabolism up to 25% is so disturbing. Systemic pesticides like imidacloprid and other neonics are transported throughout the plant, including nectar.

The failure of EPA to act on Independent scientific findings on the danger that neonicotinoids pose to hummingbirds is indicative of clearly inadequate protection of ecosystems critical to our future. Overwhelming data has already been established on the threat neonicotinoids pose to the health of ecosystems worldwide. The list of animals found to be adversely affected by neonicotinoids is extensive, ranging from humans and other mammals, to insect pollinators, songbirds, amphibians, and other aquatic species.

Of the 338 species of hummingbirds—all found in the Western hemisphere—34 are already endangered. We need to remove this threat to these amazing little birds by supporting and incentivizing the transition from chemical-intensive agriculture and horticulture to organic practices.

Please ask EPA to address these threats to hummingbirds by suspending neonicotinoid insecticides. Eliminate pesticides that endanger pollinators and their habitat.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2021) Certified organic, soil-based growers were dealt a blow on March 22 when a U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that soil-less hydroponic growing operations can continue to be eligible for USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) organic certification within the National Organic Program (NOP). According to the Center for Food Safety, the judge ruled that USDA’s exemption of hydroponics from the “soil fertility requirement mandatory for all soil-based crop producers was permissible because the Organic Foods Production Act did not specifically prohibit hydroponic operations.” The litigation was brought by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and eight organic producers, and asked that the court to prevent USDA from allowing hydroponically grown crops to be sold under the USDA certified organic label. Beyond Pesticides has advocated against allowing soil-less crop production to be certified as organic under the NOP because doing so “undermines the authenticity of organic farming, and creates unequal competition, market instability, and consumer distrust in organic certification.”

The coalition of plaintiffs in the suit included some long-standing U.S. organic farms, such as Swanton Berry Farm, Full Belly Farm, Durst Organic Growers, Terra Firma Farm, Jacobs Farm del Cabo, and Long Wind Farm, in addition to organic stakeholder organizations, such as organic certifier OneCert and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.

Basic definitions are in order: USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal program that develops and enforces standards for organically produced agricultural products. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a committee appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, is tasked with helping develop standards for what can and cannot be used in organic production, and to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The National Organic Standards (NOS) are those developed by NOSB to regulate certified organic production practices. OFPA is the statute that authorizes both the NOP and NOSB. Also: hydroponic “farming” systems grow plants in water-based nutrients rather than in soil. Aquaponic systems combine hydroponics and aquaculture (fish/shellfish farming) in a symbiotic system in which plants are fed, in part, the aquatic animals’ waste.

The District Court’s ruling by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg means that USDA can continue its permitting of organic certification of hydroponically produced crops. The question of hydroponic and aquaponic eligibility for organic certification has been very controversial, and centers on the very definition of organic production, which recognizes the foundational role of regenerative practices that improve soil health and promote ecological balance. Advocates for soil-based organic agriculture decry soil-less farming as violative of not only the dictates of the National Organic Standards, but also, the long-acknowledged principles of the organic movement.

The CFS suit arose from the organization’s 2019 petition to USDA to prohibit organic certification for hydroponic enterprises that neither use nor build soil. USDA denied the petition, after which CFS filed suit to challenge USDA’s ongoing greenlighting of organic certification for hydroponic operations. The suit maintained that such operations violate the soil-based standards of organic certification set out in Part 205, Subpart C of the NOP — Organic Production and Handling Requirements — which include these:

1. The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion.
2. The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through rotations, cover crops, and the application of plant and animal materials.
3. The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances. 

In addition, OFPA is clear that required [organic] systems plans are focused on the soil; 7 USC 6513, Organic Plan states: “An organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.”

NOSB has for many years discussed “the overriding question of whether soil-less systems are compatible with organic production,” and has trod back and forth on the matter. For example, in 1995 it made a recommendation that said, “Hydroponic production in soil-less media to be labeled organically produced shall be allowed if all provisions of the OFPA have been met.” But in 2001, in proposing regulations for greenhouse production, the board rejected hydroponic production as not meeting all the basic organic production principles. Again in 2010, its recommended greenhouse standards concluded that hydroponic and aeroponic systems ought to be prohibited from organic certification.

Forward to 2017, when the board voted against banning hydroponic and aquaponic crops from eligibility for organic certification. (At the same time, NOSB did proscribe the eligibility of aeroponically grown crops — those grown by suspending plants in the air, with roots exposed, and supplying nutrients through misting of those roots.) Advocates for soil-based organic approaches have repeatedly voiced their opposition to organic certification for hydroponics.

Amidst the clamor, during the Trump administration, USDA issued in 2018 a bulletin that said that “hydroponic, aquaponic, and aeroponic operations have always been eligible for organic certification.” CFS noted in early 2020: “Since coming into office, the Trump administration has made its intent to gut organic standards clear. Allowing hydroponics to be certified organic is another attempt to weaken the integrity of the Organic label, and has resulted in market confusion and inconsistent organic certifications.” 

CFS also wrote in 2020, “The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the expert body assigned by Congress to advise USDA on organic matters, has repeatedly called on USDA to prohibit organic certification of hydroponics, but USDA has ignored that recommendation.” As a result of USDA’s failure to do so, CFS filed the subject lawsuit. CFS continues, “The lawsuit filed today states that USDA’s rationale for denying the 2019 petition is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to our federal organic law. . . . This is not the first time USDA has bent to the will of ‘corporate Organics’ in diluting organic standards. In 2016, CFS won a groundbreaking lawsuit closing a loophole that was permitting some organic operations to use compost contaminated with pesticides. CFS is currently leading a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s rollback of vital organic rules that set standards for organic livestock care, such as adequate space and outdoor access. The challenged loophole for hydroponic operations would eliminate any need for organic farming to involve working with nature.”

This recent decision will have a variety of impacts on certified organic growers, including putting them at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis hydroponic growers because there are a significant number of requirements related to soil management that soil-based organic production must meet — and from which hydroponic operations are automatically exempted. In addition, costs of growing in large-scale greenhouses (as hydroponic production often does) are lower than costs to operate soil-based farms.

Further, hydroponic operations do not need to undergo the three-year transition period that is required of any soil-based producer who seeks initial organic certification, thus significantly delaying return on investment for soil-based farmers. Last, because there is currently no labeling requirement to distinguish between soil-based and soil-less production, consumers cannot know how the certified organic lettuce they purchase was grown. These realities create a distinctly non-level playing field.

The decision, and the controversy in which it was made, are furthering tension and division in the broad community of producers who produce organically. Mother Earth Gardener writes about a “drift” in understanding of organic agriculture: “Conceptualized in the mid-20th century, the organic movement originally idealized a ‘closed-loop’ farm system, or a property that produced almost everything it needed on site. Based on the notion that a well-managed farm would rely foremost on natural processes, organic farming was fundamentally about maintaining and improving soil health. Today, organic certification has drifted away from this original premise. The requirements for certification focus less on a natural farming philosophy and more on what isn’t allowed — namely, synthetic chemical inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides. This creates a considerable gray area for farming practices that technically follow organic certification requirements but ethically and/or technologically may fall short of their original intent. While hydroponics don’t pollute the soil with toxic chemicals, they also don’t improve it.’

Those who support continued certification of hydroponic production have previously pointed to the “irresponsibility” of banning such producers from organic certification and labeling, claiming that it would confuse consumers, and “put hundreds of growers out of business, take valuable supply away from organic consumers, and squelch innovation in our movement,” according to Melody Meyer, vice president of policy and industry relations for United Natural Foods, a huge distributor of organic products to retailers.

On the other side of the divide, a long-time Vermont organic tomato grower, owner of plaintiff Long Wind Farm, founder of the Real Organic Project, and one of the plaintiffs in the subject suit, Dave Chapman, had plenty to say about the decision: “The Federal court decision rejecting the hydroponic lawsuit was a sad note in the song of our democracy. The Federal government’s ongoing redefinition of organic is an example of corporate influence drowning out citizens’ voices. We all know that soil-less growing cannot be called organic. But the organic movement will continue with or without the USDA, as the National Organic Program moves further and further away from the people it was meant to serve and protect.”

Co-owner of California’s Full Belly Farm, and plaintiff, Paul Muller, opined: “Soil fertility has always been the fundamental building block of any organic farming system. That’s why at Full Belly, we work hard to build soil fertility through active soil management and amendment, diversified crop planting, cover cropping, and other farming practices that promote soil health and biodiversity. But after the court’s ruling, in-the-ground certified organic farms like Full Belly will have to continue to compete in the same marketplace with hydroponic producers who do not need to lift a finger to build soil. While hydroponic systems may have their own benefits, the connection between soil health, human health, and planetary stewardship is missing in these soil-less systems. They simply should not be called ‘Organic.’”

Food Safety News reports the reaction of Sylvia Wu, senior CFS attorney and counsel for the plaintiffs, to the court’s decision: “Under the Court’s ruling, hydroponic producers can sell their crops as organic without building soil fertility, yet organic farmers growing food in soil have to meet various soil-building requirements to be certified organic. This double standard violates the very purpose of the organic label and is contrary to the federal organic act. We are analyzing all our legal options and will continue to work hard to defend the meaning of the organic label.”

Beyond Pesticides stands with those who advocate that certified organic crops ought to have been grown in soil, and that producers who earn USDA certification need to comport in their practices with all the requirements of the NOS. Beyond Pesticides has written, “When there is increasing awareness of the need to advance production systems that regenerate the earth, sequester carbon, and protect and enhance biodiversity, allowing hydroponics — which meets none of these critical needs — to be marketed as organic, and without full disclosure, undermines the basic principles, values, and legal standards that govern the commercial use of the word ‘organic.’”

Organic agriculture that embraces the principles developed by pioneers in the organics movement, and codified by the organic statute and regulations based on its authority, is a long-term solution to myriad problems. The climate emergency, human and ecosystem health, biodiversity, impacts of toxic pesticide use, and food system vitality and capacity are all improved by the adoption of systems that focus on proactive regeneration and stewardship of our soils. Soil health is the foundation for many solutions to these crises. Certified organic status and labeling should be granted only to enterprises that meet NOS requirements, and thereby contribute to that health.

Sources: https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/03/court-ruling-clears-way-for-hydroponics-to-join-national-organic-program/ and https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6314/court-rules-usda-authorized-to-certify-soil-less-hydroponic-operations-as-organic

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2021) A new University of California San Francisco (UCSF) study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, finds over 100 chemicals present in U.S. pregnant women’s blood and umbilical cord samples. This discovery ignites concerns over prenatal exposure to chemicals from consumer and industrial products and sources. Furthermore, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are unknown sources and uses, lacking adequate information, or are not previously detectable in humans. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) finds U.S. pregnant women experience frequent exposure to environmental pollutants that pose serious health risks to both mother and newborn. Many known environmental pollutants (i.e., heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyl, and pesticides) are chemicals that can move from the mother to the developing fetus at higher exposure rates. Hence, prenatal exposure to these chemicals may increase the prevalence of birth-related health consequences like natal abnormalities and learning/developmental disabilities. 

Current chemical biomonitoring methods only analyze a targeted few hundred chemicals—a small portion of the over 8000 chemicals the U.S. manufactures and imports. However, this study employs new technology that identifies a more comprehensive range of industrial chemicals. Therefore, research like this is essential for future technological development that can identify likely omnipresent chemical exposures for future health risks. UCSF scientists note, “Our study is an important methodological approach for future studies that will aim at characterizing the presence and toxicity of newly detected chemical compounds in the human body and assess the fate of these compounds in various human tissues, particularly between the mother and the fetus. Understanding these exposures and how they may contribute to adverse health outcomes is crucial in characterizing the human exposome and eventually preventing the development of disease.”

This research represents a new proof-of-concept study that develops a suspect screening technique to characterize chemicals. The method combines non-target data from high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) with target data from an industrial chemical database of approximately 3500 high-production volume chemicals. Researchers assessed maternal and umbilical cord blood samples for differences in chemical presence and enrichment. Lastly, chemical identification compared the structure of chemicals found in blood samples to those within the industrial chemical database.

The study detects 109 chemicals within blood samples of mothers and newborns, including pesticides, plasticizers, compounds in cosmetics and consumer products, pharmaceuticals, flame retardants, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds. Of the 109 chemicals, 55 lack preceding reports on their presence in humans, and 42 chemical compounds have little to no information regarding chemical classification, use, and source of contamination.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Therefore, pesticide exposure during pregnancy has implications for both mother and child’s health. Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxins increases susceptibility to disease. A 2020 study finds the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which prenatal exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates that increase the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities. Some of these birth abnormalities include acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even regular household pesticide use during pregnancy can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children.

Pesticide exposure not only poses a risk to mothers and their offspring but also to future generations. Studies find that although glyphosate (herbicide) exposure has a negligible impact on pregnant rats’ health, incidents of prostate, ovarian, and kidney cancer increase in the two subsequent generations. However, chemical exposure encompasses more than just current-use, toxic pesticides, like glyphosate. Many long-banned pesticides their metabolites still impart adverse effects on human health, indirectly. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID). Many organochlorine compounds have long been banned in the U.S., underscoring how pervasive and persistent these chemicals are and their continued impact on human health. Not only are these compounds readily present in soil and water samples, but also arctic ice. Therefore, the accompanying glacial melt from the climate crisis will only increase chemical bioavailability in the environment. The increasing ubiquity of pesticides is concerning as current measures safeguarding against pesticide use do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants.

This UCSF study highlights the first successful evaluation of human blood samples using a comprehensive database, screening for industrial chemicals rather than chemicals commonly identified in human samples. Furthermore, the transfer of chemicals from mother to newborn may disrupt epigenetic mechanisms responsible for normal cell function and development. The effects of epigenetic dysfunction can impact individuals for multiple generations. Although the study detects the presents of new chemicals in the body, researchers mention these chemicals may have already been present. Researchers suggest differences in requirements for disclosing chemical uses can explain the detection of chemicals with unknown applications and sources. Furthermore, previous chemical screening research demonstrates only 30.5 percent of chemicals in consumer/industrial products appear on lists of classifiable chemical uses. Co-lead author Dimitri Panagopoulos Abrahamsson, Ph.D., states, “These new technologies are promising in enabling us to identify more chemicals in people, but our study findings also make clear that chemical manufacturers need to provide analytical standards so that we can confirm the presence of chemicals and evaluate their toxicity.”

The study results indicate these newly detectable chemicals lack adequate chemical classification and assessment from environmental health scientists and regulators. Therefore, global leaders need to investigate potential technologies which can help identify unknown or previously undetectable chemical contaminants to safeguard human health from exposure effects. Study co-author, UCSF professor Tracey J. Woodruff, Ph.D., concludes, “It’s very concerning that we are unable to identify the uses or sources of so many of these chemicals.[…]EPA must do a better job of requiring the chemical industry to standardize its reporting of chemical compounds and uses. And they need to use their authority to ensure that we have adequate information to evaluate potential health harms and remove chemicals from the market that pose a risk.” 

There a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical development periods. Therefore, policies should enforce stricter 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 pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Birth/Fetal Effects, Learning/Developmental Disorders, Endocrine Disruption, Cancer, Body Burdens, and other diseases. To learn more about how the lack of adequate pesticide regulations can adversely affect human and environmental health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is buying, growing, and supporting organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticide metabolites in urine drop greatly when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families and agro-industry workers alike can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Environmental Science & Technology, SciTechDaily – UCSF

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2021) The worst predictions of scientists and advocates are playing out in the fields of eastern Kenya, as chemical-intensive farming there threatens the future of food production. According to Radio France Internationale (RFI), Kenyan farmers have resorted to pollinating their crops by hand after pesticide use killed off most of the pollinators they rely on. “We are mostly affected by pesticides because they have killed most pollinators which pollinate our crops—this has affected our food production compared to previous years,” said Joseph Mbithi, a farmer in Mbakoni village, Makueni County, Kenya to RFI.

Crop yields in the region have tapered off over the last two years, and farmers like Mr. Mbithi are pointing to pesticide use as the cause, citing past reliance on the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) and the organophosphate insecticide malathion. “Pollinators such as bees and butterflies are not around due to chemicals which we spray in our farms,” he told RFI.  

As a result, farmers are using toothbrushes and sponges as a substitute for the buzzing work of local pollinators. And it’s more complicated than one may think. ‘’The flowers are different in shape and are different in sizes. The male one is bigger than the female. When I am doing hand pollination, I normally pick pollen from the male first and then I apply to the female,” said Mr. Mbithi to RFI. “If there is no pollination most of them normally dry up,” he added.

Better late than never, farmers are now doing what they can to sustain the remaining pollinator populations. Samuel Nderitu, a farmer in Kiambu County, Kenya, told RFI that, with the help of trainees, he is able to pollinate roughly one hundred crops a day using brushes. But he is also planting flowers, and creating new pollinator habitat. ‘’We encourage crop diversity by growing different types of crops that will create a habitat for the pests and insects that will do pollination work,” said Mr. Nderitu, who told RFI it is vital to avoid using chemicals. “We feed the insects. You can also feed the birds and you know birds also do good work in pollination.”

This is sadly not the first place in the world to experience the local extirpation of pollinator populations. In the 2010s, many across the globe were shocked to see images of Chinese farmers in trees with jars of pollen and long brushes hand pollinating apple and pear blossoms. The cause was the same: as with the farmers in east Kenya, rampant pesticide use killed off native pollinators, leaving humans to perform the work. At first, labor costs were cheaper than importing pollinators, but over the years fruit yields have continued to decline while the price of labor increases—indicating that the practice is likely to be merely temporary fix, at best.  

The answer to this issue is not a better pesticide the agrichemical industry claims is “safer”—or a new robot-bee technology, but an embrace of the natural world and the systems and processes that foster ecological health and stability. When agriculture works with nature, hazardous short-term solutions are rejected in favor of long term sustainability. Instead of employing toxic pesticides, a focus is placed on cultivating healthy soil to increase plant resiliency to pest and weed pressure. Diverse native species are planted in hedgerows and other non-crop areas help attract beneficial species that provide significant pest management.

If eastern Kenya provides a glimpse into the worst timeline, the natural beauty and grandeur of diverse organic farms provides a look into our best hope for a better future. Embrace organic at every level—in your backyard, the food you purchase, and in the advocacy you take to your elected officials. But even organic is threatened by the same unsustainable short-term thinking—necessitating constant vigilance. In order to keep organic as the better future we strive for, the standards themselves must be continuously improved upon. Help Beyond Pesticides stand up for organic integrity by providing public comment to the National Organic Standards Board by April 5.  And for more information on how to protect pollinators where you live, see Beyond Pesticides Bee Protective webpage.

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

Source: Radio France Internationale

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2021) Earlier this month, the Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB) voted to loosen regulations curtailing use of the highly drift-prone herbicide dicamba. With an 8-7 vote, ASPB eliminated measures advanced in 2016 that protect growers from dicamba drifting off of genetically engineered (GE) soybean fields. Farmer, health, and environmental advocates are encouraging groups and individuals to submit testimony in opposition to the changes should the state’s Governor continue the proposal to a 30-day comment period.

Dicamba has been the subject of intense debate and scrutiny over the last several years—most prominently in Southern and Midwestern states where extensive cotton and soybean monocultures are grown. Due to rampant weed resistance to glyphosate herbicides in GE crop fields, Bayer/Monsanto developed new seeds capable of growing into plants that can withstand repeated sprayings of both glyphosate and dicamba. The company released these new seeds in the mid-2010s without waiting for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve a corresponding herbicide formulation Bayer/Monsanto claimed would reduce drift problems. Farmers began using older, unapproved dicamba formulations, but ultimately even after receiving approval, new formulations proved too drift-prone and problematic to be used without incident.

In response, ASPB instituted changes that cut off dicamba spraying early in the season, required a one-mile buffer between dicamba-applied fields and specialty and organic crops, and a half-mile buffer for use around non-GE soybean and cotton. The vote to impose these restrictions came after 29,000 individuals, including Beyond Pesticides members and supporters, provided input in support.

Dicamba use has eroded friendly bonds in farming communities, with farmers suing farmers, and neighbors experiencing threats and intimidation, or worse. A court ruling last year invalidated EPA’s registration of dicamba products used in GE cropping systems, but under Administrator Wheeler, the agency acted quickly to renew GE dicamba registrations. The reintroduced products included insufficient label changes that included requiring a buffering agent, increasing the buffer zone, restricting use after July 30, and committing to “simplify the label.” Every one of those changes fall short. The buffering agent has very questionable efficacy in terms of reducing drift, the increased buffer zone is still insufficient, July 30 is roughly the end of the growing season (and thus the need to spray), and simplifying the label is neigh impossible given the intrinsic drift hazard the herbicide presents.

However, after the 8-7 vote, these are the only protections that farmers in Arkansas will have. According to local reports, a crop consultant named Tyler Hyrick petitioned the ASPB to institute these changes, citing EPA’s new label and claiming that farmers needed to overcome a “learning curve” to use the product. Mr. Hydricks told ASPB that he believed dicamba has been unfairly targeted.  

Some ASPB members pushed back on these assertions, noting the danger of allowing dicamba use during hot summer months. A 2019 study found that the volatility of dicamba increased as temperatures increased. It was also noted that dicamba has been the subject of concern specifically because of public complaints – 1,000 complaints during the growing season led to the 2017 decision, and reports indicate that they have remained steady at 200 per year.

The close vote earlier this month is only the first step in the administrative process required before a rule change comes into effect. The motion is now moved to Governor Asa Hutchinson’s desk, who can decide to approve or disapprove the matter. If approved, the public will have 30 days to make the case against the reversal and argue for the best interest of the state’s farmers and residents. If the board receives more than 12 comments, a public hearing will be required. And lastly, the state legislature will need to provide the final sign off on any proposal.

Advocates are hoping that the process will provide the time necessary to educate newer members of the ASPB on the problems and history associated with GE dicamba. As it stands, the pesticide industry is attempting to change the composition of ASPB to include individuals with stronger ties to larger agrichemical corporations, at the expense of other, smaller industries.

Meanwhile, the new EPA under President Biden has acknowledged that politics has tainted many of the recent decisions by the agency, and specifically pointed to dicamba as a problematic incident. The acting administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention wrote in a staff-wide email earlier this month, “In 2018, OCSPP senior leadership directed career staff to: (1) rely on a limited data set of plant effects endpoints; (2) discount specific studies (some with more robust data) used in assessing potential risks and benefits; and (3) discount scientific information on negative impacts. This interference contributed to a court’s vacating registrations based on these and other deficiencies, which in turn impacted growers’ ability to use this product.”

With EPA indicating that it will follow the science on dicamba, it is critical that states committed to safeguarding their farming industry not backtrack on critical protections. Stay tuned to Beyond Pesticides Daily News blog and Action of the Week for ways you can engage when/if the ASPB public comment period opens. And for more information on the dangers of GE cropping systems, see Beyond Pesticides Genetic Engineering webpage.

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

Source: Arkansas Democrat Gazette

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2021) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through April 5. This precedes the upcoming public hearing on April 20 and 22—concerning how organic food is produced. Also, by April 5, sign up to speak (3 minutes) at the virtual NOSB hearing. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov.

As always, there are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Spring 2021 issues page.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is considering a petition to allow the antibiotic kasugamycin to be used in organic apple and pear production. Earlier NOSB members struggled long and hard to erase the stigma of antibiotic use in organic fruit production—something that was left over from the transition of so many chemical-intensive fruit orchards after the Alar “scare” in which apple and apple products were contaminated with the cancer-causing plant growth regulator daminozide. Do we now want to step on that treadmill again? The reasons for rejecting the kasugamycin petition are the same as the reasons for eliminating the antibiotics streptomycin and tetracycline in crop production.

Now that we have learned what a pandemic looks and feels like, with the astounding levels of infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, we must take serious steps to prevent another pandemic on the horizon—this one tied to bacterial resistance to antibiotics. An important article in The Lancet points to a “looming potential pandemic” resulting from a “rise in multidrug-resistant bacterial infections that are undetected, underdiagnosed, and increasingly untreatable, [which] threatens the health of people in the USA and globally.”

When streptomycin and tetracycline were presented for their final votes by the Crops Subcommittee, the committee was unanimous that the antibiotics needed to go—the question was how fast. How fast could growers of these crops get over their dependence on these antibiotics that pose threats to human health and the environment and are unpopular with organic consumers? Streptomycin and tetracycline are gone, and we do not need another antibiotic.

Tell the NOSB to keep organic strong and keep antibiotics out of organic.

As always, the NOSB is considering many issues that affect the integrity of organic products. Other important issues are the use of ion exchange technology in processing organic food and the use of so-called “biodegradable biobased mulch film.”

Biodegradable Biobased Mulch Film (BBMF) was approved by the NOSB for use in organic production in October 2012, and the listing was finalized September 30, 2014 as “Biodegradable biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2. Must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived from excluded methods.” The definition required that BBMF meet specific requirements for compostability, biodegradation, and biobased content. Subsequently, the Organic Material Research Institute (OMRI) found that there are no products meeting all of the requirements set by the board. The NOSB is now considering a proposal to change the definition to allow BBMF that is not 100% biobased. BBMF is not removed from the field by the grower, but is tilled into the soil. The tillage process purposefully creates microplastics, with the intention that the action of soil organisms will degrade these small particles. However, as reported in OMRI’s 2016 Supplemental Technical Review, many growers report that fragments persist in the soil. OMRI reports research showing that the BBMFs do not completely degrade and may degrade more slowly when tilled under the surface, that they contain components that may be hazardous, and particles may adsorb persistent toxins. Microplastics may be incorporated into plant and animal tissues. Organic mulches have always been a central aspect of organic production, and reliance on synthetic mulches for functions that can be performed by organic mulch is not compatible with organic production. The NOSB should not redefine BBMF in a way that encourages microplastic contamination of the soil.

Ion exchange is a reaction in which an element from the treated substance is removed and replaced by a different element. Although the most familiar example of ion exchange is water softening, in which the “hard” minerals calcium and magnesium are replaced with sodium, the technology is widely used in food processing. Food processors run liquids, such as sugar cane juice, through a column of plastic beads charged with a substance that replaces an undesirable substance in the liquid with a different chemical. Ion exchange produces a chemical change in the food, which can subsequently only be regarded as synthetic under organic rules—and, therefore, be limited to less than 5% in food labeled “organic.” Products treated with ion exchange must be treated as synthetic substances. Resins and recharge chemicals must be on the product label.

Submit Comments Now.

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

Thank you for keeping organic strong!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2021) As reported by VTDigger, Vermont’s Endangered Species Committee recently took action to uphold the state’s endangered species law. The committee announced that a mosquito control program in the Champlain Valley, which uses the toxic pesticides malathion and permethrin, is threatening five species of endangered bats — all of which are on Vermont’s list of threatened and endangered species. The committee voted unanimously to recommend to the state Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources that the spraying program in the Brandon, Leicester, Salisbury, Goshen, Pittsford Insect Control District be allowed only via special permit. Learn about safer mosquito management and insect-borne diseases at Beyond Pesticides website pages.

The bats inhabit the Insect Control District’s five towns, which are host to important feeding habitat for these creatures, as well as maternal roosting colonies where baby bats are born and raised during the months when the pesticides are typically sprayed. In addition, the nighttime spraying of these compounds along 190 miles of road in these communities hangs in the air for hours, putting nocturnally active bats — who fly through the toxic mist or consume insects contaminated with the chemicals — at risk.

Mason Overstreet of Vermont Law School’s Environmental Advocacy Clinic asserts that the mosquito spraying violates the state’s Protection of Endangered Species Act, saying: “The Act prohibits activities that create a ‘risk of injury’ to wildlife. It also allows for a permitting process for economically important activities to continue — albeit with modifications to mitigate the risk to endangered species. The legal conclusion is that the district must apply for this ‘incidental take permit’ to continue spraying in order to minimize risk to wildlife.”

The committee benefitted from a report it received from a coalition of environmental organizations, including the Center for Biological Diversity and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). The report from experts concludes that the insect control district’s spraying of these chemical pesticides is extremely likely to result in exposures and injury to these vulnerable bat species. NWF Northeast Regional Center’s Zach Cockrum commented, to VTDigger, “The committee’s vote is not only an important step in upholding Vermont’s endangered species law. These pesticides are used throughout the country, often with the side effect of harming bats and other wildlife we cherish. Vermont could set a national example of strong leadership in wildlife protection.”

Pushback against the report and the committee’s recommendation has come from the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife, whose staff biologists and lawyers maintain that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the pesticides harm the bats. But one town has already taken action to opt itself out of the mosquito spraying this season: Salisbury voted at its recent Town Meeting to defund the BLSG Insect Control District.

The action by Vermont’s Endangered Species Committee is an encouraging example of proactive, state-level initiative to protect threatened floral and faunal species, and critical habitats (within its jurisdiction) beyond the dictates of the 1973 federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), which is carried out through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The FWS is responsible for listing specific threatened and endangered species across the entire nation, and for monitoring protection and species status over time.

To achieve the restoration and preservation goals of the ESA, FWS works with a huge variety of entities: states, private landowners, tribal entities, non-governmental organizations, and other federal agencies. The Endangered Species page of the FWS website asserts: “The ESA provides a broad and flexible framework to facilitate conservation with a variety of stakeholders. We have many tools to help our agency work with, leverage, and expand our existing network of conservation partnerships to produce effective conservation practices and conservation strategies on-the-ground.”

Elsewhere on the FWS site is this: “The Services recognize that, in the exercise of their general governmental powers, States possess broad trustee and police powers over fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within their borders. Unless preempted by Federal authority, States possess primary authority and responsibility for protection and management of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.”

As “on the ground” entities empowered by FWS, states have historically played a critical role as primary stewards of animals, plants, and habitats within their borders. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has noted that the “role of the states in endangered species protection was recognized from the outset, as the ESA authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with states that established ‘adequate and active’ programs of protection.”

State laws to protect species, and the agencies tasked with enacting them, vary from state to state — from simple prohibitions against “takings” of, or trafficking in, endangered species, to comprehensive regulations that involve listing species of concern, and actively managing and protecting such populations and their important habitats. An (outdated) chart from Michigan State University’s Animal Legal and Historical Center shows the variety of state agencies tasked with enforcing state endangered species laws nearly two decades ago. (A search for an analogous and updated version was unsuccessful.)

The role of the state, in many jurisdictions, has traditionally skewed toward protection and regulation of game animals, but increasingly, states are expanding focus to engage in more “non-game” management. Nearly all states have gone beyond specific federal ESA protections to list and protect rare, endangered, native, or other special categories of organisms, as well as habitats crucial to a species’ survival. “Listing” an organism is the first step and primary tool in state protective regulations; states can list species not included in the federal ESA listings, pursuant to the 1970 decision in Nettleton v. Diamond. In that case, a New York State Court of Appeals found that “because scientific uncertainty sometimes exists as to whether an animal should be classified at the federal level as threatened or endangered, states can step in and list species that the federal government decides not to list. Further, the court in Nettleton stated that this state authority applied not only to species indigenous to the state, but to nonindigenous species, as well.”

States have often lacked the legal and programmatic ability to carry out comprehensive protection programs, but advocates endorse such efforts. As CBD points out, “States not only can increase their ability to manage threatened and endangered species as an extra safety net but, more important, can fulfill their trust responsibility for all wildlife species in a way that supplements and complements irreplaceable federal protections.”

The federal government — through its Constitutional authorities — retains primary responsibility for and authority over the protection of national natural resources. Concurrently, states act as the primary “on the ground” enactors of federal protections. In this Vermont instance, the state’s authority is “layered” over the federal — via the authority of FWS to “delegate” functions to states, and via judicial actions permitting states to “enhance” federal pesticide regulations, for example. (See Mortier decision, below.) Ultimately, federal law is “supreme” and can supersede laws of “lower” levels of government.

That supremacy derives from a fundamental feature of the U.S. Constitution — the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2). The Congressional Research Service explains: The “Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is ‘the supreme Law of the Land” notwithstanding any state law to the contrary. This language is the foundation for the doctrine of federal preemption, according to which federal law supersedes conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court has identified two general ways in which federal law can preempt state law. First, federal law can expressly preempt state law when a federal statute or regulation contains explicit preemptive language. Second, federal law can impliedly preempt state law when Congress’s preemptive intent is implicit in the relevant federal law’s structure and purpose.”

The Supremacy Clause is the basis of federal ability to override, or pre-empt, state laws and regulations. The supremacy principle is also enacted at the state level, providing states the ability to quash attempts by counties or municipalities to establish local ordinances that may contravene state law or attempt to “overstep” local authority. In the pesticide universe, localities’ efforts to enact stronger protections against pesticides are frequently struck down by courts that cite pre-emption of state over local laws as the basis for the decision. Many states forbid local pesticide laws by state statute; the Mortier decision (see below) confirmed the authority to do so.

Often, such local regulations are challenged in court by the chemical industry and/or pesticide applicators, or by a state itself (often influenced by industry interests). A recent example from Oregon is illustrative. Read more about pre-emption in Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, State Preemption Law: the Battle for Local Control of Democracy.

Nevertheless, there are bases for “lower” governments to be able to act protectively. The Vermont Endangered Species Committee’s action to protect these bat species is an example of two kinds of recognized authority of states: to protect its resident species, and to enact pesticide regulations that go beyond those of the federal government. Federal pesticide rules are derived, primarily by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court case, Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, established the rights of states and localities to enact laws that are stricter than those established by federal agencies under FIFRA.

Beyond Pesticides is not aware of significant instances of FWS exercising its preemptive authority over states that enact local protections of species and habitat. There is, however, considerable grousing and controversy, particularly in Western states, over impacts of the ESA on ranching, logging, tourism and recreation, and extractive and petrochemical activities, among others. Some consider federal enforcement of the ESA to be overreach and harmful to regional interests, and argue for an enhanced role for states.

Others believe that leaving too much to the states would be detrimental to the goals of the ESA. In 2018, for example, The Conversation wrote, “We concluded that relevant laws in most states are much weaker and less comprehensive than the federal Endangered Species Act. We also found that, in general, states contribute only a small fraction of total resources currently spent to implement the law. In sum, many states currently are poorly equipped to assume the diverse responsibilities that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . handle[s] today. In our view, therefore, devolving federal authority over endangered species management to the states will almost certainly weaken protections for those species and undermine conservation and recovery efforts.”

The Center for Biological Diversity has argued that states are “unready and ill equipped” to meet the task of recovering the nation’s endangered species and habitats. CBD conducted an evaluation of every state’s legal and regulatory authority to protect endangered plants, wildlife, and habitats. It compared state laws to the key criteria that have made the ESA successful, and found that “not a single state has a law in place that is as protective for imperiled wildlife and plants as the federal Endangered Species Act. More troublingly, only three states currently provide a reasonably high level of funding to ensure the conservation and recovery of these species. As a result, transferring management to states would put hundreds of threatened and endangered species at far greater risk of extinction.”

The last federal administration caused untold damage to the environment and its inhabitants. There is hope that the damage of that period will now be undone, and protections for endangered and threatened species and habits restored, but the public must remain vigilant to ensure this. Beyond Pesticides will do its part by covering impacts of pesticides on wildlife and ecosystems, and advocating for the reduction and elimination of the use of toxic pesticide compounds that threaten vulnerable plant and animal species and habitats.

Sources: https://vtdigger.org/press_release/vermont-endangered-species-committee-votes-to-protect-endangered-bats/  and https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/StateEndangeredSpeciesActs.pdf

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