(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2020) A new test developed by a team of Mexican and Canadian scientists will help field researchers detect early warning signs of pesticide exposure in wild bat populations. There are relatively few studies on the effects of pesticide exposure on bat populations, the authors note in a study published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, but there is considerable need to monitor the health of these important species. “Access to resources might be limited for institutions with less financial support such as conservation NGOs and researchers in developing countries,” said co-author Natalia Sandoval-Herrera, PhD. “The use of early warning biomarkers such as genotoxic effects are most needed in these regions, where the use of pesticides is extensive and there is high biodiversity.”

The test in question is referred to as a micronucleus test. Although it does not measure the level of pesticide contaminating a bat’s body, it can assess genotoxicity (the effect of pesticides and other chemical agents that damage genetic information in a cell). This is done by taking blood samples of bats, and testing for the presence of micronuclei formation, which are materials in blood that contain damaged chromosomes not incorporated into a cell after cell division. “This test as a logistically simple, sensitive, and robust method for biomonitoring genotoxic effects in wild bat populations,” Dr. Sandoval-Herrera explains.

The technique was trailed in Mexico, using 35 bats from 3 different colonies in Colima and Jalisco in the western part of the country. Results showed that bats roosting in caves with higher levels of agricultural production (53%) had higher levels of micronucleus detection than those found in a less disturbed site (15%). As a result, the authors conclude that the testing is likely to be an effective, inexpensive approach to biomonitoring bat populations.

Rampant declines in biodiversity underline the need for quick and simple field testing of wild bats, which provide critical ecosystem services for civilization. A study published in April 2020 found that bats provide “important pest suppression services” in managing insects that feed on crops, such as the pink bollworm. “Big” and “little” brown bats, most common species in the US, consume 3,000–7,000 insects per night. In some regions, bats also provide fertilization through guano deposits; notably, there is a thriving commercial fertilizer industry that uses guano as a primary ingredient. A 2011 study in the journal Science found that the value of bats’ pest-control services to agricultural operations in the US ranges from $3.7 billion to $53 billion per year.

What little research that has been conducted on the harm pesticides cause to bats shows significant cause for concern. Agricultural pesticide use results in a large proportion of a bat’s insect diet being contaminated with highly toxic chemicals. Bats are particularly sensitive to pesticides that bioconcentrate in fat (lipophilic pesticides); they develop large stores to use while migrating or hibernating, and high concentrations of toxic pesticides in this fat can result in significant poisoning as the body burns it off.

Adding to the dangers pesticide pose is the threat of the epidemic disease White Nose Syndrome. The cold-loving fungus thrives on hibernating bats. Populations of several North American species, including the little brown bat, the Northern long-eared bat, and the tri-colored bat, have declined by over 90% since the disease was first detected in 2006 from a cave in New York State.

Despite the unique ways in which pesticides harm bats, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not evaluate a pesticide’s effect on bats prior to registration. The widespread use of testing systems like the one discussed in the present study should help show the extent of toxic contamination in bat populations, and build pressure for regulatory action. But all this presumes an EPA that not only tracks and follows the latest science, but acts upon it.

The importance of bat species and their services cannot be understated. Bats are the only nocturnal insect predator in the U.S., and are one of two primary nocturnal pollinators (along with moths) — important roles for night-flowering plants and for farmers. The two species of brown bats (the “big” and the “little”) most common in the U.S. are voracious, consuming 3,000–7,000 insects per night. In some regions, these creatures also provide fertilization through deposits of their guano; notably, there is a thriving commercial fertilizer industry that uses guano as a primary ingredient.

Because bats are unusually long-lived for animals their size — lifespans range from 20 to 40 years — their bodies can accumulate pesticide residues over a long period, exacerbating adverse effects associated with those pesticides that can accumulate in fatty tissue. Also, during migrations or winter hibernation (when their fat stores are metabolized), bats’ consumption of large volumes of pesticide-contaminated insects can mean that these compounds may reach toxic levels in their brains — making them more susceptible to WNS. Bats also tend to have only one offspring each year, making them vulnerable to the population impacts of negative reproductive effects caused by pesticides, because low reproductive rates require high adult survival rates to avoid population declines.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for pollinator species, including bats. There are many ways that the public can support these inky and slightly chimerical creatures, and protect them from pesticides. Learn more at Beyond Pesticides’ pollinator protection page, Hedgerows for Biodiversity fact sheet, and alternatives to spraying page.

We need to blaze a new path for pesticide regulation in the U.S., one that protects pollinators, biodiversity, and the wider environment. Join Beyond Pesticides in urging President-elect Biden to take the EPA in a new direction, shifting away from toxic production systems and toward an approach that embraces the agency’s namesake of environmental protection.  

For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to the web of life, see Beyond Pesticides Biodiversity webpage.

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

Source: Phys.Org (press release), Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

(Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2020) For consumers, the holiday season is full of complicated choices, including the conundrum of how to find the perfect Christmas tree. The most important part of selecting a tree is not its size and shape, but rather finding one that will pose the least risk to the health of your family, pets, and the environment. Thus, the safest holiday choice for you, and yours, is purchasing an organic tree as opposed to one that is artificial or grown using harsh chemical methods. However, the organic tree industry is still fairly novel, therefore following these helpful tips can ensure you purchase a beautiful organic tree and dispose of it in a responsible way to begin the New Year.

Why Buy Organic?

Christmas is one of the most celebrated holidays in the United States, with Christmas trees accompanying the celebration of the holiday season. On average, Americans purchase 25 to 30 million Christmas trees annually, with 2020 showing an almost 30 percent increase in sales. However, organic Christmas trees, which follow the same U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standards as agricultural crops, make up only 1% of all Christmas tree purchases. Fortunately, public awareness regarding the need for more ecologically friendly, organic products is growing, along with the demand for more organic tree production.

Organic trees are a remarkable improvement from conventionally grown and artificial trees, in several ways. Conventionally grown Christmas trees use toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers for years before harvesting. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, eight pesticides make up 85 percent of all uses on Christmas trees: chlorothalonil, atrazine, simazine, glyphosate, hexazinone, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, and dimethoate. These chemicals have numerous adverse health effects, including cancer, hormonal (endocrine) disruption, neurotoxicity, organ damage, reproductive/birth defects, asthma, and more. Furthermore, North Carolina State University finds a majority of conventional Christmas tree farms in North Carolina use the prevalent weedkiller glyphosate (Roundup), and the insecticide bifenthrin to treat 97.5 and 42.9 percent of all tree acres, respectively. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Pine needles and bark can harbor pesticide residues that are not only toxic to humans but pets as well. The most widely used pesticide in Christmas tree production, glyphosate, is systemic and plant roots and leaves absorb the chemical into the vascular system. These chemicals can leach out in sap (guttation) and contaminate tree water, thus exposing curious children and pets to toxic chemicals if playing around the tree or, in the case of animals, drinking the water.

Many people have the misconception that artificial trees may be an eco-friendly alternative to conventionally grown trees. However, artificial trees can be equally bad for the environment, pets, and children’s health as their conventional chemically grown counterparts. Most artificial Christmas trees are made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC), synthetic plastic. PVC can contain toxic additives, like phthalates (hormone disruptor), cadmium, organotin, and lead to stabilizing certain products, and WHO classifies it as a “known human carcinogen.” Because of the flammable nature of artificial trees, many companies apply flame retardants which cause reproductive toxicity, neurological toxicity, endocrine disruption, and cancer. Moreover, artificial Christmas tree labels warn individuals to avoid inhaling or eating any bits of toxic dust that may fall from the branches. 

Find a Christmas Tree

If you would prefer to go pesticide-free this holiday, purchase your organic tree as soon as possible—because of limited supplies they tend to sell out quickly. As of 2020, there are only 47 organic Christmas tree farms in the U.S. but, with the growing interest in organic agriculture, it is safe to assume that this number will grow in the future.

Here are some online resources to help you find some organic trees in your area:

• Green Promise. This website has an organic Christmas tree sources list with operations in 22 states. It also has an eco-friendly gift guide to help you put green gifts under the tree.
• Local Harvest. Along with Christmas trees, this site can also be used to find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area. The Christmas tree search is pre-selected via the link.
• Natural Baby Mama. This website hosts a 2017 list of organic Christmas tree farms by state and is a great resource for non-toxic tree options to ensure your family’s safety.
• If you do not live close to any of the many farms on the above websites, other farms such as Silvertip Tree Farms in North Fork California will let you purchase trees on-line and ship them anywhere in the country.

If the cost of shipping a tree to your home is prohibitive, or you are unable to locate an organic tree farm using the resources above, the next best option is to try your local Christmas tree farm or a farmers’ market. If you purchase trees from tree lots or from large chain stores, it can be hard to determine where your tree is coming from. It is also easier to find “Charlie Brown” or “wild” trees at a tree farm than at big box stores or tree lots. These trees have a different physical appearance than pruned trees, but this more traditional aesthetic is appealing to some consumers.

Going to a local tree farm or farmers’ market does not guarantee you will be purchasing a tree that is grown organically or without synthetic pesticides, however, these settings give you the opportunity to speak with the farmer about their growing methods. Often, you can find trees that have not been overly pruned and grown without many chemical inputs. However, be aware that without organic certification, unless you know the farmer, any claims of sustainability hold very little weight since it has not been verified by a third party.

For example, if you live in the Washington, DC area, you can contact local farmer, Mike Tabor, from Licking Creek Bend Farm.

Cut Down Your Own Tree

This can be a fun family activity and a nice way to spend a little more time outdoors. It may also be more economical, as tree farms may charge you less if you cut the tree yourself. However, cutting your own tree does require some advanced planning. For guidance on the tree cutting process, please view the step-by-step instructions on Beyond Pesticides’ Christmas page. Remember, most tree farms do not allow customers to bring chainsaws or more industrial equipment to remove trees.

Buy a Living Tree

The best option, and probably the most adventurous, is to buy a tree that still has its roots and can be planted again after the holidays. To take this project on there are several things to consider, which one can find via the step-by-step instructions on Beyond Pesticides’ Christmas page. Adding a Christmas tree to your yard could become a fun tradition for your family, and if you purchase a small tree you could re-dig and re-plant the tree for several years!

Rent an Organic Tree

Take home a potted Christmas tree, and even decorations, for the holiday season. After Christmas, the company collects the tree, replants it, and lets it grow until next year. You will even get your money back, as long as the tree is looked after properly. Although the options for organic Christmas tree is limited, there are many west coast and international (i.e., United Kingdom [U.K.]) farms that offer organic tree rentals (while supplies last), including Our City Forest Planting the Future (California, U.S.) and London Christmas Tree Rental – Sustainable Pot Grown Christmas Trees (U.K.).

Tree Care

Once you have brought a beautiful organic tree back to your home, it is important to give it proper care and attention, so it remains fresh throughout the holiday season. For guidance on how to maintain your tree, please view the step-by-step instructions on Beyond Pesticides’ Christmas page. For additional tree maintenance tips, the National Christmas Tree Association has helpful information on different tree species.

Alternatives to Artificial Trees

If a real Christmas tree does not suit your needs, consider these alternatives to toxic artificial PVC trees:

• CB Safari. This website produces locally sourced and 100% recyclable cardboard Christmas tree, and other holiday products in unique, and aesthetic designs.
• Esty. This website is a global marketplace where you can find homemade and organic Christmas items like trees, wreaths, and various gifts.
• Do-it-yourself with sustainable materials, like this driftwood Christmas tree, or even an edible Christmas tree using organic ingredients.

Tree Disposal/Recycling

If planting a tree seems too daunting or is just not feasible, there are ways to dispose of your tree in an eco-friendly way. First and foremost, it is important to make sure your tree avoids a landfill after the festivities. According to Sierra Club, an estimated 10 million Christmas trees unnecessarily end up there each year. For tips about how to properly recycle your tree, please view the Beyond Pesticide’s advice on the Christmas page. Additionally, online resources like Earth911 allow users to search for local recycling centers that accept Christmas trees.

Holidays can be complicated, but one decision that you can feel confident about is your Christmas tree purchase. By purchasing an organic Christmas tree, you are making the responsible choice for the health of your loved ones and the environment. Also, by recycling your tree responsibly after the holiday season, you will make sure that your tree can be a gift that keeps on giving to your garden, birds, fish, or goats.

Do not forget to decorate your tree and home using eco-friendly materials and consider choosing organic/eco-friendly gifts for loved ones like gifts from Beyond Pesticides’ online shop.   

For more information about pesticides and Christmas trees, visit Beyond Pesticides webpage on Pesticide-Free Holidays, specifically the Christmas section.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 8, 2020) Researchers at Oregon State University recently made a promising discovery that could significantly improve the ability for North American farmers and gardeners to manage invasive, crop damaging slugs. It isn’t a pesticide, but a nematode (Phasmarhabditis spp.), a microscopic animal whose phylum contains potentially millions of different species. Oregon State researchers think they’ve found the specific type of nematode that will parasitize and kill Deroceras reticulatum, also known as the grey garden slug. The research underscores the critical importance of funding and supporting research on biological controls and other non-toxic pest management approaches.  

Researchers were keyed into the potential to use nematodes for slug biocontrol by a product that has been successfully used in Europe for over 25 years, known as Nemaslug. However, the product is not registered in the United States by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “The thought process is that if it works in Europe and we find it here and it works here, it might be easier to get it registered by the EPA,” study coauthor Rory Mc Donnell, PhD, said. “If we can provide evidence it’s native, that makes a strong case for developing it as a bio-control. But we want to make sure there are no effects on native slugs or snails. We don’t want bio-control gone awry. That’s very, very important.”

To determine whether slug-predator nematodes are present in the U.S., scientists took nematode samples from Oregon fields and compared them to the Nemaslug strain, as well as other nematodes found throughout the world. Through a series of tests and DNA sequencing, it was determined that the strain found in Oregon is nearly identical to those in Nemaslug. The only difference is the absence of one bacterial species usually found around the specific nematode, and in the Nemaslug product. Subsequent testing found that several nematode species found in North America have the potential to kill garden slugs.

Although researchers point to the need for additional comprehensive testing to make certain there are no unintended side-effects from potential commercialization and widespread release of parasitic nematodes, it is clear that current management practices are insufficient. Although specific costs of slug damage in the US are unknown, it is likely to be in the 10s of millions.

Current practices rely on the use of molluscicides, such a metaldehyde or Iron Phosphate to manage slug populations. Beyond Pesticides strongly discourages use of metaldehye, as the chemical is a suggestive carcinogen, with evidence of neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, and reproductive harm. Iron Phosphate -found in products like Sluggo – is a common choice among organic growers as it is currently approved by the National Organic Program. But its efficacy relies on a synergy between iron phosphate and a so-called “inert” ingredient known as EDTA. Neither EDTA nor iron phosphate alone will manage slugs. Beyond Pesticides filed comments in 2014 urging delisting of iron phosphate in organic because of the risks EDTA poses to soil organisms, its ability to cause movement of harmful metals in sediment, and propensity of contaminate waterways.  

Behind the potential dangers posed by slug pesticides lies the fact that they have relatively low efficacy. According to OSU researchers, control is between 10% to 60%. “The damage [slugs] cause is a massive issue,” Dr. Mc Donnell said. “We surveyed 200 growers throughout the Willamette Valley [Oregon] to gather their opinion of controlling slugs with pesticide. We found only 30% said they were happy with the performance of chemicals.”

The staying power of the slimy grey garden slug is one that necessitates the work being conducted by OSU researchers. By working with, rather than against natural processes, pest managers can leverage ecology to work towards human-focused goals. A study published in September determined that the development of biological controls over the last century had a greater benefit for agricultural economies than the green revolution. The piece urged scientists and policymakers to move past “a more risk-adverse attitude,” to biological management which, “eclipsed its myriad societal benefits.”

Such an approach would not be pretty for slug populations. “When a slug is infested with nematodes, it liquifies,” said study coauthor Dee Denver, PhD. “You end up with a swarming pile of worms. It’s pretty gruesome.”

Managing slugs is the bane of many American farmers and gardeners. Cultural practices can help get a handle on slug populations, but some form of direct control is often needed. Make sure to monitor slug populations regularly. Try to reduce moisture to prevent slugs from finding crops. Never water at night, and consider tactics like drip irrigation in particularly damp, slug-prone areas. Use of a trap crop that slugs prefer better may help attract slugs away from higher value crops. Traps using alcohol or yeast can work for some gardeners, but often provide inconsistent results and can sometimes attract more slugs. Picking slugs out of the garden with a disposable glove and placing them into soapy water to die can be objectively gross, but an effective way to reduce populations. If you or friends have domesticated foul like ducks, geese, or chickens, consider letting them run in a slug-infested garden (but keep an eye on them to prevent other damage).

See Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage on least toxic control of snails and slugs for more information about how to safely address these problematic pests.

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

Source: Oregon State University Press Release, PLOS One, Biological Control

(Beyond Pesticides, December 7, 2020) The Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reversed in four years much of the progress made by EPA in decades, and that push continues. The Biden EPA needs to advance a new vision.

Tell President-elect Biden to adopt a new direction for pesticide regulation.

Challenge so-called “benefits” of pesticides.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to weigh risks against benefits when registering pesticides. Claimed “benefits” for toxic pesticides need to be judged in comparison to organic production, which is able to produce all types of food and feed. The Organic Trade Association reports that organic sales now exceed $55 billion per year, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finds that organic producers in the U.S. produced $9.9 billion worth of organic food on 5.5 million acres in 2019. EPA assumes benefits of pesticides, rather than measuring them, and does not take into account the development of resistance. The cost-competitive success of organic food production and nonagricultural land management practices make the case that toxic pesticides lack benefits.

Protect pollinators.
Agriculture relies on insect pollinators to facilitate fertilization and maintain annual crop yield. Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. Yet many agricultural pesticides are killing pollinators outright, making them more susceptible to parasites and disease, and destroying their habitat. Pollinator protection should be a priority of EPA.  

Protect workers.
Farmworkers are at greatest risk from pesticide exposure. A blatant example of systemic racism is imbedded in risk assessments in environmental regulation. In deciding on “acceptable” risks, exposure assessments inevitably discount the impact workers, people of color, and those with preexisting health conditions or comorbidities. For example, EPA routinely calculates worker exposure separately from other exposures. In applying aggregate exposure assessments of pesticides, EPA does not include worker exposure. Risk assessments do not include exposures to multiple chemicals—and such exposures routinely occur to fenceline communities, farmworkers, and factory workers.

Protect biodiversity.
Roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been wiped out since 1990, according to research published in the journal Science. Monarchs are near extinction and beekeepers continue to experience declines that are putting them out of business. We continue to lose mayflies, the foundation of so many food chains, and fireflies, the foundation of so many childhood summer memories, for reasons that can be easily prevented with leadership in regulating pesticides. It is likely that the declines we are seeing in many bird species are closely linked to insect declines. Recent research finds that three billion birds, or 29% of bird abundance, has been lost since the 1970s. Pesticides cause biodiversity loss in aquatic ecosystems as well. Amphibians are also particularly at risk. A new biological evaluation by EPA finds that the widely used weed killer glyphosate/Roundup threatens nearly every animal and plant species on the U.S. list of threatened and endangered species — 93% of them, in fact. This, on top of its cancer-causing properties, supports urgent action to ban the herbicide along with others that destroy habitat and replace them with organic practices and organic compatible products.

Get rid of endocrine-disrupting pesticides.
Despite the Congressional mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), EPA is not acting on endocrine disruptors linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. In 1998, 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) has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides. Now the program has stalled entirely.

To ensure appropriate follow-through, Congress gave EPA a timeline 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. According to EPA, Tier 1 Screening (which looks at high exposure chemicals) is not sufficient to implicate a chemical as an endocrine disrupting chemical. It is instead a step to define which chemicals must undergo Tier 2 testing – the only stage that can influence regulatory decision-making. 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.

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

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

And yet the Trump EPA has refused to ban the extremely neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos—an action that was begun during the waning days of the Obama administration. Chlorpyrifos is a dangerous, proven neurotoxicant that has dire impacts on children, making EPA’s action to allow its continued use a failure of both its protective mission and ethics. Further, it is an environmental justice failure, given that risks of exposure fall disproportionately on low-income African American and Latino families, including farmworker families, who are at the greatest risk of harm. The ban on chlorpyrifos will be an important first step in eliminating neurotoxic pesticides.

Tell President-elect Biden to adopt a new direction for pesticide regulation.

Letter to President-elect Biden

I am writing to offer suggestions for priority policies and actions for your incoming EPA, in the area of pesticide regulation. Pesticide regulation needs a change of direction.

Challenge so-called “benefits” of pesticides. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to weigh risks against benefits when registering pesticides. The standard for claimed “benefits” for toxic pesticides organic production. USDA finds that organic producers in the U.S. produced $9.9 billion worth of organic food in 2019. EPA assumes benefits, rather than measuring them, and does not take into account the development of resistance.

Protect pollinators. Agriculture relies on insect pollinators for fertilization and annual crop yields. Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. Yet many agricultural pesticides kill pollinators outright, make them more susceptible to parasites and disease, and destroy their habitat.

Protect workers. Farmworkers are at greatest risk from pesticide exposure. Systemic racism is imbedded in environmental risk assessments. In deciding on “acceptable” risks, exposure assessments inevitably discount the impact workers, people of color, and those with preexisting health conditions or comorbidities. EPA routinely calculates worker exposure separately from other exposures. In applying aggregate exposure assessments of pesticides, EPA excludes worker exposure. Risk assessments do not include exposures to multiple chemicals—that routinely occur to fenceline communities, farmworkers, and factory workers.

Protect biodiversity. Roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been wiped out since 1990. It is likely that declines in many bird species are closely linked to insect declines. Recent research finds that three billion birds, or 29% of bird abundance, have been lost since the 1970s. Pesticides cause biodiversity loss in aquatic ecosystems as well. EPA finds that the widely used weed killer glyphosate/Roundup threatens 93% of animal and plant species on the U.S. list of threatened and endangered species. This, on top of its cancer-causing properties, supports a ban on the herbicide along with others that destroy habitat.

Get rid of endocrine-disrupting pesticides. Despite the Congressional mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), EPA is not acting on endocrine disruptors linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility.

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

And yet, the Trump EPA has refused to complete the ban of the extremely neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos that was begun during the Obama administration. Chlorpyrifos is a dangerous, proven neurotoxicant that has dire impacts on children, making EPA’s action to allow its continued use a failure of its mission and an environmental justice, since risks of fall disproportionately on low-income African American and Latino families. The ban on chlorpyrifos will be an important first step in eliminating neurotoxic pesticides.

Under your leadership, a revitalized EPA will take our nation in a new direction—one that requires the agency to think holistically, shift away from petroleum-based pesticides, and fertilizers, and embrace solutions that protect ecosystems that sustain all life.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2020) The Philadelphia City Council, yesterday afternoon, passed Bill #200425, known as Healthy Outdoor Public Spaces (HOPS), a sweeping ban of herbicides (weed killers) on its public property that stops short of banning all toxic pesticides, while encouraging the adoption of organic land management. With wide support for broad pesticide restrictions from public health and labor groups, scientists, and land managers, the bill was adopted by a unanimous vote. The effort was spearheaded by Toxic Free Philly, a group of local residents deeply concerned about the impacts of pesticides on health and the environment. While the hearing record and the bill’s language indicates a clear spirit and intent to move Philadelphia’s public spaces to organic practices, advocates cite the importance of public involvement and oversight to ensure their goals are achieved. Beyond Pesticides testified for broad language based on the model it is advancing nationwide, and offered the city council free horticultural services to implement an organic program under the new policy.

“Toxic chemicals, including pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, are not needed to manage landscapes and increasingly local governments are recognizing that neither EPA nor state agencies, and their underlying statutes, provide adequate protection for their community’s health and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.”

Beyond Pesticides is urging communities to adopt organic land management practices as a critical public health and environmental protection measure in the face of elevated risk factors from chemicals that attack the neurological, immunological, and respiratory system, increasing vulnerability to Covid-19 and other diseases. Because of disproportionate exposure and elevated risk factors for people of color, organic policy is critical to fighting environmental racism.

Organic practices successfully manage land in a cost-effective manner and maintain public expectations around beautiful landscapes, all while protecting health and the environment—particularly the most vulnerable, including children and those with preexisting health conditions.

According to Beyond Pesticides, the importance of organic cannot be overstated in the face of existential threats from the impending climate crisis and biodiversity devastation. Organic practices eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and manage soil health to maximize sequestration of atmospheric carbon. Scientists have identified carbon sequestration in soil as a critical mitigation measure in the fight against climate change. But to be successful in this approach requires the elimination of all pesticides that are disruptive of the health of the ecosystem. The hazards of neonicotinoid insecticides show the importance of a comprehensive approach. These pesticides are not only associated with decline of bee, butterflies and other essential pollinators, they also runoff and widely contaminate waterways, where they devastate aquatic ecosystems.

The Philadelphia HOPS bill has moved to the Mayor’s office for signature before becoming law.

The bill will: (1) ban toxic herbicide use on public property, except in limited circumstances when public health is at issue, or ecological balance is threatened by invasive species (subject to a waiver process); (2) Strongly encourage the implementation of organic land management practices;  (3) require advance notice of all pesticide use and require annual reporting and recordkeeping. Advocates note the bill could have been strengthened by including comprehensive restrictions on all pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, incorporating a component focused on public education, and strictly defining the makeup of the advisory board tasked with reviewing herbicide waiver applications. 

Beyond Pesticides will continue to work with local advocates and allies to push for future legislation that addresses these concerns. Other communities are taking a clearly comprehensive approach to eliminating all toxic pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) and synthetic fertilizers. In November, the South Portland, ME City Council amended its pesticide ban ordinance with a provision that eliminates synthetic fertilizers. This change brings the city’s law in close alignment with Beyond Pesticides’ model organic land management policy.

The past decade has seen tremendous interest from local communities wishing to protect their residents from toxic pesticides and contribute to a nationwide and global shift away from petroleum-based chemicals that threatens the future health of ecosystems on which life depends. Beyond Pesticides tracks the progress of the pesticide reform movement through the Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies. The map currently lists nearly 200 communities that have enacted restrictions on hazardous pesticide use. Philadelphia, with a population of 1.5 million people, is now the largest U.S. city to pass a local pesticide law. However, because of Pennsylvania state pesticide preemption, city leaders cannot apply pesticide restrictions to private property. Montgomery County, Maryland (in a state that does not preempt its localities) with a population of just over one million, remains the largest jurisdiction to restrict pesticide use on both public and private property.

If you’re interested in passing an organic land care policy in your local community, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2020) Amid the maelstrom of national political news related to the recent election, and the Trump administration’s upcoming exit, comes a release of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) draft biological evaluation (BE) of glyphosate. The assessment indicates that use of this ubiquitous herbicide likely threatens nearly every animal and plant species on the U.S. list of threatened and endangered species — 93% of them, in fact. Chemical and Engineering News reports that the EPA announcement was made public only a few days after the agency also reported that atrazine (another commonly used and toxic herbicide) probably harms more than half of those species. Given the Trump EPA’s eagerness, during the past four years, to serve industry interests rather than protect human health, biodiversity, and functional ecosystems, the timing of this released evaluation during the so-called “lame duck” period is puzzling.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides, including Roundup^TM, Monsanto’s (now Bayer’s) ubiquitous and widely used weed killer; it is very commonly used with genetically modified companion seeds for a variety of staple crops, as well as for weed control on managed landscapes. These seeds are genetically engineered to be glyphosate tolerant. Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used pesticides worldwide, and deliver human, biotic, and ecosystem harms.

The regulatory context for this biological evaluation is this: EPA is legally bound to review each registered pesticide every 15 years to see whether it continues to meet the FIFRA (The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) standard for registration. Somewhat unbelievably, the re-registration review of glyphosate has been under way since 2009. During these 11 years, the herbicide has been the subject of massive public, advocacy, and regulator attention, much of it subsequent to both the 2015 declaration by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) that the compound is a likely human carcinogen, and several subsequent high-profile lawsuits against glyphosate’s makers when exposures caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

EPA has issued proposed interim decisions on glyphosate’s re-registration that have allowed these herbicides to remain on the market. In May 2019 the agency declared, ignoring broad scientific consensus, that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” In January 2020, EPA issued a favorable interim review decision on reregistration, stating, “After a thorough review of the best available science, as required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, EPA has concluded that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used according to the label.”

Beyond Pesticides and other public health, conservation, and farmworker advocacy organizations brought suit against EPA in March 2020 for that interim approval. Common Dreams reported at the time on the top-level justification for the suit: “After a registration review process spanning over a decade, EPA allowed the continued marketing of the pesticide despite the agency’s failure to fully assess glyphosate’s hormone-disrupting potential or its effects on threatened and endangered species. The review began in 2009, has already taken 11 years, without a full assessment of the widespread harmful impacts on people and the environment in that time period.” More specifically, plaintiffs charged EPA with bias, ignoring and using incomplete scientific data, and delay in finishing “any assessment of [glyphosate’s] impacts on thousands of potentially harmed endangered species, delaying it until a future decision.”

Science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety (one of the plaintiffs in the case), Bill Freese, said at the time: “Contrary to the Trump EPA’s claims, both regulatory and independent scientific studies demonstrate that glyphosate herbicides are carcinogenic and have adverse effects on internal organs. Far from consulting the ‘best available science,’ as EPA claims, the agency has relied almost entirely on Monsanto studies, cherry-picking the data that suits its purpose and dismissing the rest. EPA’s [interim] glyphosate decision shows the same hostility to science that we’ve come to expect from this administration, whether the issue is climate change or environmental health.” “EPA failed to consider if Roundup disrupts the balance of nature and ecosystem health, critical to the survival of a vast number of organisms on which life depends – from beneficial insects, such as parasitoid wasps, lacewings, ladybugs, and endangered bumblebees, monarch butterflies, to fish, small mammals, and amphibians,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, another plaintiff in the case.

As of the January 2020 interim decision, what remained to be completed before a final reregistration decision were evaluations of (1) the risks of glyphosate exposure to endangered species, and (2) screenings for endocrine system impacts. This biological evaluation goes to the first of those outstanding items. A BE is supposed to assess the potential risks to any listed species (as well as species that are proposed and candidates for listing) and to any critical habitat. The BE (1) assesses whether an individual of a listed species is reasonably expected to be exposed to a pesticide at a level that results in a discernable effect, and if so, (2) distinguishes effects that are likely to affect an individual of a species adversely from those that are not likely to do so. The categories of allowed determinations for (1) include NE (No Effect) and MA (May Affect). For species and habitats that receive an MA finding, EPA then assigns either a Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) or a Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) designation to each individual species or critical habitat. Finally, for each LAA determination, evidence is characterized by its “strength” — strongest, moderate, or weakest.

This recently announced BE made determinations for 1,795 animal and plant species and 792 designated critical habitats. The executive summary for the BE cuts to the chase: “No NE determinations were made for any species or designated critical habitats; therefore, all species received a MA determination.” Thus, all species and habitats underwent the second step: NLAA determinations were made for 119 species and 33 species’ critical habitats, and LAA determinations were made for 1,676 species and 759 critical habitats. For the LAAs, 96% of species and 97% of habitats had moderate evidence; strongest evidence was found for less than 1% of both species and habitats; and weakest evidence was found for 4% of species and 3% of critical habitats.

In addition, the evaluation indicates that, though glyphosate is not acutely toxic to animals, some herbicide formulations that include adjuvant “inert” ingredients can be up to two orders of magnitude more toxic than glyphosate alone, about which issue Beyond Pesticides has written. The BE asserts that persistent exposures to glyphosate herbicides can have impacts on plants’ and animals’ growth and reproduction, in particular. One of the many failures of FIFRA, the primary federal pesticide law, is that it distinguishes between active and “inert” ingredients, the latter of which receive minimal attention, e.g., to establish tolerances. In addition, manufacturers are not required to disclose those ingredients, on the product label or elsewhere, under the guise of “proprietary information.”

Examples of the Trump EPA’s fealty to industry interests rather than to enactment of its mission — “to protect human health and the environment” — are legion. With the transition to a new administration under way, EPA’s behavior is a tad perplexing. With one hand, it has released this important and mandated biological evaluation of impacts of glyphosate on species protected by the Endangered Species Act. Roughly a week after the BE was made public, and with the other hand, EPA is full-speed-ahead on advancing two toxic compounds: a bee-toxic pesticide and an acutely and chronically toxic disinfectant.

One might wonder, “why this BE now”? Perhaps, given that the requisite screenings for endocrine system impacts still lie ahead (for a final reregistration decision on glyphosate), the agency is kicking the can down the road to the next EPA. (It is extremely unlikely that this EPA will, in the remaining weeks of this administration, take any regulatory action as a result of the terrible data in this BE.) Perhaps, with tens of thousands of glyphosate lawsuits in queue, the agency sees the writing on the wall. Perhaps, with the waning of the Trump administration, career officials at EPA are feeling more emboldened. In any case, the results of this BE on glyphosate — a compound the agency has bent over backwards to keep registered — are damning.

EPA is accepting public comment on the Draft Biological Evaluation for Glyphosate (released on November 25) for a 60-day period, after which it will be finalized, though it should be noted that 60 days from November 25 is January 24 — four days after Vice President Joe Biden is inaugurated as the next President. Comments can be made (via docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0585) at www.regulations.gov.

Sources: https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/Glyphosate-likely-harms-nearly-endangered/98/web/2020/11 and https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/draft-national-level-listed-species-biological-evaluation-glyphosate#chap4

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 3, 2020) As the Trump administration winds down, it appears that it will continue to push through decisions that build on its formidable record of weakening environmental and public health protection. Ignoring documented threats to pollinators, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could finalize its interim approval for flonicamid, a bee-toxic pesticide. Separately, EPA may reapprove the disinfectant ethylene oxide (EtO), despite concerns over carcinogenicity. NYU Law is tracking these and other last-minute federal environmental decisions on its webpage Midnight Watch.

EPA proposed an interim reregistration decision for flonicamid in September 2020. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has been highly and publicly critical of the agency’s approach on this chemical. In a public comment, Becerra wrote that EPA did not collect data from required follow-up studies regarding the impact of flonicamid on pollinators. EPA’s own risk assessment states that a “full assessment of pollinator risk cannot be conducted until data are available.”

AG Becerra stated, “The Trump Administration’s EPA is failing at one of its most basic jobs by plowing ahead with the registration process for flonicamid before receiving additional data on its impact to pollinators like bees.” He continued, “California relies on pollination from bees for agriculture, a driving force of our state’s economy. We cannot ignore the environmental and economic implications of this decision – and the EPA cannot ignore its responsibilities under the law. The EPA must do its homework before it allows flonicamid to be used for another 15 years.”

EtO is used to fumigate some agricultural products and sterilize medical equipment. The Occupational Safety and Health Administartion (OSHA) lists its many concerning hazards: “EtO is both flammable and highly reactive. Acute exposures to EtO gas may result in respiratory irritation and lung injury, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shortness of breath, and cyanosis. Chronic exposure has been associated with the occurrence of cancer, reproductive effects, mutagenic changes, neurotoxicity, and sensitization.”

On November 20, EPA released a draft risk assessment for ethylene oxide. The risk assessment fails to endorse a definitive method for evaluating cancer risks. Instead, some of the range of methods it provides suggest that EtO’s potential to be carcinogenic is lower than what is estimated by EPA’s independent Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. EPA is accepting public comments on the draft risk assessment until January 19, 2021.

EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment has been compromised by an administration that rather blatantly prioritizes corporate gain, according to advocates. Some current EPA employees are holding the line against last minute changes driven by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler et al. However, it is possible these decisions on toxics will be pushed through and there will be 15 more years before the public has a chance to stop them from continuing to harm pollinators and/or people.

Besides participating in the public comment period, there are some actions you can take as an advocate. To find information on safe disinfectants, visit Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disinfectants and Sanitizers, including a factsheet on meeting health protection needs for school reopening as schools must have adequate resources to ensure safety. For pollinator protection, the Saving America’s Pollinators Act would provide pollinators with a real chance to recover from the stressors of pesticide exposure. The bill would eliminate neonicotinoids, other toxic systemics waiting in the wing with the chemical industry, and establish a board of experts to protect pollinator health into the future. Take action today by urging your member of Congress to support this important legislation. 

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

Source: NYU Midnight Watch

(Beyond Pesticides, December 2, 2020) PFAS (per and polyfluorinated alykyl substances) ‘forever chemicals’ are being detected in a commonly used mosquito pesticide known as Anvil 10+10, according to reporting from the Boston Globe based on independent testing from a watchdog group and state regulators. PFAS are a large family of nearly 5,000 chemicals that may never break down in the environment and have been linked to cancer, liver damage, birth and developmental problems, reduced fertility, and asthma. The chemicals already disproportionately contaminate people of color communities, and there is evidence they reduce the efficacy of vaccines. While many may be familiar with PFAS for its use in nonstick cookware, electrical wire insulation, personal care products, food packaging, textiles, and other consumer goods, its presence within an already toxic pesticide is alarming. Perhaps most concerning, neither the manufacturer nor regulators have a good understanding of how exactly PFAS chemicals made their way into pesticide products.

“This is an issue that cuts to the core of what’s wrong with our federal system for regulating pesticides,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides. “The finding makes it imperative that EPA review and disclose full pesticide formulations before allowing the public to be exposed to unknown hazards.”

Watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) conducted a preliminary test on Anvil 10+10 this fall, detecting presence of PFAS in a 2.5 gallon jug. “Our tests revealed that Anvil 10+10 contains roughly 250 parts per trillion (ppt) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and 260 – 500 ppt of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), a GenX replacement for PFOA,” the group wrote in a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state regulators. Concerned by the results, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection initiated its own testing directly from 55 gallon drums of the product. Not only was PFAS found, some of the detections exceeded safety limits recently enacted by the state for drinking water. Although EPA does not currently regulate PFAS, it established a 70 ppt Lifetime Health Advisory for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.

Why would PFAS be found in a pesticide formulation? The chemicals can work well as dispersants, surfactants, anti-foaming agents, or other pesticide adjuvants intended to increase the effect of the active ingredient. EPA includes PFAS chemicals in its “Inert Finder” database, and a PEER press release indicates that many companies have patents on file for pesticide formulations containing PFAS.

Clarke, the manufacturer of Anvil 10+10, denied to the Boston Globe that PFAS was deliberately introduced, but did indicate that contamination could have occurred during production or packaging. Major contamination issues have happened with pesticide formulations in the past. In the 90s and early 2000s, DuPont was subject to a series of lawsuits after its Benlate fungicide was contaminated with the toxic herbicide atrazine. Perhaps most notorious was the Vietnam-era rainbow herbicide Agent Orange, which was highly contaminated with another ‘forever chemical,’ dioxin TCDD (2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzodioxin), a byproduct of the pesticide’s manufacturing process. Although the active ingredients in Agent Orange were highly hazardous, it was dioxin that caused horrific birth defects that continue to plague Vietnam today.  

Under federal pesticide law, impurities are required to be reported as part of a product’s registration if they are “toxicologically significant.” It is unclear whether PFAS was tested for contamination, or may have been disclosed to EPA, as product formulation data is considered Confidential Business Information by the agency.

Beyond Pesticides has worked to improve public transparency around pesticide formulations, as it is precisely this sort of secrecy that leads the public to lose confidence in federal regulators. Joined by other environmental and health groups, the organization sued EPA to require disclosure of full pesticide formulations. EPA, after initially indicating it would proceed, reversed course and decided to disclose only 72 inert ingredients it claimed were no longer use in product formulations. Despite assertions that PFAS is not in pesticide formulations, it was not on the agency’s list.  

EPA’s statement to the Boston Globe does little to quell concerns. “There are significant unanswered questions about the data currently available,” Dave Deegan, a spokesman for the EPA’s offices in New England told the Globe. “EPA will continue to work closely with and support the state on this issue. Aggressively addressing PFAS continues to be an important, active, and ongoing priority for EPA.”

However, according to PEER, localities in at least 25 states have used Anvil 10+10 as part of their mosquito spray program.

“In Massachusetts, communities are struggling to remove PFAS from their drinking water supplies, while at the same time, we may be showering them with PFAS from the skies and roads,” stated PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with EPA, who arranged for the testing. “The frightening thing is that we do not know how many insecticides, herbicides, or even disinfectants contain PFAS.”

It is likely that these initial tests have only begun to scratch the surface of the sort of contamination that is present in pesticide formulations. To address this issue and achieve publicly accessible, full product testing and disclosure will require strong leadership at the federal level. We can even go further – and work to eliminate the need to register toxic pesticides by promoting organic and ecological pest management practices. But to do so, EPA must stop taking risks with people’s health for the benefit of corporate profits. Help tell President-elect Biden we need an Environmentalist to head EPA, with broad environmental credentials and a vision that embraces a dramatic transition away from hazardous chemicals and polluting practices.

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

Source: PEER, Boston Globe

(Beyond Pesticides, December 1, 2020) The market for certified organic products is thriving, according to the 2019 Organic Survey recently released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  Between 2008 and 2019, sales of organic products tripled. As more and more farmers and consumers see the benefits of switching to organic, advocates say it is critically important to protect and strengthen the standards behind the organic seal. Only an engaged public will be successful in pushing back against attempts by the agrichemical industry to undermine organic integrity.

USDA’s 2019 Organic Survey is part of the 2017 Census on Agriculture, receiving information from every farmer who indicated they are certified or were transitioning to organic production. In total, USDA recorded 16,585 farms, up 17% from the last survey taken in 2016. Organic sales are also up 31%, to nearly $10 billion annually. The percentage of farmland under organic production increased a modest 9%.  

California continues to be the state with the largest organic industry activity, with over a third of sales ($3.6 billion, or 36%) occurring there. Washington and Pennsylvania follow behind California, but it would take the next eight states combined to match California’s contribution to organic sales. It is also the state with the largest land under organic production, at 965,000 acres, with Alaska, Montana, and New York behind each with over 300,000 acres of organic certified farmland.

When asked about future plans, 44% of farms planned to maintain current levels of production, 29% planned an increase, and 20% were uncertain. Only 4% planned to decrease production, and fewer still planned to stop production entirely.

Milk, eggs, and broiler chickens are the top organic commodities, with sales of broiler chickens increasing by nearly 50% since 2016. While this growth, including the elimination of toxic pesticides, is encouraging for organic advocates, they note that increased public accountability on organic standards setting is needed. Public watchdog groups have conducted high-profile investigations into certain “organic” dairies, finding conditions similar to factory farms.  And the Trump Administration has been trying to make it easier for factory egg and poultry farms to get organic certification.

These practices are most damaging for small-to-mid level producers that not only follow, but often go beyond minimum organic standards on their farms. The toxic industrial agriculture model of agrichemical companies applied to organic is said to hurt the integrity of the organic products and the USDA organic seal.

In the context of these shortcomings, it is important to note that these problems can be fixed through the organic standard setting process. Organic law (The Organic Foods Production Act) was established with the goal of ‘continuous improvement.’ This means that certain products allowed for use today may not be permitted five years later, when they are reviewed by a board of independent stakeholders known as the National Organic Standards Board. These experts conduct in-depth, technical reviews of allowed substances, considering environmental effects, compatibility with organic systems (including soil biology), and essentiality (is it needed –so even those substances that meet the first two criteria is not permitted if it determined that it really is not needed—a truly precautionary approach).

The high level of scrutiny and expert work involved in establishing organic standards are constantly under attack by the agrichemical industry, which aims to message to the public that organic is just as problematic as the chemical-laden foods they produce. Beware of “skeptic” websites that claim organic pesticides are more hazardous than their conventional counterparts, and that organic production cannot feed the world (Beyond Pesticides as responded to those claims in the Mail section of our newsletter here and here). These individuals claim to be ‘experts,’ but following the money will usually reveal them to be backed by an industry think tank like the Heartland Institute, which has a history of climate change denial, among a range of other highly problematic scientific stances. In many cases, efforts by agrichemical companies to weaken organic standards turn around to become the very same arguments they will use to undermine public trust in organic.

The data speak for itself. Studies show a myriad of benefits from organic on the big three bottom line issues—public health, the environment, and the economy. Just last week, a new study found that eating organic lowers one’s risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Organic food is healthier, with organic dairy and meat have containing higher levels of essential nutrients, and organic tomatoes with higher levels of flavonoid antioxidants. Organic production prohibits the use of fossil-fuel based synthetic fertilizers, and can help sequester atmospheric carbon in the soil.  In fact, the on-farm soil practices organic farms employ has many add-on benefits, including higher productivity, water and nutrient retention, and improved pest management. Farming organically can improve the economic outlook for local, rural economies, with a 2016 report finding median household income increasing $2,000 on average and poverty rates lower by 1.3% when comparing U.S. counties with high levels of organic activity to those nearby.

“With increased adoption of organic agriculture, we will see the need for pest management products reduce, create greater plant resiliency, improve moisture retention in the soil, prevent nutrient runoff into waterways, and sequester carbon in the soil—helping to mitigate the climate crisis,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

While the results of the 2019 Organic Survey are encouraging, organic is still a relatively new market that should be prioritized and strengthened within the next Administration. Join us in telling President-elect Biden that we need an organic USDA, committed to transition chemical-intensive agriculture to organic practices.

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

Source: USDA Media Release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2020) The “environment” is central to President-elect Biden’s priorities: climate change, COVID-19, and the next pandemic, racial equity, and economic recovery. The new administration should include an EPA administrator who understands the relationships among these and other environmental issues and has a clear vision of the changes needed to dramatically change our course, currently heading for ecological destruction.

Tell President-elect Biden to appoint an EPA Administrator who is an environmentalist with broad environmental credentials and a vision that embraces a dramatic transition away from hazardous chemicals and polluting practices at this perilous time.

Let’s start with what the past four years has taught us about who we do NOT want as EPA Administrator. We do not want an industry lobbyist, someone whose work has been funded with industry money, who has represented industry in litigation or as a lobbyist, who has attacked environmentalists, or has never read Silent Spring. Such a person is not qualified to provide the leadership needed to address priority issues and understand the interconnections necessary to address the crises associated with climate, health, and biodiversity decline.

On the other hand, a strong candidate will support holistic thinking, with an understanding of interrelationships in ecosystems. This requires an understanding of  1) the relationship between a healthy environment and a healthy economy; 2) disproportionate risk and environmental racism; 3) the importance of standing up to polluting industries; 4) the existential threats facing the country and the globe; and 5) the failure of risk assessment and unrealistic risk mitigation measures that poison people and the environment, and destroy life; and 6) the need for meaningful results, rather than politically expedient compromises.

Relationships Among Priorities and Relationship to Environment

Climate change has been shown to increase people’s susceptibility to COVID-19, disproportionately affect the low income and people of color, and pose a major threat to the economy. COVID-19 affects our response to climate emergencies, disproportionately affects minorities, and has had a severe impact on the economy. The data is clear that racial injustice is inextricably linked to the climate crisis, the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on black and brown essential workers, and an imbalanced economy that functions poorly in ensuring everyone an equitable share of United States wealth and promise. Because of this, environmental leadership must work hand-in-hand with economic decisions that affect sustainabilty—only sustainability can bring us solutions to the urgent issues of climate change, pandemics, and racial inequity. Currently, all environmental decisions are screened and controlled by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which fails to address the disparities that are causing unimaginable harm in the interest of “economic health.” We cannot achieve sustainability until we change our relationship with the “environment”—that is, the total biosphere of the Earth. An EPA administrator must be empowered to challenge these foundational problems.

Climate Change

President-elect Biden has prioritized climate change, having appointed John Kerry to the cabinet post of “Climate Envoy,” and is likely to choose someone who is strong on this issue to head EPA. Climate change, however, is affected by, and affects, other environmental and health concerns. It is important that the Biden EPA work across agencies to ensure a coordinated approach—so that industry production and use practices, individual and multiple chemicals effects, and background sensitivities associated with elevated risk factors can be addressed in the context of their interrelationships.

The leadership provided by this holistic analysis must prioritize the solutions as a replacement for polluting practices and widespread harm. For example, toxic pesticides kill nontarget organisms, including pollinators, soil micro- and macrofauna, predators and parasites of pests, and plants that support the agroecosystem, are unnecessary to achieve productive, cost competitive, and profitable food production, and can be replaced by organic agriculture. EPA leadership can and must question the reasonableness of the conventional wisdom that toxic chemical dependency (including fossil-fuel based toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers) is acceptable, given the viability and nontoxic practices. This can be achieved under current risk standards of most environmental laws with the appropriate leadership that takes seriously the existential threats that we face and the viability of alternatives that eliminate toxic practices. We have entered a period that requires toxic chemical and fossil fuel elimination, driven by communities across the country that understand the threats and are forcing a change in their community practices. We need leadership at the top of EPA that is willing to listen to local leaders and urgently change the path we are currently on.  

COVID-19

EPA has a number of responsibilities that affect the pandemic and the prevention of another future pandemic. Exposure to toxic chemicals—especially those affecting the respiratory, immune, and nervous systems—makes people more susceptible to the disease. EPA’s programs can recognize the threats to vulnerable population groups and tighten the reins on controlling how and when we use toxic chemicals—leading to a phase-out. In the case of disinfectants, EPA lists disinfectants that can be used to destroy the virus on surfaces, but has done so without providing information about the risks of using those disinfectants and the availability of safer materials.

Racial Equity

A blatant example of systemic racism is imbedded in risk assessments in environmental regulation. In deciding on “acceptable” risks, exposure assessments inevitably discount the impact workers, people of color, and those with preexisting health conditions or comorbidities. For example, EPA routinely calculates worker exposure separately from other exposures. In applying aggregate exposure assessments of pesticides, EPA does not include worker exposure. Risk assessments do not include exposures to multiple chemicals—and such exposures routinely affect fenceline communities, farmworkers, and factory workers.

Work with Other Agencies

Achieving the goals expressed by President-elect Biden will require cooperation among agencies. While the Climate Envoy position is an important step forward, EPA must step up to fulfill its mandate and ensure our future and the future of following generations.

The EPA administrator must have the experience to regulate and the background to understand that it is critically and urgently important to:

• cooperate with USDA in considering the viability of organic agriculture in eliminating the use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers. Coordinating ecological management of forests with USDA will help in fighting climate change.
• work with the Department of the Interior (DOI) to facilitate the protection of natural areas, which serve as a carbon sink and assist in combating climate change. DOI can also assist in protecting indigenous cultures that have much wisdom to offer for protecting natural systems.
• work with the Department of Energy to ensure that our pursuit of energy sources supports life and protects our biosphere.
• intersect with the Food and Drug Administration on pharmaceuticals and other toxicants in waterways, Department of Health and Human Services on public health protections, the Fish and Wildlife Service on endangered species, U.S. Geological Survey in monitoring water quality, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in climate and marine issues.

In order to solve the problems we are facing, we must stop treating EPA and other federal agencies as silos that work on discrete and isolated problems. In fact, readers of Beyond Pesticides Daily News know that the body of science screams for us to act on the confluence of issues that converge to threaten human life and sustainability of planet. Therefore, the new EPA Administrator should be a visionary with a holistic vision for a sustainable society and a livable future.

Tell President-elect Biden to appoint an EPA Administrator who is an environmentalist with broad environmental credentials and a vision that embraces a dramatic transition away from hazardous chemicals and polluting practices at this perilous time.

Dear President-elect Biden

Congratulations on your election.

I ask that you appoint an administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who understands the relationships among environmental issues, with a clear vision of the changes needed to dramatically change our course away from ecological destruction.

The past four years have taught us who we do NOT want as EPA Administrator—someone whose work has been funded with industry money, represented industry in litigation or as a lobbyist, attacked environmentalists, never read Silent Spring. Such a person is not qualified to provide the leadership to address priority issues and understand the interconnections associated with climate, health, and biodiversity decline.

A strong candidate will support holistic thinking with an understanding of interrelationships in ecosystems—with an understanding of the relationship between a healthy environment and a healthy economy; disproportionate risk and environmental racism; the importance of standing up to polluting industries; the existential threats facing the country and the globe; the failure of risk assessment and unrealistic risk mitigation measures that poison people and the environment; and the need for meaningful results rather than politically expedient compromises.

The environment is central to your interrelated priorities of climate change, COVID-19, racial equity, and economic recovery. Climate change increases susceptibility to COVID-19, disproportionately affects the low income and people of color, and poses a major threat to the economy. COVID-19 affects climate emergency response, minorities, and the economy. Racial injustice is inextricably linked to the climate crisis, the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on essential workers, and an imbalanced economy.

An EPA administrator must be empowered to make environmental and economic decisions to achieve sustainability—necessary for solutions to the urgent issues of climate change, pandemics, and racial inequity and requiring a new relationship with the Earth.

Your priority of climate change is affected by, and affects, other environmental and health concerns. It is important to work across agencies to ensure a coordinated approach—both because they are important in their own right and because of their relationship to climate change. Cooperation among agencies is needed to promote organic agriculture, conserve natural areas and marine ecosystems, preserve indigenous cultures, and monitor resources.

EPA must prioritize solutions to replace practices causing widespread harm. Toxic pesticides kill nontarget organisms, including pollinators, soil micro- and macro-fauna, predators and parasites of pests, and plants that support the agroecosystem, are unnecessary for productive, cost competitive, and profitable food production, and can be replaced by organic agriculture. EPA leadership must thus question the reasonableness of conventional wisdom accepting toxic chemical dependency. EPA must listen to communities across the country that understand the threats and are changing their practices.

EPA’s responsibilities affect pandemics. Exposure to toxic chemicals—especially those affecting the respiratory, immune, and nervous systems—increases susceptibility to COVID-19. EPA lists disinfectants that can be used to destroy the virus on surfaces without information about their risks and the availability of safer materials.

Risk assessments contain a blatant example of systemic racism. In deciding on “acceptable” risks, exposure assessments inevitably discount the impact on workers, people of color, and others at risk. For example, EPA does not include workers in calculating aggregate exposure to pesticides. Risk assessments do not include exposures to multiple chemicals—which routinely affect fenceline communities, farmworkers, and factory workers.

I look forward to a new EPA Administrator who is a visionary with a holistic vision for a sustainable society and a livable future.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 26, 2020) With the coronavirus pandemic raging across the United States, this Thanksgiving will be like no other in recent memory. Although many will spend dinner away from friends and family, and video calls don’t quite match time around the table, there is still so much to give thanks for. This year, we at Beyond Pesticides are honoring the essential, frontline workers that have helped us through this difficult year.  

It is not enough to simply gives thanks to health care, transportation, retail, hospitality, custodial, teachers, farmworkers, landscapers, and other frontline workers putting themselves at risk. We must take action to improve their conditions – particularly when it comes to exposure to toxic chemicals that exacerbate underlying conditions and increase susceptibility to Covid-19. This 2020 Thanksgiving, give thanks but also show thanks by taking action.

Give Thanks to Health Care Workers. Health care workers are past overstressed. Many are at the point of complete burnout. Already subject to multiple medical and personal demands, many health care workers continue to lack proper equipment, are understaffed, and at greatest risk of contracting Covid-19.

Show Thanks: The best action to take to thank essential health care workers, oddly enough, is to not take action. Stay home on Thanksgiving to stop community spread of Covid-19. If you do need to go out, practice social distancing, wear a mask, and follow other applicable safety measures. Make sure your mask isn’t coated antimicrobials, and toxic pesticide additives like nanosilver.

Give Thanks to Farmworkers and Landscapers. Frontline farmworkers and landscapers are disproportionately people of color, and occupationally exposed to the highest rates of toxic pesticides among professions. Social distancing is nearly impossible in the cramped working conditions and living quarters of many farmworkers.

Show Thanks: The dual threat of hazardous chemical exposure and Covid-19 underlines the need to change the way we produce food and manage landscapes. To support farmworkers, buy organic to reduce demand for chemical sprayed produce; tell your Congressional representative today that EPA must act to protect farmworkers. Take action to protect landscapers by becoming active in your community. Eliminating the requirement that local landscapers use hazardous pesticides helps reduce risk factors for these frontline workers, and improves health and wellbeing for the entire community.  Tell us you’re ready to fight for a pesticide-free community, and we’ll provide materials to get you started.

Give Thanks to Teachers, Retail, Hospitality, Custodial, Transportation and Other Essential Workers. Although exposure to hazardous chemicals usually isn’t a frequent area of concern for essential workers in spaces like child care, retail, and transportation, Covid-19 disinfection protocols often prescribe the use of toxic disinfectants and sanitizers.

Show Thanks: Make sure essential worker job sites are not encouraging use of highly toxic, ineffective cleaning products that exacerbate underlying conditions and put workers at greater risk of contracting Covid-19. See Beyond Pesticides Safer Sanitizers and Disinfectants webpage for products to look for, and those to avoid.

We at Beyond Pesticides hope that you and yours are staying safe and healthy through these difficult times. Please join us in showing thanks for frontline workers and healthy communities, and be prepared to continue this work to the new year, with renewed hope for a better future.  

For more thanks and giving, see all of Beyond Pesticides past Thanksgiving blog posts here.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 25, 2020) New research from the Centre for Environment and Occupational Health Research at the University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa, finds a link between pesticide exposure and adverse neurological symptoms among children and adolescents living in agricultural areas. Considering the etiology (cause) of many brain and neurological disorders are unknown, research like this is significant for understanding how pesticide exposure promotes disease development, especially among vulnerable populations. Researcher notes, “Children who indicate activities related to pesticide exposure may be at higher risk for developing headaches and lower cognitive performance in the domains of attention, memory and processing speed. […]Given [the] history and socio-economic divide to the farm laborers, […]future interventions should aim to reduce the health risks of these vulnerable populations, including their children.”

The study demonstrates that there is a relationship between pesticide exposure from various farm-related and leisure activities and headaches and neurocognitive functioning (i.e., autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), lower intelligence (IQ), and harmful social behavior and behavioral regulation) in children and adolescents. To assess which farm-related/leisure activities concerning pesticide exposure cause cognitive symptoms, researchers administered a questionnaire addressing child pesticide handling, direct consumption of field crops, interaction with field adjacent water sources, and noticeable pesticide spraying events. Researchers used the Cambridge Automated Neuropsychological Battery (CANTAB)—an iPad-based cognitive assessment tool— to assess neurocognitive performance (i.e., memory, attention, and processing speed). Headache severity measurements used the standard Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) tool.

The results demonstrate a link between headache severity and pesticide exposure-related farm activities as all activities increase the severity score. Neurocognitive results show an overall negative association with pesticide exposure-related activities, lowering multitasking skills, with direct fieldwork contributing to lower spatial memory, and impaired associated learning. Individuals who eat crops grown with chemical-intensive practices have slower motor-visual functioning and processing.

Pesticide use is widespread and direct exposure from applications or indirect exposure from residues pose a threat to human health. Children are more vulnerable to the impact of pesticides as their bodies are still developing. Many studies demonstrate that exposure to pesticides, such as organophosphate insecticides like chlorpyrifos, have endocrine disruption properties that induce neurotoxicity via acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition. Furthermore, a mother’s exposure to environmental toxicants while pregnant can increase the likelihood of developmental disabilities as most developmental disabilities begin before birth. A plethora of studies not only link childhood pesticide exposure to lower IQ but prenatal pesticide exposure, even more so. The number of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities is increasing in the U.S., and many children in rural areas—where pesticide use is most prevalent—have a higher rate of neurological disabilities. Therefore, it is essential to effectively monitor and assess pesticide exposure for the sake of human health.

This study adds to the growing body of research supporting a link between cognitive performance among children with frequent exposure to pesticides. Furthermore, this study is one of the first of its kind to address activities associated with pesticide exposure among youth. Children living on or in proximity to farms are more likely to encounter these toxic chemicals from performing farm-related activities (i.e., storing/handling pesticides, fieldwork) or leisure activities around farms (i.e., swimming in nearby contaminated water, eating crops from the field). Pesticides can have various impacts on cognitive function that are not easily classifiable with exposure-response. Headaches are the most common symptom of pesticide applications, but exposure can have confounding impacts on human health as headaches often accompany other pesticide poising symptoms.

The authors of the study conclude that the results warrant “stricter control on management, storage, packaging, and several processes after sales of pesticide. . . Given that these participants are not in occupation, a recommendation is to implement an educational program on pesticide-related activities in schools and to learn from current interventions and their effectiveness.”

It is essential to know and understand the implications that pesticide use and exposure have on human health, especially if pesticides increase the risk of developing chronic diseases, particularly among vulnerable individuals. Studies related to pesticides and brain/nervous system disorders can aid in future hearth health research to understand the underlying mechanisms that cause changes in neurological function or structure. Protect vulnerable communities by telling your congressional representative and senators that EPA must protect farmworkers and their children from toxic pesticide exposure. To learn more about farmworker protection, please visit Beyond Pesticide’s Agricultural Justice page.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent news and studies related to pesticides through the Daily News Blog and Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple health harms pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on brain and nervous system disorders, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases.

Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in agriculture and the environment. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. 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. Support organic agriculture today by telling the Biden transition team to harness the power of organic to combat climate change.

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

Source: UCT

(Beyond Pesticides, November 24, 2020) Reinforcing a body of scientific evidence, a new study finds that eating organic food lowers one’s risk of developing type 2 diabetes. With 1 in 10 (34 million) Americans afflicted with type 2 diabetes, and 1 in 3 (88 million) with prediabetes, new strategies focused on prevention are urgently needed. The results of the study, published by a team of French and American researchers in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, reinforce the triple bottom line (profit, people, and the environment) benefits of organic food for public health, the environment, and the wider economy.

Scientists used data from NutriNet-Santé, a massive study including over 170,000 participants (averaging 52 years old) that regularly respond to questions concerning lifestyle, dietary intake, body type, physical activity, and health status. Roughly 33,000 NutriNet-Santé participants completed food frequency questionnaire regarding how often they consumed organic food. After four years, 293 surveyed individuals had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Researchers then looked at how organic food consumption affected the risk of developing the disease, adjusting for body mass index, gender, family history of diabetes, physical activity, education, economic status, occupation, smoking, and alcohol consumption.

Higher organic food consumption was found to be inversely associated with the risk of developing type two diabetes. In fact, for every 5% increase in the proportion of organic foods in one’s diet, risk of type 2 diabetes decreased by 3%. When comparing the group with the highest proportion of organic food in their diet to those with the lowest, individuals in the high consumption group were 35% less likely to develop the disease.

Diving deeper into the numbers, risks were in fact more pronounced for women than men. Coauthor Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, PhD, told the French newspaper Le Monde, “We see a particularly marked effect in women, with a risk reduction of 65% in the largest consumers of organic products, but not a statistically significant effect in men, who represent 24% of the cohort.” Thus, the benefits of organic consumption for diabetes risk reduction appears to be greater for women than men. However, scientists caution that this may be because of a lack of data, as relatively few men were part of the study (only 24% of the 33,000 participants). Or, it may be that for type 2 diabetes, women and men display a sexual dimorphic response, where one sex may have different detoxifying capabilities.

This is not the first time pesticides have been linked to higher rates of diabetes. A 2008 study on pesticide applicators in two U.S. states found that every pesticide investigated increased diabetes risk by over 50%. A 2017 study zeroed in on one particular class of insecticides, carbamates, finding a propensity to adversely affect human melatonin receptors that regulate sleep, insulin secretion, and glucose homeostasis, increasing risk of diabetes. A 2017 report commissioned by Gallup-Sharecare found that farmers recorded the second-highest rate of diabetes among all professions. And a 2019 study from University of California, Davis, found that South Asian immigrants who had been exposed to higher rates of DDT also displayed higher rates of type 2 diabetes.

The present study adds weight to research published in 2018 in the journal Nutrients, which enrolled U.S. residents through the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. “Individuals who reported purchasing organic foods were less likely to have diabetes compared to those who did not report organic food purchase,” the study indicates. 

Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Disease Database provides a wealth of additional research on the link between toxic pesticide exposure and the development of diabetes. Replacing conventional food products with organic consistently leads to reduced levels of pesticide in one’s body. Now, as the present study shows, there is indication that maintaining lower levels of conventional, synthetic pesticides is likely to reduce risk of developing chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes.

Organic food not only protects health, it also reduces the influx of synthetic pesticides in the environment where it can harm pollinators and other wildlife, sequesters carbon, and helps grow local economies.

This Thanksgiving, consider purchasing organic turkey and trimmings whenever possible. While it may be slightly more expensive to do so, know that you are saving in the form of health, and health care dollars down the road. Find tips for your organic holidays on Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Free Holidays page. Learn more about the toxic chemicals that can coat your favorite foods on the Eating with a Conscience tool. And learn more about why organic is the right choice on the Organic Agriculture webpage.

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

Source: Le Monde, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

(Beyond Pesticides, November 23, 2020) The Biden transition plan for combatting climate change caused by agriculture does not mention organic. Yet research shows the potential of organic agriculture for reducing and preventing climate change. These studies also apply to land management in cities, parks, and playing fields.

Tell the Biden transition team to harness the power of organic to combat climate change.

Organic agriculture practices combat climate change by:

Reducing Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides. Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers in chemical-intensive agriculture is driving global nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions higher than any projected scenario, putting the world at greater risk of a climate catastrophe. According to research published by an international team of scientists in the journal Nature, failure to adequately address nitrous oxide emissions has the potential to impede the ability for the world to keep warming below the 2°C target established under the Paris Climate Agreement, necessitating further cuts in other greenhouse gasses. 

A 2018 study from the University of Virginia and The Organic Center found that “reactive” nitrogen, in the form readily available to be taken up by plants, is conserved in organic systems. Jessica Shade, PhD of The Organic Center, noted that the research was “significant and timely because its findings show that many common organic farming practices—like composting and the use of manure fertilization in place of synthetic fertilizers—can recycle reactive nitrogen that is already in the global system, rather than introducing new reactive nitrogen into the environment, and thus have a much smaller environmental impact.”

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

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

The Biden transition team for agriculture, which has made mitigating climate change a major emphasis, must focus its attention on promoting organic agriculture. It can start by appointing organic leaders as Secretary and other leadership positions.

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

Tell the Biden transition team to harness the power of organic to combat climate change.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2020) Many pet owners likely do not consider what is actually in the flea treatments they administer to their animals. That should change, and recent research demonstrates why. Scientists sampling rivers in England found extreme contamination with two neurotoxic pesticides commonly used in flea products for dogs and cats: fipronil and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. In many instances, the concentrations in the waterways were far higher than accepted “safe” levels. Though these compounds are banned for agricultural uses in the United Kingdom (UK), risk assessment for them, as used on animals, has been minimal because of the assumption that the amounts used for veterinary treatments would mean far-less-significant environmental impact than might be expected with agricultural-scale use. This research out of the University of Sussex voids that assumption, and the researchers recommend “re-evaluation of the environmental risks posed by pet parasite products, and a reappraisal of the risk assessments that these products undergo prior to regulatory approval.”

Apart from being an active ingredient in flea treatments for pets, fipronil is used in insect baits, and in turf management and agriculture in the U.S. It is highly toxic to insects, including bees, to birds, and to aquatic invertebrates. (It is particularly harmful to dragonflies.) Health-wise, it has damaging effects on the neurological, reproductive, endocrine, and renal and hepatic systems, and is a possible human carcinogen. Fipronil can have negative health impacts on pets themselves, including skin irritation, convulsions, incoordination, lethargy, and other effects.

Imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, is commonly used — aside from pet treatments — in U.S. agriculture, and in lawn and turf management. Commonly considered less problematic than fipronil, it is nevertheless also toxic to bees, birds, and fish and other aquatic organisms; it has some reproductive impacts in humans. Its environmental impact on such organisms was demonstrated in a 2017 risk assessment, through which EPA found that, “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.”

In the UK, fipronil is used in 66 different veterinary products, and imidacloprid in another 21; these may be the sole active ingredients in a product, or present along with other parasiticides. Such treatments may be administered via oral ingestion, spray-on application, or collars that harbor the pesticides. Given the UK ban on these chemicals for agricultural uses, pet treatment appears to be the primary source of the pollution in the rivers that were sampled.

The highest levels of contamination were found immediately downstream of wastewater treatment plants, giving credence to the notion that these compounds end up in household drains. Authors cite pet bathing (after flea treatment), laundering of pet bedding and towels used on pets, and even human handwashing (after petting a treated animal) as possible vectors from treated pets to wastewater drains. Others may include dogs swimming in waterways, and rainfall shedding off of pets.

The research paper was published in Science of the Total Environment. Co-author, veterinarian, and U of Sussex PhD student Rosemary Perkins commented, “The use of pet parasite products has increased over the years, with millions of dogs and cats now being routinely treated multiple times per year. . . . Fipronil is one of the most commonly used flea products, and recent studies have shown that it degrades to compounds that are more persistent in the environment, and more toxic to most insects, than fipronil itself. Our results, showing that fipronil and its toxic breakdown products are present in nearly all of the freshwater samples tested, are extremely concerning.”

The researchers analyzed data from river samples gathered by the UK Environment Agency, between 2016 and 2018, from 20 English waterways; they found fipronil in 98% of freshwater samples, and imidacloprid in 66%. Average concentrations of fipronil across the rivers sampled were five times established chronic safety thresholds, making the pesticide and its breakdown products very significant risks to aquatic ecosystems.

From most of the river samples assayed, imidacloprid was thought to represent moderate risks to those ecosystems, although in seven of the 20 waterways, that risk rose to high levels. Given the strong correlation between levels of fipronil and imidacloprid found across river samples, which points to a common source of the pollution, the researchers regard these findings as likely representative of broad presence of these compounds in England’s waterways.

Co-author and Professor Dave Goulson, PhD commented: “Fipronil and imidacloprid are both highly toxic to all insects and other aquatic invertebrates. Studies have shown both pesticides to be associated with declines in the abundance of aquatic invertebrate communities. The finding that our rivers are routinely and chronically contaminated with both of these chemicals and mixtures of their toxic breakdown products is deeply troubling.”

Though banned in the UK, use of these noxious compounds in agriculture continues to be permitted in the U.S. by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Fipronil is recognized as a widespread contaminant of U.S. surface waters. A Fall 2020 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) study found that both fipronil and imidacloprid were among the most toxic pesticides found in 72 watersheds across the country, and two of several drivers of toxicity to benthic invertebrates. (Benthic invertebrates are those that live on or under the silt at the bottom of waterways, such as nematodes, flatworms, freshwater mussels, crabs, shrimp, clams, et al.). In 2018, the Washington State Department of Ecology proscribed use of imidacloprid in or on Willapa Bay after it determined that “environmental harm from this neonicotinoid pesticide would be too great.”

In addition, research has shown that fipronil can cause transgenerational toxicity in zebrafish and copepods (a type of crustacean), meaning that non-target organisms can be impacted without ever having had direct exposure. In zebrafish, those impacts included a 30% reduction in hatch rates and more than double the typical mortality rate in offspring. More research is needed to understand whether this same phenomenon extends to other species. Another 2020 USGS study revealed that fipronil, ubiquitous in U.S. waterways, is even more toxic to aquatic insects than was previously thought, and can trigger trophic cascades capable of destabilizing entire aquatic ecosystems.

In reporting on that USGS study, Beyond Pesticides wrote, “Despite the high quality of the findings by a U.S. government agency, pesticide regulators at [EPA] do not adequately consider ecosystem-level effects when determining whether to register a pesticide. As a result, without public pressure on the agency, it is unlikely it will follow the science and take the action necessary to rein in use and safeguard the environment.” Earlier this year, Beyond Pesticides wrote, “The environment would be well-served if those tasked with protecting it were to restrict use of this insecticide.” 

In the first quarter of 2020, EPA began a registration review of fipronil, as is supposed to happen for each pesticide every 15 years. Registration review means that EPA looks at new information about a subject compound to ensure that it continues to meet the standards of FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) for registration — registration being, essentially, permission for, and any constraints on, a pesticide’s use.

When the public comment period was opened on the review of fipronil, the Attorney General of California, Xavier Becerra, wrote in his comments: “If the EPA proposes re-registration of fipronil based on the incomplete and inconsistent draft risk assessments, it may violate FIFRA, which bars registrations that would cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” The Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) also weighed in, saying it was “‘surprised and disappointed’ that the draft risk assessment ‘does not even mention the scientific fact that fipronil is discharged to municipal wastewater systems (which) pass through (publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities), and result in discharges that pose ecological risks.’”

Apropos the findings of the UK study, BACWA also called for “an extended risk assessment of fipronil, evaluating sewer discharges from pet flea control treatments. And it is proposing risk mitigation strategies for fipronil products, such as product stewardship labels and requiring pet owners not to wash their pets for at least two weeks after treatment.”

An EPA registration review of imidacloprid began in late 2019, and EPA issued an interim decision on imidacloprid’s re-registration early in 2020. Beyond Pesticides reported: “Despite finding widespread harm to pollinators, birds, and aquatic organisms, the agency is only requiring limited changes around application timing and amounts. It is eliminating use of imidacloprid on residential turf for grubs, and according to a release will be requiring ‘language on the label advising homeowners not to use neonicotinoid products.’ Thus, the agency appears to be approving a product for sale it does not wish people to use.”

EPA should take note of the English study and its recommendations, and pay more attention in its reviews of these pesticides to the “flea treatment vector.” If English waterways are so profoundly contaminated by fipronil and imidacloprid — absent their use in UK agriculture — it can be reasonably speculated that this problem in the U.S. is worse, given that both compounds are permitted for use here. Also supporting that speculation are the facts that 41% of households in the UK have at least one pet, whereas 54% of U.S. households do; most of those are dogs and cats, on which flea treatments are typically used. Ultimately, EPA should follow the UK’s lead, and “ban” fipronil and imidacloprid by not re-registering them.

Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201117085940.htm

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 19, 2020) A new study by researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) finds that crop diversity in commercial agriculture is just as essential to supporting a stable biological system as plant diversity on non-commercial landscapes. Furthermore, less diverse crop areas lead to higher, more intensive pesticide use, indicating a threat to environmental and human health, as well as food security. This research highlights the need to develop policies that facilitate a decrease in overall pesticide use by helping farmers and global leaders make more knowledgeable decisions about crop area size and diversity to sustain biodiversity. Researchers note, “While [crop] complexity increases stability and reduces high deviations in insecticide use, accounting for crop and farmer-specific characteristics is crucial for statistical inference and sound scientific understanding.

In this study, researchers aim to understand how crop and landscape diversity impacts pest populations, using insecticide use data as a surrogate for pest populations data. Data observations are from Kern County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC), California, over the period 2005 to 2017. Crop data includes crop type, acceptable field size, field and farmer permit number, and active dates for the field. To estimate pesticide use variance, researchers summated annually and peak insecticide uses on crop areas and landscapes. Lastly, researchers estimate the impact of cropland diversity and size on the intensity and variation of insecticide use using a generalized least-squares (GLS) evaluation.

The research finds that more complex/diverse croplands and landscapes boast lower levels of insecticide use, thus lower pest populations. Furthermore, larger, less diverse croplands have higher concentrations of insecticide use with more variation in the type of pesticides used than comparable to smaller, more diverse crop areas. The study’s authors mention, “We find increasing cropland in the landscape and larger fields generally increase the level and variability of pesticides, while crop diversity has the opposite effect.”

Since the 1940s, ecological theory maintains that greater diversity promotes the stability of an ecosystem. However, U.S. commercial agriculture and non-commercial landscapes have become more chemically intensive managed and less diverse. Chemicals, like pesticides, to control many wild plant species on non-commercial landscapes—mainly for aesthetic purposes—not only limits pollinator foraging ground, but also causes harm to pollinators and other animals upon exposure. The implications of commercial, chemical-intensive agriculture are similar but on a much grander scale as farmers more frequently apply pesticide treatments to larger, monoculture crop areas. Perversely, monoculture crops induce biodiversity loss and pollinator. Regions like the Midwest, which boasts vast monoculture grain crops, experience high levels of pesticide contamination in nearby water sources. This circumstance is especially concerning since the current Administration waives the requirement for the multinational company Syngenta to monitor Midwestern waterways for atrazine, a ubiquitous pesticide, contamination.

This study adds to the growing body of scientific research supporting the same conclusion, that larger, monoculture croplands contain higher concentrations of pests, thus higher pesticide use. Large mono-crop can foster specific pests to persist as they have ample of the same food source, thus resulting in greater insecticide use. Small, diverse crop areas can alleviate pest pressure as food sources differ, barring specific pest persistence. The results of the study demonstrate how complex and interconnected pesticide use is regarding cropland size and crop knowledge. Furthermore, the authors suggest global leaders focus on strategies that increase food production while minimizing the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment. Co-author of the study Ashley Larsen, Ph.D., concludes, “Once you introduce insecticides into the study, then it’s not just about diversity and stability in this ecological theory. Now it has implications for environmental impacts and food security. [The] results illustrate that complexity cascades up to affect insect pest control actions and the stability thereof, but that synthesis of observations across crops, farms, or regions must be done with extreme care.”

The study notes various benefits of reducing pesticide use that come with a reduction in pest populations, “Reducing pest abundance and resulting pesticide use yields two types of benefit. First, it reduces the costs of crop losses and pesticide applications, benefits that are likely to be, at least partially, incorporated into farmer decision making. Second, it reduces the negative environmental, ecological, and health impacts of pesticide use, which are benefits largely external to the farmer and thus may be neglected.”

Transitioning from large, monoculture, chemical-intensive commercial farming to small, diverse, organic agriculture can aid in the reduction of pest and pesticide use. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for toxic pesticides. Regenerative agriculture revitalizes soil health through organic carbon sequestration while reducing pests and generating higher profits than chemical-intensive agriculture. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure. For additional information, see Beyond Pesticides webpage on organic agriculture.

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

Source(s): Science Daily, UCSB

(Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2020) The herbicide atrazine is likely to adversely affect over half of endangered species listed in the United States, according to a report released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of a legal agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Based on both adverse human health and environmental threats, Beyond Pesticides joined with Center for Food Safety, CBD, and other public-interest groups in October to sue EPA over its decision to reapprove atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting herbicide banned across much of the world. These actions follow the agency’s recent reapproval of atrazine, which reduced a number of safeguards for public health and the environment, and it’s enactment of rules that limit endangered species reviews.  See (Lawsuit Challenges EPA Reapproval of Endocrine-Disrupting Pesticide Atrazine: Agency Slashes Protections for Children, Waterways.) Although advocates are hopeful that the next administration will shift toward an EPA that lives up to its namesake, there is considerable ground to make up.

Atrazine is an herbicide that disrupts the endocrine system by mimicking the body’s natural hormones, binding to hormone receptors in the body. In humans, the effect can result in birth defects, damage to the reproductive system, and chronic diseases like cancer.

As EPA’s review shows, wildlife is particularly hard hit by exposure to endocrine-disrupting atrazine. The chemical was found likely to harm 1,013 endangered species — 56% of all species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Specific studies have found atrazine exposure to result in “chemical castration” of certain frog species. It was recently found to harm the reproductive health of marsupials. Stranded dolphins and whales along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard have recently tested positive for atrazine. Despite the risk the herbicide poses to aquatic species, the Trump EPA this year waived requirements that atrazine manufacturer Syngenta-ChemChina monitor U.S. waterways for presence of the chemical.

Earlier this year, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler issued new methods for biological evaluations of endangered species, a step viewed by advocates as another give-away for toxic industries. EPA’s new approach ignores many of the ways that endangered species are commonly hurt or killed by pesticides, including consideration of pesticide runoff from treated farmland, and the loss of pollinating insects on which some endangered plant species depend. The agency’s new rules allow the continued labeling, marketing, and use of pesticides without sensible constraints that would protect threatened or endangered species.

As a result, many in the environmental community find EPA’s assessment lacking, and indicate that the agency’s results were significantly underestimated.

Biological evaluations are in themselves a fraught process that rarely occurs without public intervention. EPA regularly allows pesticides on to market without a full assessment of impacts to endangered species. Its release of the current review came only after a lawsuit led to a legal agreement that the agency would assess eight pesticides for their harm to endangered species.

Although banning atrazine would harm to bottom line for multinational companies like Syngenta-ChemChina, such a move would provide an economic benefit to farmers. Numerous other countries, including the European Union as far back as 2004, have banned atrazine and eliminated use without any damage to the farming economy.

Tyrone Hayes, PhD, one of the world’s foremost experts on atrazine, has been the subject of incessant attacks by Syngenta-Chemchina for his research on harmful effects of the chemical. Watch his keynote presentation at the 33rd National Pesticide Forum in Irvine, CA for more information on this toxic herbicide.

It is critically important that advocates ramp up pressure on the incoming Biden administration to take strong action to promote a safer farming system that eschews the use of toxic pesticides. Help tell President-elect Biden that we need agencies like the US Department of Agriculture to support organic practices.  

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

Source: EPA, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety

.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 17, 2020) Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture is driving global nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions higher than any projected scenario, putting the world at greater risk of a climate catastrophe. According to research published by an international team of scientists in the journal Nature, failure to adequately address nitrous oxide emissions has the potential to impede the ability for the world to keep warming below the 2°C target established under the Paris Climate Agreement, necessitating further cuts in other greenhouse gasses. The paper is a clarion call for greater attention to agriculture’s role in generating and mitigating the climate crisis.

“The dominant driver of the increase in atmospheric nitrous oxide comes from agriculture, and the growing demand for food and feed for animals will further increase global nitrous oxide emissions,” explains study lead author Hanqin Tian,  PhD, director of the International Center for Climate and Global Change Research at Auburn University in Alabama. “There is a conflict between the way we are feeding people and stabilizing the climate.”

Nitrous oxide both damages ozone and warms the atmosphere, as it is roughly 300x better at capturing heat than carbon dioxide. To account for global nitrous oxide emissions, the research team synthesized emission data from a wide range of both anthropogenic and natural sources, including consideration of the biogeochemical processes that influence N₂O release into the atmosphere. In sum, it covers 21 natural and human related sectors between the years 1980 and 2016.

Growth in nitrous oxide emissions over these last four decades has been considerable, with human-caused release, mostly from fertilizer use on cropland, increasing by 30%. Compared to pre-industrial levels, nitrous oxide levels increased 20% from all sources.

“Current emissions are tracking global temperature increases above 3 degrees Celsius — twice the temperature target of the Paris Agreement,” said study co-author Robert Jackson, PhD, a Stanford University professor and chair of the Global Carbon Project.

The highest level of anthropogenic nitrous oxide came from East Asia, with North America, Africa, and Europe following in turn. The study indicates, “High direct agricultural N₂O emissions can be attributed to the large-scale application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers in East Asia, Europe, South Asia and North America, which together consume over 80% of the world’s synthetic nitrogen fertilizers” The bulk of emissions in South America and Africa can be attributed to animal agriculture. Use of nitrogen fertilizers in aquaculture farming, primarily in East Asia, also contribute significant emissions. Industrial chemical production also makes up a sizable share of N₂O release in both emerging economies in Africa and East Asia, as well as in more developed North American and Europe.

Only Europe and Russia (investigated separately by researchers) displayed a downward trend in nitrous oxide emissions. For Russia, the decrease was explained by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its agricultural co-op system in the early 1990s. Europe’s decrease can be owed to agricultural policies that successfully addressed excessive nitrogen use.

“Europe is the only region in the world that has successfully reduced nitrous oxide emissions over the past two decades,” said study coauthor Wilfried Winiwarter, PhD. “Industrial and agricultural policies to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution and to optimize fertilizer use efficiencies have proven to be effective. Still, further efforts will be required, in Europe as well as globally.”

Synthetic fertilizers were developed in the early 1900s by chemists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch. They developed a process to fix nitrogen from the air into ammonia, which could be applied as a plant fertilizer. While new synthetic fertilizers work quickly, they come with a range of downsides.

Any synthetic fertilizer that is applied to land, but not immediately taken up by plant roots, can make its way into rivers, lakes, streams, or back into the air as harmful nitrous oxide through the nitrogen cycle. Eutrophication, or oxygen depletion, is a major environmental problem resulting from synthetic fertilizer use. It occurs when excessive nutrients runoff into local waterways, causing algae blooms that consume oxygen in the water as they decay.

Runoff from synthetic sources of nitrogen can also cause nitrate and nitrite pollution that contaminates drinking water. Elevated nitrate concentrations in drinking water has been linked to methemoglobinemia (“blue baby syndrome”), birth defects, cancers, and thyroid problems, even at levels below EPA allowable limits.

Synthetic nitrogen applied to cropland can also be emitted from agricultural soil in the form of harmful nitrogen oxides (NOx, NO, NO₂).  In this form, nitrogen compounds not only damage the ozone layer and contribute to climate change, but also lead to the creation of smog and acid rain, increasing public health risks for asthma and other respiratory illnesses. A 2018 study determined that the state of California was woefully underestimating nitrogen oxide emissions from agricultural sources.

Changes in policy and regulation are critical to addressing the warming effects of nitrogen pollution, as evidence shows that farms can be either a source or a sink for greenhouse gasses. “This new analysis calls for a full-scale rethink in the ways we use and abuse nitrogen fertilizers globally and urges us to adopt more sustainable practices in the way we produce food, including the reduction of food waste,” said study coauthor Josep ‘Pep’ Canadell, PhD.

A 2018 study from the University of Virginia and The Organic Center found that “reactive” nitrogen, in the form readily available to be taken up by plants, is conserved in organic systems. Jessica Shade, PhD of The Organic Center, noted that the research was “significant and timely because its findings show that many common organic farming practices—like composting and the use of manure fertilization in place of synthetic fertilizers—can recycle reactive nitrogen that is already in the global system, rather than introducing new reactive nitrogen into the environment, and thus have a much smaller environmental impact.”

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

The convenience of chemical-intensive agriculture is balanced by costs to public health, the planet, and future generations that are rapidly becoming insurmountable. Help effect a shift to safer organic practices through your buying practices by purchasing organic whenever possible. For a run-down of safer fertilizers to use in an organic system, see Beyond Pesticides page on Organic Compatible Fertilizers. Take action today to make certain the next administration prioritizes organic practices at the United States Department of Agriculture.

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

Source: Science Daily, Greenbiz, Nature

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2020) Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) sits at the nexus of complex and systemic problems that need urgent attention—pesticide-dependent genetically engineered crops, the integrity of certified organic agriculture, and the climate crisis—the choice of the agency’s head is critical to meeting the challenges necessary to sustaining life.

USDA has long been a big promoter of chemical-intensive agriculture. With President-elect Joe Biden committed to priorities of addressing health care, systemic racism, and climate change, the time is now for USDA to change the way it does business. We need an organic advocate in the Secretary of Agriculture, who must be committed to transitioning chemical-intensive agriculture to organic practices—thereby eliminating petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, sequestering atmospheric carbon, protecting farmworker and farmer health, delivering a safe food supply, and ensuring clean air, water, and healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Tell President-elect Biden to appoint an organic leader as USDA Secretary.

The purview of USDA is far-ranging—from SNAP (food stamps) to agricultural support programs to research to inspections and other regulations. And the National Organic Program. Research includes programs promoting pesticides and genetically engineered crops. USDA’s history with President-elect Biden’s priority issues has not been good historically. Promotion of chemical-intensive production hurts health as well as the environment and leads to increased climate change. Chemical-intensive agriculture is systemically racist—disproportionately exposing black, indigenous, and people of color to hazardous chemicals from their production through use and disposal, while food deserts in low income neighborhoods offer low quality processed food contaminated with chemical residues.

We need an organic leader at USDA—a catalyst who will promote healthy organic food for all, as well as agricultural production practices that prevent climate change and environmental degradation.

There are plenty of possibilities from which to choose:

• Public officials include organic farmers like Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana), and Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (D-Vermont). 
• State Agriculture commissioners Jim Hightower (Texas) and Kate Greenberg (D-Colorado). She worked on organic and regenerative farms and was a leader with the National Young Farmers Association.
• Organic and regenerative farmers who have worked at USDA, including Francis Thicke, PhD, who is an organic farmer and former National Organic Standards Board member and USDA National Program Leader for Soil Science, and Shirley Sherrod, who was the Georgia State Director of Rural Development.
• Organic and regenerative farmers and ranchers who, because of historic discrimination, have never been offered political appointments, but have proven themselves as leaders, include John Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Association, Karen Washington, co-founder of Black Urban Growers, and Winona LaDuke, founder of the White Earth Land Recovery Project, to name just a few.

Tell President-elect Biden to appoint an organic leader as USDA Secretary.

Letter to President-elect Biden’s Agriculture Transition Team

I am writing to you because I am concerned that people—like former Senator Heidi Heitkamp—who have been suggested as the Secretary of Agriculture in the Biden administration will take us in the wrong direction and not meet the existential crises of the climate crisis and biodiversity devastation. We have a plethora of dedicated leaders to choose from who have exhibited a deep commitment to advancing organic agriculture—thereby eliminating petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, sequestering atmospheric carbon, protecting farmworker and farmer health, delivering a safe food supply, and ensuring clean air, water, and healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

The purview of USDA is far-ranging—from SNAP (food stamps) to agricultural support programs to research to inspections and other regulations. And the National Organic Program. Research includes programs promoting pesticides and genetically engineered crops. USDA’s history with the Biden priority issues has not been good in the past. Promotion of chemical-intensive production hurts health as well as the environment and leads to increased climate change. Chemical-intensive agriculture is systemically racist—disproportionately exposing black, indigenous, and people of color to hazardous chemicals from their production through use and disposal, while food deserts in low income neighborhoods offer low quality processed food contaminated with chemical residues.

We need an organic leader at USDA—a catalyst who will promote organic food for all, as well as production that prevents climate change and environmental degradation.

There are plenty of possibilities to choose from:

*Public officials include organic farmers like Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (D-Vermont).

*State Agriculture commissioners Jim Hightower (Texas) and Kate Greenberg (D-Colorado). She worked on organic and regenerative farms and was a leader with the National Young Farmers Association.

*Organic and regenerative farmers who have worked at USDA, including  Francis Thicke, PhD, who was USDA’s National Program Leader for Soil Science, and Shirley Sherrod, who was the Georgia State Director of Rural Development.

*Organic and regenerative farmers and ranchers who, because of historic discrimination, have never been offered political appointments, but have proven themselves as leaders, include John Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Association, Karen Washington, co-founder of Black Urban Growers, and Winona LaDuke, founder of the White Earth Land Recovery Project, to name just a few.

Please select an organic leader for Secretary of Agriculture, who must be committed to transitioning from chemical-intensive agriculture to organic practices—thereby eliminating petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, sequestering atmospheric carbon, protecting farmworker and farmer health, delivering a safe food supply, and ensuring clean air, water, and healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2020) The toxic herbicide dicamba is once again at the center of a larger story about states’ authority to regulate pesticides beyond federal dictates. The Trump EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has just made it much harder for state regulations to be more protective than federal rules are. It did so via a footnote embedded in dozens of pages of regulatory documents related to EPA’s registration of three new dicamba products. Given conservatives’ long-standing lip service to “states’ rights,” this EPA’s thwarting of the wishes of individual states to respond to their respective circumstances could easily be regarded as an odd — though, during this administration, hardly singular — stance. This latest development underscores EPA’s continuing failures to protect people and the environment, and the increasing tension between centralized, federal regulation and more-local regulation, whether by states or smaller localities.

For nearly 30 years, state regulators have used a Section 24 provision of FIFRA, the Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act — the law that gives EPA authority to regulate pesticides — to establish specific restrictions, on use of federally registered pesticide products, that go beyond what EPA has mandated. The agency has long allowed states to add to the edicts of federal pesticide labels in order to protect workers, crops, and/or the environment under particular local circumstances.

Section 24 harbors two subsections at issue, as Progressive Farmer notes: “Section 24(a) establishes that states have the right to regulate federal pesticides through state legislatures or rulemaking procedures, a time-consuming and often political process that can take years. Section 24(c) is more nimble. It grants states the right to issue ‘special local needs labels’ on an annual basis, to address local agricultural, environmental or public health needs by granting ‘additional uses’ to federal pesticide labels.” Historically, the 24(c) provision has been used extensively to expand pesticide uses allowed on product labels by federal registrations.

For several decades, EPA has construed 24(c) to mean that states can establish more-restrictive regulations than the federal. Indeed, in 1996, it published this as guidance for states. In the past few years, especially, as EPA has failed to enact constraints on the uses of dicamba, which has caused massive devastation to non-target crops and trees (as well as to wildlife), many states have moved to establish additional controls on the pesticide’s use.

Beyond Pesticides reported in 2019 that “A number of states, including Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota, Illinois, and Arkansas, have instituted restrictions on [dicamba] use that surpass those accompanying the federal registration of the compound. Texas, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina are all eyeing 24(c) requests [for stricter-than-federal controls] for tighter application windows, additional training requirements, better record keeping, new fine structures for violations, and other modifications of the federal label.”

This new (and stealthily announced) EPA impediment to states’ ability to create additional constraints hinges on the agency’s decision to reinterpret what states can do under Section 24(c) of FIFRA. EPA confirmed that the subject footnote represents an official policy change, saying, “EPA has determined that moving forward, EPA may disapprove any state registrations under FIFRA section 24(c) that further restrict use of pesticides registered by EPA, regardless of the chemicals involved. If a state wishes to further restrict use of a pesticide, they must do so under section 24(a) of FIFRA.”

This change means that state regulators will now have to navigate state legislative or rulemaking processes per Section 24(a) in order to enact such protections — far less “nimble” approaches to often urgent, seasonal circumstances. In the case of dicamba, states have frequently chosen to control the timing, nature, location, or quantity of applications of the pesticide in efforts to diminish the damage it causes to non-target plants and organisms. In addition, this reversal by EPA overturns decades of precedent, and as Progressive Farmer reports, “breaks EPA’s past promises to the states and threatens to damage the longstanding cooperative relationship between federal and state regulators.”

Although EPA did foreshadow this change in March 2019, state regulators are feeling blindsided. Back then, EPA announced — during one wave of state additions to federal labels on dicamba — that it might alter its handling of states’ requests to enact stricter controls, claiming that the actual language of 24(c) allows states only to permit additional uses of a federally registered pesticide. EPA was apparently disturbed by the magnitude of use of 24(c) by states to restrict dicamba, particularly in the South and Midwest.

EPA said at the time, “Due to the fact that section 24(a) allows states to regulate the use of any federally registered pesticide, and the fact that some states have instead used 24(c) to implement cut-off dates (and/or impose other restrictions), EPA is now re-evaluating its approach to reviewing 24(c) requests and the circumstances under which it will exercise its authority to disapprove those requests.” State regulators reacted to this announcement with great concern: officials from 10 different states urged EPA not to adopt the policy change, as did the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO).

Here’s where the blindsiding arises: EPA Office of Pesticide Programs director Rick Keigwin said, alongside the 2019 announcement, that no changes would be made to the agency’s 24(c) interpretation without the input of state regulators. “Before adopting any changes in this regard, we will solicit public comment on our proposed new approaches,” he wrote in the spring and summer of 2019. “We look forward to a robust public dialogue with our stakeholders, partners and co-regulators on this matter.”

But that did not happen, state regulators report. “There was no public comment period, no consultation,” said Leo Reed, an Indiana pesticide regulator and president of AAPCO. Rose Kachadoorian, a pesticide regulator from Oregon (where many 24(c) registrations have occurred) said, “We are co-regulators with EPA, and we believe we have a good relationship with EPA. But this doesn’t feel like a co-regulator relationship. A change in the agency’s interpretation of a law should go through a public process, especially when it deviates from a longstanding practice that EPA has said was fine in [its written guidance].” She also notes that state regulators are frustrated because it seems that EPA is changing its 24(c) policy in order to address its annoyance over state action on one pesticide, dicamba, “potentially at the expense of countless other pesticides that require state-specific restrictive 24(c) labels.”

The existing guidance on 24(c) remains on the EPA website, creating confusion and a “legal limbo” for state regulators. Brook Duer, a staff attorney at Penn State’s Center for Agricultural and Shale Law, opined that even if the literal text of 24(c) comports with EPA’s new interpretation, the decades-old, published interpretation and guidance represent a “binding norm” under federal administrative law. He commented: “So unilaterally reversing it through a footnote, without a more transparent and public process — like what EPA previously represented would be undertaken — is certainly unorthodox and may even create the basis for litigation to prevent the reversal.”

Further, Mr. Duer said, “This is still totally up in the air. There’s no guidance on what happens to restrictive 24(c) labels that are in effect right now — is this a blanket invalidation of them all?” He expects that states may have a hard time getting the clarity they need from any court, in large part because states do not have the budgetary resources to press the matter legally, given both generally declining resources during the pandemic and the significant resource drain that dealing with dicamba has been — even as those states see another season of dicamba use coming in 2021.

These tussles over who can regulate pesticide use beyond federal registration rules, and in what circumstances, happen not only at the federal–state juncture. Many U.S. localities, such as counties and municipalities (often supported by the advocacy of community and nonprofit groups), have sought to act more protectively on pesticide use for their jurisdictions — and often found it tough going.

Typically, a locality will establish stricter regulations, and nearly inevitably, preemption — the ability of a “higher” level of government to override laws or regulations of a lower level, sometimes promoted by industry interests — takes center stage as feds preempt state efforts, or states preempt those of counties or municipalities. An example of the latter was covered by Beyond Pesticides from 2017–2019, when an initiative in Lincoln County, Oregon to ban aerial pesticide spraying had initial success, but was ultimately struck down by a court, citing state preemption.     

Beyond Pesticides noted in its coverage of that 2019 EPA announcement on 24(c) that, “[The] issue of preemption of localities’ desires to protect their populations and environment has become an increasingly dynamic frontier at the nexus of pesticide use, health, and environment.” Localities generally face an uphill slog in trying to protect their residents, lands, and resources from the assaults of pesticides, GMOs (genetically modified organisms), factory farms, fracking sites, or a host of other ills that communities may find objectionable because of health, safety, and/or environmental concerns.

Beyond Pesticides has previously provided “explainers” on how preemption operates, and the source of some of the conflict about preemption at the state–local nexus. Salient excerpts are offered here.

On the origin of pre-emption, from a 2017 Daily News Blog article: “The tension between states’ preemptive authority, and the emerging insistence on greater local control to protect its residents, goes to the very heart of not only how governments at state and local levels derive their authority in a democratic system, but also, how that authority is shared — or not. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) clearly establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. At the state level, things can become a bit less clear. Each state has its own Constitution, of course, its own interpretive history of the document, and its own assignations of authority regarding the host of issues with which governments concern themselves.”

Then, from a 2019 Daily News Blog entry: “In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, that the federal law known as FIFRA — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act — which regulates pesticide distribution, sale, and use, does not preempt local jurisdictions from creating more-stringent pesticide regulation. Thus, it was ruled that FIFRA nowhere expressly supersedes local regulation. However, and critically, the court left intact the ability of states to preempt such regulations. The essential argument of localities, and of Beyond Pesticides in the many cases in which it has participated, is that state preemption laws effectively deny local residents and decision makers their democratic right to better protection when a community decides that minimum standards set by state and federal law are insufficient.

“This tussle between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ levels of government re: which [can] claim authority to regulate factors in public health and safety, which has played out across communities in the U.S., goes to some of the fundamental principles on which the American democratic experiment is based. In 2012, Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman wrote, ‘This is a very interesting story in American democracy. How did we get to this point in the history of the [U.S.] that we have taken away the local police powers of our local jurisdictions to protect the local public health of our people? This challenges a basic tenet that this country is based on — local governance.’”

Even in this challenging context, some localities have succeeded in passing and enacting ordinances that restrict pesticide use more stringently than federal and state regulations would. In 2013, Takoma Park, Maryland was the first in the nation to restrict the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides on both private and public property within the city.

More recently, Montgomery County, Maryland has successfully adopted its Healthy Lawns Act, which restricts toxic pesticide use on public and private property; the City of Gaithersburg has recently opted in to that law. Prince George’s County (also in Maryland) and Baltimore are considering similar ordinances. The pesticide industry spent years challenging Montgomery County’s law; after numerous court proceedings, the Maryland Court of Appeals granted the county the authority to restrict pesticides on all property, public and private, within its jurisdiction. With the court case settled, communities in the state that had long wanted to rein in use of toxic pesticides that degrade residents’ and environmental health can now do so.

In addition, both Portland and South Portland, Maine have successfully established stricter-than-state regulations on pesticide use. Both municipalities have banned toxic pesticide use on public and private property. None of these local initiatives passed (and survived legal challenges) without very hard work and well-run education and advocacy campaigns. But localities can adopt protective ordinances governing the use of pesticides, and even in states that are more problematic, may be able to do so at least for public lands.

Beyond Pesticides has long asserted the rights of local governments to protect public health and the environment, especially when federal and state governments fail to enact adequate protections. Localities across the country continue the work to pass statutes that would better safeguard residents and resources.  Organized people — at local and state levels — can act, whether on dicamba on agricultural fields or glyphosate in public parks, to protect their communities. Learn more about how with Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet on preemption, its Lawn and Landscape Tools for Change, its webpage of Organizational Resources, and the Beyond Pesticides and Organic Consumers Association map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies.

Source: https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2020/11/06/epa-throws-roadblock-state-dicamba

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 12, 2020) A new report from the University of Milan and Poison Control Center (CVA) in Milan, Italy suggests that domestic animals experience frequent environmental poisoning by household toxicants. This research highlights the significance of investigating methods to classify diseases shared across multiple species to reduce the adverse effects of toxicant exposure. Researchers note, “These findings can provide useful information for the identification and monitoring of known and emerging toxicants, with positive repercussions on human, animal, and environmental health.”

Veterinary toxicologists collaborated with the Poison Control Centre of Milan to analyze data related to animal poisoning episodes from January 2017 to March 2019. Evaluated data includes comprehensive information about animal species, potential poisoning agents, route of exposure, and clinical signs. Toxic chemicals (toxicants) considered include pesticides (insecticides, rodenticides, molluscicides, herbicides, and fungicides), drugs/medication (human and veterinary medicinal products, tobacco/nicotine, and drugs of abuse), household products (i.e., detergent, disinfectants), and other causative compounds. To analyze data results, researchers used IBM® SPSS® Statistics software and graphed findings using Prism by GraphPad.

Researchers reported 442 animal poisoning episodes. Pesticides and medicine are the two major causes of domestic animal poisoning (34.1% and 33.5% of incidents, respectively). The remainder of animal poising incidents are from household products and other causative agents. The number one cause of pesticide-related poising events is insecticides (44.6%)—including pyrethrin/pyrethroids and neonicotinoids, followed by rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, molluscicides, and unspecified pesticides. The leading cause of medicine-related poisoning is veterinary prescriptions. Species observations demonstrate that dogs and cats are most frequently associated with animal poisoning incidents. The most common exposure route is ingestion, preceding dermal and mucosal exposure (via inhalation). Nearly all animal exposures incidents are accidental (93%), however, some incidents occur due to owner errors/misuses, intentional poising, or unknown sources.

Individuals often use toxic chemicals without realizing the harm that they can cause to themselves and their pets. Pets are of specific concern, as their behavior patterns make them more likely to encounter harmful chemicals and their smaller bodies increase susceptibility to chemical effects. Furthermore, pets can develop diseases comparable to human illnesses from susceptibility to the same environmental contaminants, but at a quicker pace. This is because pets share a combination of gene functions and pathophysiological (biological processes associated with disease or injury) similar to humans. Animals, therefore, can act as viable biological sentinel species (bioindicators) to determine and assess the impact (especially chronic) of environmental pollutants on human health.

Clinal results from this research reveal similar effects on domesticated animals, as that exposure to these chemicals causes gastrointestinal issues such as vomiting, neurological problems like convulsions/tremors and ataxia, heart problems like slow or rapid heart rate, and irregular heartbeat, and sometimes mortality. Cats are highly sensitive to synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, triggering seizures, tremors, muscle spasms that can lead to death. This study does not explicitly consider cumulative pesticide exposure incidents from household products and veterinary medicine, which could compound health effects.

The use of chemical pesticides must not exacerbate the risk to both animals and humans in the process of avoiding or controlling bacteria, viruses, and other biological pests. Furthermore, we must have a full knowledge of chemicals we are commonly exposed to in our environment, especially as agencies fail to accurately assess the cause of pesticide-induced diseases of these environmental contaminants. Harms ultimately associated with contaminant exposure should end through policy reform and the adoption of safer practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use. With far too many human and animal diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, replacing pesticides with organic, non-toxic alternatives is crucial for safeguarding public health, particularly organisms vulnerable to pesticide toxicity. See Beyond Pesticide’s pets page to learn more about pesticide impacts on pet health, including how to how to protect your pet from pesticides and the least-toxic controls for flea and tick infestation. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a comprehensive resource for additional scientific literature that documents elevated rates of diabetes, cancer, as well as other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides.

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

Source(s): University of Milan/CVA

(Beyond Pesticides, November 11, 2020) Neonicotinoid insecticides inhibit honey bee sleep cycles, leading to stress and population declines, according to research from Vanderbilt University, published in Scientific Reports. Although there is already ample evidence of the dangers these systemic insecticides pose to pollinators – as evidenced by recent bans in the European Union and Canada – this new line of investigation add further detail to the ongoing crisis in the pollinator world. “I was thinking about honey bee disappearances and it clicked—if pesticides are killing bees indirectly but we don’t know exactly how, maybe it’s because they’re getting physically lost,” said study coauthor Michael Tackenberg, PhD. 

Scientists conducted the experiment using honey bees located on Vanderbilt’s campus, which does not use neonicotinoid insecticides. After returning from pollen collection, forager bees were captured at their hive entrance and moved into monitoring tubes, which were subsequently transferred to the lab. In the lab, scientists were able to control light and dark cycles, and exposed bees to levels neonicotinoids they would likely experience if foraging on contaminated flowers.

Foraging bees were first exposed to light/dark at 12/12 cycles, followed by four days of complete darkness, at which time some bees were provided neonics, and others were not. Only 12% of control bees that did not feed on contaminated nectar displayed disrupted sleep cycles, while over 40% of exposed pollinators were adversely affected.

“Graphically, normal circadian rhythms look like steady waves,” said Giannoni-Guzmán, PhD, the paper’s co-first author. “When we observed bees that consumed neonicotinoids over several days, we saw a loss of waves, movement at random times or signs of barely any sleep at all.” Exposed pollinators increased their activity later into the night, although did not display an overall increase in activity.

Researchers were surprised to see that exposing the foragers to consistent darkness, without a light/dark cycle first, appeared to blunt the adverse effects of exposure. This tipped researchers off to the concept that light was playing a key rule in the interplay between neonicotinoids and sleep disruption. Consistent exposure to light disrupted the sleep cycle for 28% of pollinators; when the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam was introduced, a much larger proportion, 46% of bees, were disrupted. In contrast, exposure to the same levels in consistent darkness had no significant effects.

“We have seen how neonicotinoids disrupt honey bees’ biological clocks so that many no longer have regular sleep-wake rhythms,” said study co-author Doug McMahon, PhD. “The bees that do have irregular sleep-wake rhythms are sleep deprived and skewed in their alignment in time and environment.”

Disruption of the circadian clock has far-reaching implications on complex social insects like the honey bee. Many are familiar with the evidence that neonicotinoids disrupt navigation, foraging, memory and learning in exposed bees. Circadian rhythms and sleep patterns support those critical functions. Sleep deprived honey bees are thus more likely to have difficulty returning home after foraging, and remembering or communicating through waggle dance the location of pollen and nectar.

“Beyond sleep disruption, we know that honey bees rely on their internal sense of time and the position of the sun,” said Dr. Tackenberg. “If they have an incorrect sense of time their ability to effectively navigate is hindered. It stands to reason that if a bee’s internal sense of time is disrupted or altered it could affect learning, memory and foraging efficiency—even outside of reduced capacity from sleep disruptions.”

The mechanistic process discovered by researchers has the potential to explain why many beekeepers experience a dwindling or collapsing hive without evidence of other stressors. Foragers that get into a plot of neonicotinoid-contaminated pollen may be cognizant enough at initial stages to communicate the location of this food source to other bees. But over the next several days, more and more bees are likely to become lost on their way home, or worse, reach the hive and potentially undermine the health of the entire colony.

The Saving America’s Pollinators Act would provide pollinators with a real chance to recover from the stressors of pesticide exposure. The bill would eliminate neonicotinoids, other toxic systemics waiting in the wing with the chemical industry, and establish a board of experts to protect pollinator health into the future. Take action today by urging your member of Congress to support this important legislation. You can also get active in your state. Massachusetts residents are encouraged to lend their support to the state’s proposed Pollinator Protect Act, which would eliminate the most toxic neonicotinoids from consumer use. You can also get active in your local community by passing laws that protect pollinator from neonicotinoids and other highly toxic pesticides. If you’re ready to protect pollinators, let us know today that you’ll fight for a pesticide-free community.

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

Source: Vanderbilt University (press release), Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, November 10, 2020) Higher rates of plant diversity can limit pest pressure and reduce the need for pesticide use, finds a new study published by the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research. With rampant declines in insect biodiversity from the ongoing insect apocalypse, it is critical that farmers and ecologists better understand the natural interplay between plants and insects, and the important ecosystem services that flow from these interactions. “Our experiments show that conserving plant diversity provides multiple benefits for controlling herbivore pests, which could play a key role in reducing inputs of agrochemicals and enhancing plant productivity,” said study coauthor Andrew Barnes, PhD.

Scientists investigated the importance of plant biodiversity through study of two ongoing biodiversity experiments. One known as the The Jena Experiment, based in Central Europe, and another, the Cedar Creek Biodiversity Experiment, in the state of Minnesota. Both sites established blocks of plant diversity gradients, flowing from monoculture plots to those with 16 species or more. Researchers aimed to investigate how insect food webs and feeding behavior, plant biomass, and pest predator response changes as a function of plant biodiversity.

Results showed that higher plant diversity resulted in an insect (herbivore pest) feeding rate that was 44% lower than that found in areas containing a monoculture of only one plant species. Thus, greater rates of plant diversity may be expected to produce higher yields, on balance, than monoculture fields when pest pressure is taken into account.  “That ultimately means that where multiple species are planted together, this will yield more plant biomass per square meter, and each individual plant in diverse mixtures will receive lower damage from herbivores,” Dr. Barnes indicates.

Two reasons for this phenomenon are found in the study. First, with higher plant diversity, it is more difficult for herbivore pests to find their preferred food source. Second, insect predators (such as beetles, spiders, and wasps) in high plant diversity plots receive 162% greater energy flux (a calculation of where biomass/energy is flowing in a food web), increasing rates of pest predation. As Dr. Barnes explains, “In other words, more diverse plant communities pose a double-edged problem for herbivores—that is, more predators and less preferred food—that could help to naturally reduce herbivore impacts.”

Along the same line as the present study, research published in late October finds that natural areas around farmland could reduce the need for insecticide use. Pest outbreaks were significantly larger – by 4x – in farms surrounded by simplified landscapes, compared to those surrounded by semi-natural habitat.

The study has important implications for chemical-based, monoculture farming systems. “Although significant advances have been made in understanding natural processes and their importance to agriculture, large corporations and their executives continue to do whatever they can to keep the world tied to an outdated, industrial approach that creates huge profits at the expense of natural ecosystem services,” said Drew Toher, Beyond Pesticides community resource and policy director.

Nico Eisenhauer, PhD, lead author of the research, underlines the importance of taking these results and putting them into action. “Ultimately, this study demonstrates that supporting biodiversity can leverage the sustainable management of ecosystems and the benefits to people,” he says. While rows and rows of monoculture crops make farm work seem easy, neat and tidy, at closer look it creates a system—more prone to pest outbreaks, chemical resistance, non-target drift and contamination—that is dangerously fragile, and out of balance with the natural environment.

Organic agriculture provides an offramp away from the monoculture, industrial chemical-based farming system plaguing the globe and its inhabitants.  While it is by no means perfect, and still in need of continued strengthening, organic standards require farmers consider the natural environment, and work to foster healthier, more ecologically friendly on-farm conditions. Help promote a safer farming system for people, wildlife and the environment by purchasing organic whenever possible. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides webpage on organic production.

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

Source: Science Advances, PhysOrg (press release)