(Beyond Pesticides, September 17, 2021) Against the backdrop of what The New York Times in 2018 called the “insect apocalypse,” and the dire plight of pollinators in particular, Friends of the Earth (FOE) recently issued its retailer scorecard, which benchmarks “25 of the largest U.S. grocery stores on pesticides, organic offerings and pollinator health”— with the vast majority of retailers failing to protect pollinators. FOE reporting shows some, but far too slow and anemic, progress by corporate actors in enacting pollinator- and bee-friendly policies across both retail sites and supply chains. Such policies, to be genuinely effective and protective of pollinators (and human health), would eliminate or at least dramatically reduce the presence of pesticides in the food supply. The path out of the chemical pesticide quagmire is organic: companies must do more to move suppliers to organic, regenerative production practices, and EPA should be pulling these toxic compounds from the market.

Tracking the pollinator policies and enforcement activities of various huge companies yields a useful barometer in monitoring the travel of pesticides to the consumer. Yet the results in the FOE scorecard — e.g., only two of those 25 retailers scored even in the “B” range, and 21 scored “D” or “F” — do underline powerfully the folly of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) allowance of these compounds, whose uses damage the very organisms (and ecosystems) on which one-third of the domestic food supply depends.

FOE evaluated these 25 retailers, including entities that are not grocers, per se, but do sell food, such as 7-Eleven, CVS, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid, and Walgreens. These categories of “pollinator protection performance” were considered and assigned points: presence of a pollinator health policy for groceries (maximum of 45 points); implementation of the policy in supply chains (max 90); transparency and accountability (max 21); collaboration (max 10); and complementary home and garden policies for live goods, such as plants, and pesticide products for outdoor use (max 9). The highest possible number of total points was 175.

A few highlights of the rubric include: for the pollinator health policy category, a commitment to reducing pesticide use, avoiding “regrettable” substitutes, and expanding USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Certified Organic offerings; and for implementation, evidence of phasing out or reducing pesticides in products sold, and bonus points for using domestic organic producers. (See details of the FOE rubric here.)

The overall scores generated by FOE’s analysis are grim; apart from the overall scores and grades of Giant Eagle (score 102, grade B), Whole Foods Market (score 88, grade B-), Walmart (score 82, grade C+), and Costco (score 70, grade C), all the other retailers came in below the 48-point mark, yielding grades of D+ and below. Eleven received “Fs” and three scored zero total points (7-Eleven, Meijer, and Wakefern Food). Those 11 received zeros in multiple of the evaluated categories. Many well-known companies also scored extremely poorly (below 20 points overall): Wegman’s (overall score of 17), Amazon.com (15), Walgreen’s (15), BJ’s Wholesale Club (14), H-E-B (14), Southeastern Grocers (5), Dollar General (5), and Hy-Vee (5).

These ratings can leave a pretty bitter taste in a consumer’s mouth, particularly if one’s local grocery has rated poorly. As FOE points out, it can be tricky to know which of these entities may own a local grocery store; some of those evaluated, such as Target, Costco, Aldi, Wegman’s, and CVS, hold only their single, branded retail facilities. But many others have multiple subsidiary holdings; indeed, Kroger has 22 subsidiary grocery retail outlets, and Albertson’s holds 12. Helpfully, FOE has provided a guide to the subsidiary holdings of these 25 companies. It also provides perspective on the size of these entities in what is an increasingly consolidated food system landscape.

FOE hopes that its scorecard will help “spur a race to the top” — essentially, publicly pressure retailers to create pollinator-protective policies for their operations. Since 2018, the FOE reports notes, 10 retailers have created such policies, but only Giant Eagle and Walmart have committed to time frames. Giant Eagle (which operates primarily in Pennsylvania, with some locations in Maryland) will eliminate nitroguanidine neonicotinoid pesticides from its produce supply chain by 2025. (Nitroguanidines include imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, and acetamiprid — all of which are highly toxic to bees.)

Both retailers will require that their produce suppliers adopt IPM (Integrated Pest Management) protocols that will be verified by independent certifiers, by 2025. Beyond Pesticides is not a fan of IPM in agriculture because there is no standardized and enforceable definition or particular federal authorization that oversees the IPM moniker and practices, and as the multitude of definitions show, nearly any chemical might be used in an IPM protocol. (See the USDA and EPA web pages on IPM.) In the context of controls in buildings, Beyond Pesticides supports only well-defined IPM, which outlines allowed practices and substances.

Other companies — Albertsons, Aldi, Costco, Dollar Tree, Kroger, Meijer, Rite Aid, and Target — have established policies “encouraging” suppliers to reduce their use of “pesticides of concern” (such as these, according to FOE, but it is unclear how the companies define the term), and to move to less-toxic production practices. However, these policies include neither metrics nor implementation targets.

In its review, FOE considered whether the companies were doing anything to increase their organic offerings, and whether they are active in encouraging and/or incentivizing conventional producers to transition to less-toxic approaches, such as organic, regenerative farming (or IPM). Last, FOE assessed whether the companies are educating consumers about pesticide-and-pollinator issues, and advocating for public policies “that shift government support from pesticide-intensive agriculture to organic and ecological farming systems.”

FOE says, “The majority of the company policies state a commitment to expand organic offerings, which are grown without the use of over 900 pesticides otherwise allowed in agriculture.” FOE calls these “important first steps,” but adds that “the extinction crisis demands that all food retailers make time-bound commitments to phase out toxic pesticides and support a transition to organic and regenerative agriculture, which is better for pollinators, people and the planet.”

The key findings of the FOE report are:
• There is growing momentum around addressing pesticide use in the U.S. food retail sector, but stronger leadership is needed to protect pollinators.

• The majority of American consumers believe grocery stores should help protect pollinators.
• Walmart and Giant Eagle have the leading pollinator health policies.
• Walmart, Meijer, Dollar Tree and Target established new pollinator health policies this year, making 10 major grocery retailers taking steps to address toxic pesticides in their food supply chains.
• Major grocery retailers are failing to set measurable goals to reduce toxic pesticide use in their food supply chains.
• Major grocery retailers don’t know which pesticides are being used in their supply chains or how much is being used. 
• Major grocery retailers must step up to support conventional growers to shift to the least-toxic approaches.
• Companies must disclose organic sales data and include organic sales in formal sustainability goals.
• Companies must report organic and “natural” sales separately.
• Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s are leading major grocery retailers on organic as a percent of overall grocery sales.
• Independent grocery stores far surpass the largest U.S. food retailers on organic as a percent of overall sales. 
• Companies must support the expansion of organic agriculture in the U.S.
• Dollar Tree committed to eliminate use of nitroguanidine neonicotinoids and glyphosate in flowers by 2024, and Giant Eagle removed all neonicotinoid and glyphosate products from store shelves, making 11 companies with pesticide commitments in their home and garden supply chains.
• It is time for grocery retailers to implement policies that reflect the interrelated biodiversity and climate crises.

Pressure from advocacy organizations, such as FOE, Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Biological Diversity, and The Xerces Society, and from the public, has moved the needle for some retailers on the presence of pesticides in their products and supply chains. FOE has attended to grocery purveyors (of all sorts), and did look at the “home garden” or live plant sales activity at those companies reviewed in this report. Beyond Pesticides teamed up with FOE in June 2021 to analyze herbicide products at Lowe’s and Home Depot, and to advocate for their removal and replacement with nontoxic alternatives.

As Beyond Pesticides reported, “Friends of the Earth composed a comprehensive list of products sold by Home Depot and Lowe’s by browsing online and local stores. . . . Beyond Pesticides evaluated active ingredients in all products and performed a toxicity analysis using available epidemiological and laboratory and studies.” That analysis found that 24 of 51 herbicide products on Home Depot’s shelves and 23 of 40 herbicide products at Lowe’s contain ingredients considered Highly Hazardous Pesticides, classified by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization as “pesticides linked with a high incidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment.” 

As FOE noted in its report, Walmart committed in Spring of 2021 to “new pollinator commitments that will further our efforts to help reverse nature loss and ultimately bring us closer to meeting new nature commitments made by Walmart and the Walmart Foundation. We have invited our suppliers, stakeholders and customers to join us on this journey as we continue to take action to help protect our planet.

These new commitments serve as the largest pollinator health effort from a U.S. grocery retailer to-date, aiming to reduce several pollinator threats through promoting integrated pest management (IPM) practices and improving and expanding pollinator habitats.”

In Massachusetts, “encouragement” has come from the state level: in March 2021, the Massachusetts Pesticide Board Subcommittee approved new regulations to restrict the use of neonicotinoid pesticides (“neonics”). After years of advocate work to pass a more-comprehensive bill in the state legislature — An Act to protect Massachusetts pollinators, sponsored by Representative Carolyn Dykema — the legislature in 2020 again failed to approve it. Advocacy focus then shifted to the pesticide board, which endorsed this more limited regulation; it will go into effect in 2022 and will restrict outdoor consumer use of neonics by removal of neonicotinoid pesticide products from retail stores. Only licensed pesticide applicators will be allowed to use such products for care of lawns, turf, trees, shrubs, and gardens.

Human dependence on pollinators for food production is significant. As FOE writes, “Without pollinators, grocery stores would run short of a wide assortment of fruits and vegetables, nuts, beans and delicious treats like chocolate and coffee. And because bees pollinate alfalfa and other crops eaten by cows, even the dairy and meat shelves would look bare.” Learn more about the economic risks of pollinator declines.

Given that dependence on pollinators — never mind their intrinsic value and their roles in biodiverse ecosystems — the continued, widespread use of synthetic pesticides that are lethal or otherwise damaging to pollinators is foolhardy, at best. Add to the pollinator impacts the other human health, ecosystem, biodiversity, and water quality impacts of pesticides, and the conclusion cannot help but be that continued use of these compounds in agriculture is risky in the extreme.

The rapid transition of agricultural (and land management) practices to organic, regenerative approaches is the definitive solution to the pollinator crisis (and multiple other health and environmental crises). Protecting pollinators by hastening that shift ought to be the job of everyone — government, private enterprise, agricultural and turf management operations, and the public. Members of the public can advocate via nonprofit organizations; local, state, and federal elected officials; and state and federal agencies that have authority over pesticide use, such as state departments of agriculture, and federally, EPA, USDA, and BLM (the Bureau of Land Management). As for more-immediate and local actions: people can create organic habitat on their own property and in community spaces, such as parks, community gardens, and grounds of municipal and school buildings. For more such ideas and resources, see this Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog entry from June 2021, and the many resources at the BEE Protective web pages.

Source: https://foe.org/retailer-report-card/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 16, 2021) A study published in Chemosphere finds persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are present in the serum and placenta of pregnant mothers, as well as multiple fetal organs. Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increases susceptibility to diseases, from learning and developmental disabilities to cancer. However, this study is one of the first to demonstrate the presence of chemical toxicants in fetal tissue that are not present in maternal serum or placental samples. Prenatal development is one of the most vulnerable periods of exposure when the fetus is most susceptible to the harmful effects of chemical contaminants. Therefore, studies like these help government and health officials better identify fetal exposure contaminants and subsequent health concerns otherwise missed by current chemical monitoring methods. The researchers note, “These findings call for further evaluation of the current matrices used to estimate fetal exposure and establish a possible correction factor for a more accurate assessment of exposure in utero. We disclose the full data set on individual exposure concentrations to assist in building in silico models for prediction of human fetal exposure to chemicals.”

Several studies associate early-life exposure to toxic chemicals with adverse birth/health effects. However, fetal exposure measurements typically use maternal and placenta chemical concentrations rather than actual fetal exposure. Researchers used tandem mass spectrometry to measure chemical concentrations from maternal blood and placenta samples, as well as the liver, heart, lungs, brain, and fatty (adipose) tissues of fetuses. Using gas chromatography, the researchers tested for concentrations of nine different OCPs, ten different PCBs, and three different PBDEs. The cohort included women from 20 pregnancies who gave birth to a stillborn infant. Furthermore, scientists incorporated data from fetal exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the same cohort.

All 22 POPs are detectable in fetal fatty tissue samples regardless of chemical detection in the mother. Chemical concentrations are highest among later gestations (pregnancy), male infants, and pregnancies with standard placental function. Of chemical measurements, organochlorine pesticides are present in the highest amount in tissue and blood serum samples, followed by PCBs and PFAS. Adipose (fatty) tissue within the fetal organs has the highest chemical burden, while the brain has the lowest. Overall, more chemicals are detectable in fetal tissue samples than maternal blood/placenta samples.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. Although the 2001 Stockholm Convention treaty bans persistent organic pollutants (POPs) like well-known organochlorine compounds, these chemicals are still the primary pollutants of concern (UNEP, 2009). Their persistence and toxicity adversely affect environmental and biological health. These pollutants have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. The U.S. was a signatory to the treaty, but U.S. Senate never ratified it, relegating U.S. officials to observer status. While various POPs on the Stockholm Convention annex lists are no longer manufactured or utilized, many of these chemical compounds remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Therefore, individuals still encounter various POPs at varying concentrations, adding to the toxic body burden of those toxic chemicals currently in use.

Pesticides’ presence in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Furthermore, pregnant women already have over detectable 100 chemicals in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned POPs. However, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are from unidentified sources, lack adequate information, or were not previously detectable in humans. Therefore, pesticide exposure during pregnancy has implications for both mother and child’s health. Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxins increases susceptibility to disease. A 2020 study finds the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which prenatal exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates that increase the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities. Some of these birth abnormalities include acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even regular household pesticide use during pregnancy can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children.

Pesticide exposure not only poses a risk to mothers and their offspring but also future generations. Studies find that although glyphosate (herbicide) exposure has a negligible impact on pregnant rats’ health, incidents of prostate, ovarian, and kidney cancer increase in the two subsequent generations. However, chemical exposure encompasses more than just current-use, toxic pesticides like glyphosate. The metabolites (or breakdown products) of many long-banned pesticides still impart adverse effects on human health. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID). Since many organochlorine compounds have long been banned in the U.S., the ongoing poisoning and contamination underscores how pervasive and persistent these chemicals are and their continued adverse impact on human health.

Not only are these compounds readily present in soil and water samples, but they are also in arctic ice. Therefore, the accompanying glacial melt from the climate crisis will only increase chemical bioavailability in the environment. The increasing ubiquity of pesticides is concerning to public health advocates because they say that current measures safeguarding against pesticide use do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants.

This study is one of the first to demonstrate differences in chemical contamination between fetus and mother. The results indicate that current pesticide detection methods for fetal exposure fail to capture the full scope of chemical detection. Numerous studies indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water, and researchers caution that there are hundreds to thousands of chemicals humans are likely to encounter that the study did not assess. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse effects on human health (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.) and wildlife and biodiversity. There is a growing consensus that exposure to environmental toxicants before pregnancy can impair fertility, pregnancy, and fetal development. These adverse effects can continue into childhood and adulthood and may have multigenerational consequences. Therefore, researchers stress that future studies must evaluate chemical exposure within the fetus and not only rely on maternal or placental exposure.

The study notes sex-specific differences in birth outcomes between boys and girls. Compared to females, male fetuses have higher concentrations of POPs, resulting in a decrease in birth weight. Differences in placental function between male and female fetuses may play a role in chemical concentration distribution. Pregnancies with male fetuses have lower vascular resistance allowing greater blood flow and higher transfer of chemical concentrations. However, female fetuses display higher rates of learning and developmental disabilities, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD)upon PFAS exposure. Thus, the scientists suggest sex-specific distribution of chemicals may play a role in sexually dimorphic birth outcomes.

This study is not the first to demonstrate sex-specific effect of pesticide exposure. In 2017, scientists presented a study at the 99^th meeting of the Endocrine Society demonstrating exposure to commonly used pyrethroid insecticides results in the early onset of puberty in boys. Furthermore, a 2021 study demonstrates exposure to current-use pesticides like organophosphates pose a greater health risk to women. Women with organophosphate exposure are more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, bronchitis, asthma, and various cancers. Given recent data on the rise in use of these chemicals for household pest control, both researchers and advocates are concerned about the range of implications these chemicals could be having on young children in the U.S. and abroad. Previous research finds these chemicals are associated with behavioral problems in children, including externalizing and internalizing disorders, ADHD, and delayed cognitive and motor development.  Proximity to heavy use of these chemicals in agriculture is associated with an 87% increased risk of a child developing autism when applied during pregnant mother’s third trimester. Considering rates of preterm births, miscarriages/stillbirths, and birth malformations are increasing, it is necessary to assess chemical exposure effect on mothers and offspring to safeguard future generations’ health.

Doctors and pediatricians strongly agree that pregnant mothers should avoid pesticide exposure during critical development periods. Exposure concerns about POPs are increasing significantly, especially for adults and children more vulnerable to their toxic effects. Moreover, many contaminants are subject to regulatory standards that do not fully evaluate disease implications associated with exposure. Advocates say that addressing the manufacturing and use of pesticides is essential to mitigate risks from chemical exposure to toxic pesticides. Therefore, advocates urge that policies strengthen pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on Birth/Fetal Effects, Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Body Burdens, and other diseases. To learn more about how the lack of adequate pesticide regulations can adversely affect human and environmental health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

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

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

Source: Chemosphere

(Beyond Pesticides, September 15, 2021) Toxic pesticide use, and glyphosate in particular, degrades the health of freshwater ecosystems by harming species that form the basis of aquatic food chains, according to research published by scientists at McGill University. In a series of studies, scientists investigated how freshwater bacteria and zooplankton were affected by varying levels the weed killer glyphosate, the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid, and nutrient levels. “Because plankton form the foundation of the food chain in freshwater ecosystems, it is very important to understand how plankton communities respond to widely used pesticides,” said Jesse Shapiro, PhD, an Associate Professor in McGill’s Department of Microbiology and Immunology. “Our research shows that the structure of these communities can be impaired under currently acceptable North American water quality guidelines.”

Two separate experiments were conducted under similar conditions in order to properly investigate the effects of pesticide exposure on either zooplankton or freshwater bacteria. For both studies, target species were exposed to varying rates of glyphosate, imidacloprid, or both chemicals at either high or low water nutrient levels. Researchers conducted this study by establishing a series of outdoor experimental ponds, intended to mimic freshwater ecosystems by using Lake water and evenly distributing organisms throughout the ponds.

Zooplankton were found to be much more sensitive to pesticide exposure than freshwater bacteria. However, glyphosate was found to be the most damaging exposure within both experiments. “We found that when we applied the pesticides and fertilizers alone and in combination, at a wide range of concentrations, that glyphosate was the most influential driver of community structure among the agrochemicals,” said Andrew Gonzalez, PhD, a professor in McGill’s Biology Department and the Liber Ero Chair in Biodiversity Conservation.

In the zooplankton study, low levels (.3 parts per million) of glyphosate resulted in persistent declines in rotifer populations, while both pesticides harmed populations of copepod crustaceans (at 3 parts per billion with imidacloprid and 5.5 parts per million with glyphosate). At higher, yet still environmental relevant rates, scientists observed synergy between the two pesticides that resulted in significant declines in overall zooplankton biomass.

In both studies, pesticide use drove changes in community structure. In the bacterial study, glyphosate use at its highest dose (15 ppm) altered the community structure over the long term. Initial reductions in biomass recovered over a 24 day period, but shifted slightly in favor of bacteria that were able to flourish in the presence of glyphosate. “We believe that they were able to recover because they came from a pristine lake and the initial community was diverse enough to “buffer” such a large impact,” said Naila Barbosa da Costa, a PhD student in Biology at l’Université de Montréal. “We do not know if bacterial communities from less diverse ecosystems would be able to cope with a strong contamination the same way.”

Zooplankton populations experienced a more damaging long-term shift. Glyphosate-exposed zooplankton exhibited a fast knockdown, and many species that were killed off in the initial exposure did not return. Eventually, biomass recovered, but the diversity of species was much lower than before. Glyphosate killed off a range of diverse sensitive species, allowing a small subset of glyphosate-tolerant species to thrive. “Long-lasting species loss and compositional shifts have clear implications for the functioning and stability of freshwater ecosystems, even when zooplankton abundance appears unaffected,” said Marie-Pier Hébert, a PhD candidate in McGill’s Department of Biology. “How the effects of glyphosate cascade through freshwater ecosystems to affect their health in the long-term deserves much more study.”

Previous research has shown a range of nontarget effects from glyphosate that are not adequately captured by current pesticide regulations in the United States. Previous research from McGill University on phytoplankton found similar results; communities were able to withstand glyphosate exposure, but diversity ultimately declined as a result. A study published earlier this year from UK researchers found that a specific zooplankton, the water flea Daphnia spp, experiences genotoxic damage that harms its fitness in the wild, a danger not considered by current pesticide toxicity testing undertaken by regulatory agencies around the world.

The neonicotinoid imidacloprid has also been linked to the decline of freshwater ecosystems in previous research, and the findings of damage to copepod crustaceans line up well with studies showing significant threats to benthic organisms from the neonicotinoid insecticides.

Pesticides do not need to decimate species in order for ecosystems to degrade or become irreparably damaged. Subtle shifts in community composition and diversity can drive changes that ripple up and down food chains, as evidenced by emerging research on how pesticides cause trophic cascades.

The diet of weak poisons that humans and the ecosystems we rely upon continue to suffer through does not need to go on. Organic agriculture and land management provide the framework for an interaction between humans and the environment that does not seriously disrupt ecosystem functioning as a result of toxic chemical use. But even this approach is under threat from agrichemical industry interests that want to garner higher prices while sapping the core of what makes organic sustainable. Help make sure organic continues to lead the way in environmental and health protection by engaging with the National Organic Standards Board during the upcoming public comment period.

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

Source: McGill University press release, Molecular Ecology, Ecological Applications

(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2021) Last week, Stamford, CT became the latest U.S. City to pass an organic community ordinance, restricting toxic pesticide use on public spaces in favor of safer, natural land care practices. The ordinance, championed by Nina Sherwood of the Stamford Board of Representatives with strong support from Stamford Mayor David Martin, is an outgrowth of years of research and coordination within city government. Advocates note that strong support from both national, state, and local groups like Pollinator Pathway Stamford helped make the case at public hearings. “By garnering support for the public hearing, many Stamford Pollinator Pathway members, Stamford residents and organizations from around the country let their voices be heard,” said Melanie Hollas, co-chair of Pollinator Pathway Stamford and a Stamford Parks and Recreation Commissioner. “Today, I am proud to be a Stamford resident and want to thank everyone, including Beyond Pesticides, for all their hard work to make this goal achievable.”

Ms. Hollas describes the ordinance as, “a comprehensive easy to use system to help employees shift from long-term usage patterns of chemicals to products, and more importantly practices, that create a healthy ecosystem along with beautiful landscaping and usable sports fields.” The ordinance recognizes the dangers of non-organic pesticides registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with glaring data gaps, little oversight, and an increasing lack of public accountability. In the face of EPA inaction to protect local communities from toxic pesticides, Stamford’s ordinance allows only the use of materials permitted within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program to be used on publicly owned property. These products represent the least-toxic, yet still effective pesticides on the market. In further recognition of EPA’s lax approach to pesticide regulation, Stamford established a list of “permanently banned products” that include the highly toxic substances glyphosate, 2,4-D, 1,3-D, the neonicotinoids, and chlorpyrifos, none of which are allowed under federal organic law.

The ordinance provides for few exemptions. City employees may apply to the Director of Operations to apply a prohibited pesticide but must show that: i) attempts to address the pest problem have already utilized organic products, ii) the attempt was unsuccessful, and that iii) a prohibited product will be effective. If approved to use a prohibited product, the applicant must also have a plan to prevent recurrence of the pest problem utilizing an organic approach. Otherwise, prohibited products can only be used in the case of an imminent threat to public health or the environment, as determined by the city’s Director of Health. Products listed as “permanently banned” are only permitted to be used at the city’s municipal golf course, by the fire department when engaging in public safety activities, and to manage invasive species under state law.

City agencies are tasked with providing the Mayor and Stamford Board of Representatives a written report on the use of pesticide products in the city each year.

Stamford is the latest community along the Eastern Seaboard to pass a strong pesticide reform ordinance and be added to Beyond Pesticides’ Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform. Its passage follows recent policies enacted in Maui County, HI, New York City, NY, Philadelphia, PA, Baltimore, MD, and Portland, ME. Stamford’s policy is also an approach quite similar to restrictions enacted at the state level to protect Connecticut schoolchildren from toxic pesticides. Connecticut has one of the strongest school pesticide bills in the nation. The state already bans toxic pesticide use on all municipal playgrounds, and allows only minimum risk pesticides to be applied on school grounds.

Unfortunately, cities in Connecticut cannot ban pesticides on private property due to the state’s regressive preemption statute. Recognizing this, efforts are ongoing within the state to overturn this provision.  

In addition to toxic pesticide use, Stamford’s policy recognizes the dangers posed by fossil-fuel based synthetic fertilizers both to the climate, and local waterways, due to nutrient runoff. Like the ordinance recently passed by the Maui County Council, and the ordinance update enacted last year in South Portland, ME, local communities are increasingly recognizing that natural land care policies must address both toxic pesticides and toxic fertilizers in order to achieve sustainability and ensure the natural cycling of nutrients critical to resilient organic practices.

As Stamford advocate Melanie Hollas notes, “One person really can make a difference.” Help turn your community into the next Stamford, Maui, Portland, or New York City by starting your own local movement. Use Beyond Pesticides resources on our Children and Schools and Tools for Change webpages to help make your case to local leaders. Reach out at [email protected] or 202-543-5450 for one on one assistance with your advocacy efforts.

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

Source: Stamford, CT Board of Representatives, and author’s personal communication with Melanie Hollas of Pollinator Pathway Stamford

(Beyond Pesticides, September 13, 2021) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through September 30. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on October 13-14 and online meeting October 19-21—in which the NOSB deliberates on issues concerning how organic food is produced. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov.

As always, there are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Fall. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong (KOS) and the Fall 2021 issues page. In the spirit of “continuous improvement,” we urge you to submit comments (please feel free to use our comments on the KOS page) that contribute to an increasingly improved organic production system.

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) requires that all synthetic materials used in organic production be approved by the NOSB, included on the National List, and reassessed every five years. Among those up for sunset review this Fall are some controversial materials—copper sulfate, carrageenan, and list 3 “inerts.” In addition, the NOSB is once more considering a petition to allow the antibiotic kasugamycin in fruit production.

Copper sulfate is used in organic rice production to control algae and an invertebrate known as tadpole shrimp. It poses health threats, particularly to workers—including damage to the gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidneys, and the immune system resulting from inhalation exposure. Respiratory effects have been seen in animals exposed to copper sulfate aerosols (such as might be experienced by workers). Copper is considered the etiologic agent in the occupational disease referred to as “vineyard sprayer’s lung.” Copper sulfate is also a reproductive toxicant.

Copper sulfate is hazardous to aquatic plants, animals, and aquatic ecosystems. This is particularly important in rice production, where rice paddies replace natural wetlands and provide alternative habitat for animals threatened by the loss of wetlands. For example, one animal inhabiting rice paddies is the western toad (Bufo boreas).  Tadpoles of the western toad feed on filamentous algae, detritus, and may even scavenge carrion. Application rates of copper sulfate exceed levels that are lethal to tadpoles of Bufo boreas by up to two orders of magnitude. Other amphibians at risk are the bullfrog and Pacific treefrog, whose tadpoles consume algae, organic debris, and small aquatic invertebrates.

The negative impacts on amphibians found in rice fields not only have a negative impact on biodiversity, but they also reduce possibilities for biological control of algae and tadpole shrimp.  Thus, the use of copper sulfate in an aquatic environment like a rice field is inconsistent with a system of organic and sustainable agriculture. In addition, since copper sulfate is water soluble, when the fields are drained, it is released through drainage ditches to streams, and ultimately, the ocean.

The NOSB has previously discussed alternative growing systems that would eliminate the need for copper sulfate and made such alternatives a research priority. Most of the world transplants rice seedlings into paddies. Dryland rice is also grown. Neither of these systems requires killing algae and tadpole shrimp—in fact tadpole shrimp are regarded as a biological control for algae. It is time to eliminate the use of copper sulfate, bringing organic rice production in line with organic principles.

List 3 “inerts” should be removed from the National List. One of the most egregious failures of the National Organic Program (NOP) has been its repeated lack of action on so-called “inert” ingredients. Because of that failure, every sunset brings to a new NOSB a listing that has not been changed in response to over a decade of NOSB recommendations. Fifteen years ago, EPA stopped updating the “inerts” lists upon which the NOP relies. Ever since EPA’s action in 2006, the NOSB has been recommending the review of individual “inert” ingredients, but has instead been given the option by NOP of relisting the outdated lists.

In 2012, the NOSB has already recommended an expiration date for these chemicals, but NOP refused—in violation of the law—to codify this recommendation. The NOSB identified the “inerts” formerly on List 3 that were covered by this listing. They are BHT (antioxidant), 2-Hydroxy-4-n-octyloxybenzophenone (UV absorber), and 2-(2-Hydroxy-3-tert-butyl-5-methylphenyl)-chlorobenzotriazole (UV stabilizer). In addition to the three List 3 “inerts” identified in 2012, a fourth chemical formerly on List 3 has been identified as being in use in passive pheromone dispensers in organic production—benzaldehyde, CAS #100-52-7. Benzaldehyde is not approved for food use. It is approved for nonfood use and as a fragrance in nonfood uses. The addition of another chemical to the known List 3 “inerts” used in organic production shows a hazard of delaying the review of these chemicals as recommended by the NOSB. The NOSB must insist that List 3 “inerts” be delisted and that the individual chemicals be specifically reviewed.

Carrageenan is a controversial food additive that most organic processors have removed from their products. The NOSB voted in 2016 to remove carrageenan from the National List. In 2018, NOP announced that it was refusing to remove carrageenan. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) §6517(d)(1) requires that, “The National List established by the Secretary shall be based upon a proposed national list or proposed amendments to the National List developed by the National Organic Standards Board.” The National List is not “based on” the recommendations of the NOSB if it is directly contradictory to those recommendations. NOP based its decision on testimony received by the NOSB and should not be second-guessing the advisory board for which establishing the National List is an expressly stated statutory responsibility.

The NOSB should insist that carrageenan be removed from the National List. The evidence summarized by the 2015 Technical Review came up with a verdict of mixed results on virtually every issue regarding food grade (high molecular weight) carrageenan. However, there is widespread agreement that poligeenan, which contaminates food grade carrageenan at unknown and uncontrollable levels, does cause adverse effects, including cancer. The production causes adverse environmental impacts. And it is not necessary–organic processors have been moving away from the use of carrageen because of consumer pressure since it was last considered for sunset. This is made more urgent by the fact that NOP ignored the recommendation of the NOSB in spring of 2012 to remove carrageenan from infant foods, as well as the 2016 recommendation to remove carrageenan from the National List altogether.

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

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

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

We said “No!” to antibiotics in organic fruit, and now we must affirm that we mean it. Kasugamycin does not meet any of the OFPA criteria for the National List—it poses health and environmental dangers, is not necessary, and is incompatible with organic practices.

Submit Comments Now.

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

Thank you for keeping organic strong!

(Beyond Pesticides, September 10, 2021) Research conducted in Thailand shows that exposures to pesticides, even at low levels, can impact the human endocrine system and distort thyroid function. The study looked specifically at interactions of genetics and environment: it investigated associations between variations in genes involved in pesticide metabolism and altered thyroid hormone concentrations in agricultural workers. This research underscores some of the complexity and difficulty of determining human vulnerability to impacts of pesticide exposures, given genetic variables. Beyond Pesticides believes that this very complexity is a cogent argument for anchoring regulation of pesticides in the Precautionary Principle. If exposure to a pesticide can cause damage to human (or environmental) health, it sometimes will do so. Thus, to protect people’s health, agriculture and other land management practices must transition from the use of synthetic pesticides to broad adoption of organic regenerative approaches that obviate the need for such chemicals.

This research is part of a longitudinal study that seeks to evaluate sub-chronic impacts, on thyroid hormone levels, of repeated exposures to a variety of pesticides. The farmworkers studied in this phase comprise two groups: those working on organically managed farms (216 subjects), and those working on conventional farms that use pesticides (229 subjects). Participants were recruited from an area of Thailand whose agricultural activity is broadly representative of that throughout the country — primarily, rice, fruit, vegetable, and sugarcane production. Those in the chemical pesticide–using group most commonly employed, from greater to lesser amounts used, herbicides (largely glyphosate, paraquat, and 2,4-D), insecticides (chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, carbaryl, and carbosulfan), and fungicides. Workers in the “chemicals” group had used pesticides in their work for an average of 25 years; however, more than 35% of them had worked with the chemicals for more than 30 years.

The study furthers understanding of how pesticides can disrupt or distort endocrine function. The thyroid gland is an important part of the human endocrine system, which comprises a number of glands and the hormones they produce and secrete. Those hormones travel through the circulatory system to organs and tissues to transmit important regulatory messages regarding metabolism, stress response, reproduction, development, and other functions. The other major glands of the endocrine system are the hypothalamus, pituitary, parathyroids, adrenals, ovaries, testes, and the pineal body.

Beyond Pesticides has long covered the roles of synthetic chemical pesticides, including endocrine-disrupting (ED) ingredients in them, in endocrine dysfunction. Beyond their ED impacts: a May 2021 Daily News Blog entry reported on a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) study showing that exposures to either of the pesticides lindane and metalaxyl increases the risk of developing thyroid cancer.

A recent Daily News Blog article said, “The ingredients in many pesticides (and in many consumer products) act as endocrine disruptors in humans and other animals in several ways. They may: (1) mimic actions of hormones the body produces (e.g., estrogen or testosterone), causing reactions similar to those generated by the naturally produced hormones; (2) block hormone receptor cells, thereby preventing the actions of natural hormones; or (3) affect the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and/or excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones in tissues or at receptor sites.” Pesticides acting as EDs can, through disruption of the activities in #3, distort hormone levels in the body. The research paper concurs that there is increasing evidence of pesticides acting as ED chemicals to disrupt thyroid function.

Human susceptibility to harmful pesticide impacts can be influenced and mediated by multiple factors, including age, sex, health status, lifestyle features, and genetic factors, among others. The study notes, “Genetic polymorphisms are one determinant of pesticide-induced adverse health effects, especially polymorphisms of genes related to pesticide metabolism.” Genetic polymorphisms — variations in phenotypes caused by expression of different alleles of a given gene, such as happens with the human blood groups O, A, B, and AB, for example — can alter reactions in the multiple steps of pesticide metabolism.

This research investigated disruptions of the HPT (hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid) axis or pathway of the endocrine system — a set of interacting hormones and transporter enzymes that regulate metabolism and some of the body’s stress responses. The metabolism of ED pesticides that impact the thyroid gland is regulated in part by the activity of this axis.

Hormone levels and specific genetic SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms — variations at single positions in DNA sequences) were determined from blood samples taken after a 12-hour, overnight fast. The study assessed thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free triiodothyronine (FT3), and free thyroxine (FT4) in the farmworkers, and found significant differences in the TSH and FT3 concentrations between the chemical pesticide and the organic worker groups; however, the nature of those differences was highly correlated to the presence of specific SNPs.

The study asserts, “Thyroid dysfunction has long been recognized as abnormal TSH, FT4, and FT3 concentrations, which can result from exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides. The[se] results suggest that the long-term use of pesticides by the chemical workers may have contributed to their significantly higher concentrations of TSH and FT3 compared with the organic workers. . . . Changes in thyroid hormone concentrations may involve the effects of insecticides, herbicides, and/or fungicides on the molecular regulation of the HTP axis.”

The researchers believe that theirs is the first study to explore whether genetic polymorphisms are associated with pesticide-induced alterations in thyroid hormones, and the first to investigate “a large number of SNPs in agricultural workers to assess the potential risk of thyroid dysfunction.” The co-authors write, “The genetic analysis of enzymes involved in pesticide metabolism provides valuable information regarding individuals or populations that may have an increased health risk because of their polymorphism profile. Genetic variations of these genes can lead to pesticides forming highly toxic intermediates and ultimately damaging various molecular targets.”

The researchers note that such variations in individuals’ genetic polymorphisms may explain, at least in part, why people can differ in their response to pesticide exposure. The study asserts: “These findings support a possible role of pesticide exposure in adverse thyroid function and should focus public and environmental health concerns regarding the occupational risk associated with pesticide use.”

The bottom line for farmworkers — who would virtually never know anything about their “polymorphism profile” — is that they are at significant risk of thyroid dysfunction or/and disease from their chronic exposures to ED pesticides. Frontline agricultural workers have been the canaries in the coalmine for many decades — since agricultural production shifted in the mid-20^th century to chemical-intensive management. Those working in conventional farming are exposed chronically to multiple toxic pesticide compounds, many of which have been registered for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) without evidence of their safety. Many agricultural workers in the U.S. are people of color, making pesticide use not only a health and environmental morass, but also, a major environmental justice issue.

Beyond Pesticides and other advocates have repeatedly called attention to the ED impacts of many pesticides, and especially, their negative human health impacts. See these recent articles: “Ban Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides Now,” and “Tell EPA: It Must Ban Pesticides Unless Shown Not to Be Endocrine Disruptors.” For years advocates have worked to bring ED (and many other) pesticide issues to the public’s attention, persuade policymakers, and enter into litigation to get EPA to act protectively on human and environmental health. But the people and their representatives, whether elected or in advocacy, should not have to fight against their own government to secure the protections that EPA is tasked with providing.

Just days ago, Beyond Pesticides wrote, in a commentary on the EPA announcement on ending chlorpyrifos use on food: “Does a science-based, public health–oriented, occupational safety–focused, children-concerned, ecologically protective society allow the use of toxic pesticides that are unnecessary to achieve land management, quality of life, and food productivity goals? Should victims of poisoning have to plead with regulators to protect them? Should organizations have to fight, chemical by chemical, to achieve basic levels of protection from individual neurotoxic, cancer causing, endocrine disrupting pesticides? Of course not. But . . . EPA’s announcement that it is stopping food uses of the insecticide chlorpyrifos, after being registered 65 years ago, provides us with an important opportunity for reflection. The collective effort to remove this one chemical is a tremendous feat in eliminating one exposure to a hazardous material for children. That is the point. The action we’re celebrating required an amazingly resource-intensive effort at a time in history when we are running against the clock in an urgent race to transition our society and global community away from the use of petroleum-based, toxic pesticides [and] to . . . meaningful practices that sustain, nurture, and regenerate life.” Those practices happen in approaches that respect Nature, exercise precaution, and take seriously their stewardship role.

Beyond Pesticides believes that organic regenerative agriculture and land management must be the future. And EPA must do better — now — to get us there.

Source: https://www.dovepress.com/risk-management-and-healthcare-policy-journal

ISSN: 1179-1594
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy, and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. It is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 9, 2021) A new study published in Toxicology Reports finds the same chemicals that disrupt the endocrine (hormone) system also disrupt the nervous system. Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotics (i.e., chemical substances like toxic pesticides foreign to an organism or ecosystem) present in nearly all organisms and ecosystems. The World Health Organization (WHO), European Union (EU), and endocrine disruptor expert (deceased) Theo Colborn, Ph.D., classify over 55 to 177 chemical compounds as endocrine disruptors, including various household products like detergents, disinfectants, plastics, and pesticides. Past research shows exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides adversely affects human health, from reproductive function to cancer development, and effects can span generations. However, this study is one of the few to evaluate associations between endocrine-disrupting chemicals and neurological function. Although the etiology (cause) of many sporadic (non-heritable) neurological diseases are unknown, scientists suggest exposure to environmental toxicants plays a role in disease development. Therefore, government and health officials have been urged to consider how exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can impact bodily function and development apart from hormone disruption.  

In the body, cells communicate through electrical or chemical signals transmitted within the nervous or endocrine system. Studies find exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals has a direct and indirect impact on hormone function and development. However, researchers investigated whether the chemicals play a similar role in neurological development and functionality: Do endocrine-disrupting chemicals impact the nervous system via neuroendocrine or general mechanisms? These mechanisms include direct effects on the neurons/nervous system or indirect effects on the nervous system via thyroid regulation. Using scientific studies based on neurotoxicity, cognition, and behavior from PubMed and Google scholar, researchers assessed 176, WHO classified, endocrine-disrupting compounds, in addition to Roundup (177), for neurological effects.

The results demonstrate that all classifiable endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including Roundup/glyphosate, negatively affect the nervous system, causing neurological disruption (neurodisruption). Although previous research notes the primary mechanism of endocrine disruption is through the thyroid, only 20 percent of endocrine disruptors in this study operate via the thyroid to cause nervous system impacts. The remaining 80 percent of endocrine disruptors function via other general mechanisms to produce adverse nervous system effects. Therefore, the researchers establish the novel concept that endocrine disruptors are neurological disruptors (neurodisruptors) and collectively refer to these chemicals as endocrine and nervous disruptors (ENDs).

Past research shows exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely impact human, animal—and thus environmental—health, by altering the natural hormones in the body responsible for conventional fertile, physical, and mental development. Research demonstrates that endocrine disruption is prevalent among many pesticide products like herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and even pesticide manufacturing by-products like dioxin (TCDD). These chemical ingredients can enter the body, disrupting hormones and causing adverse developmental, disease, and reproductive problems. The endocrine system consists of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal, and pituitary) and the hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen, testosterone, and adrenaline). These glands and their respective hormones guide the development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of animals, including humans. Endocrine disruption is an ever-present, growing issue that plagues the global population. Hence, advocates maintain that policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure.

The nervous system is an integral part of the human body and includes the brain, spinal cord, a vast network of nerves and neurons, all of which are responsible for many of our bodily functions—from what we sense to how we move. However, exposure to chemical toxicants, like pesticides, can cause neurotoxic effects or exacerbate preexisting chemical damage to the nervous system. The impacts of pesticides on the nervous system, including the brain, are hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals (e.g., farm workers) or during critical windows of vulnerability and development (e.g., childhood, pregnancy). Mounting evidence over the past years shows that chronic exposure to sublethal (low) levels of pesticides adversely affects the central nervous system (CNS). Specifically, researchers identify agricultural chemical exposure as a cause of many adverse CNS impacts. In addition to CNS effects, pesticide exposure can impact a plethora of neurological diseases. These diseases include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson’s disease, dementia-like diseases such as Alzheimer’s, and other effects on cognitive function. Overall, endocrine disruption can negatively impact reproductive function, nervous system function, metabolic/immune function, hormone-related cancers, and fetal/body development. Therefore, advocates say it is essential to avoid toxic chemical exposure to lessen potential acute and chronic health risks.

Not only do researchers find exposure to sublethal doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals affect hormone receptors, but neural receptors such as connections between nerves, the brain, enzymes, and DNA, as well. This study adds to the growing body of research surrounding pesticide neurotoxicity. In addition to this research, several studies demonstrate autism, mood disorders (e.g., depression), and degenerative neurological conditions (e.g., ALS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s) among aquatic and terrestrial animals, including humans, exposed to pesticides. Pesticides themselves, mixtures of chemicals such as Agent Orange or dioxins, and therapeutic hormones or pharmaceutical products are endocrine disruptors that possess the ability to disrupt neurological function. Furthermore, studies suggest pesticides formulants (adjuvants) such as POEA (polyoxyethylene tallow amine) have both neurological and endocrine-disrupting activity. POEA is present in some glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup and has higher nervous system toxicity than the active ingredient (glyphosate). Although the biological function and cause/effect of neurotoxicity related to endocrine and nervous disruptors is unclear, scientists note synchronized communication within and between cells. Many of these endocrine compounds are petroleum derivatives that have a mechanism of action of “spamming” communication signals. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lacks comprehensive pesticide testing protocol and fails to evaluate the full impact of pesticide products, severely limiting real-world exposure concerns. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reports EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program fails to adequately assess endocrine-disrupting pesticides and protect the general population from exposure. The OIG report concludes, “Without the required testing and an effective system of internal controls, the EPA cannot make measurable progress toward compliance with statutory requirements or safeguard human health and the environment against risk from endocrine-disrupting chemicals.” (See Beyond Pesticides report.)

The endocrine and nervous systems are integral to everyday human activities and the body’s ability to function normally. There is a lack of understanding of the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developing chronic illnesses, and studies related to pesticides and endocrine disruption can help scientists understand the underlying mechanisms that indirectly or directly cause neurotoxicity. Therefore, advocates are calling for policies that enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure.

There are several limitations in defining real-world poisoning as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). The adverse health effects of pesticides, exposure, and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for more extensive research on occupational and non-occupational pesticide exposure, especially in agriculture. However, the PIDD database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticides exposure on human health, see PIDD pages on endocrine disruption, brain and nervous system disorders, cancer, and other diseases. 

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transitioning to organic practices. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment and from your diet. For more information on why organic is the right choice for consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: GM Watch, Toxicology Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2021) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last month released a long-overdue biological evaluation of the three most commonly used neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides, finding that the chemicals are likely to adversely affect the lion’s share of endangered species and their habitat. While the public may be most familiar with the damage neonics cause to pollinator populations, EPA’s evaluation highlights the widespread, indiscriminate harm scientists throughout the world have been sounding the alarm about for years. Advocates say the findings make it clear that neonicotinoids must be immediately banned from use.

Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA is required to consult with federal wildlife agencies and conduct a biological evaluation of the impacts a pesticide may have on endangered species and their habitats, prior to the agency formally registering the pesticide. This almost never happens. EPA regularly fails to conduct this evaluation, requiring environmental and conservation organizations to sue the agency in order to force compliance with the law.  

EPA has been subject to a number of legal challenges over the last decade for its failure to comply with ESA when it registered neonics pesticides. In 2019, Ellis v Housenger (EPA), a lawsuit filed by beekeeper Steve Ellis of Old Mill Honey Co in Minnesota, alongside environmental organizations Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, and others, concluded that EPA violated ESA. The judge in that case ordered the parties involved to negotiate a settlement to resolve the dispute. This resulted in the cancellation of 12 neonicotinoid products, but allowed a broad range of similar products to remain on the market.

Separate lawsuits filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Biological Diversity resulted in settlements that required EPA to fulfill its original legal requirement and publish a biological evaluation on the effects of neonics on endangered species. EPA’s current release is considered a draft, and it has until June 2022 to complete its work. Finalizing the evaluation will initiate a consultation process that could result in restrictions on the chemicals in order to alleviate risks to endangered species or their habitat.

Under EPA’s current draft, each neonic was found to adversely affect over 1,000 endangered species out of 1,821 listed under the law. Specifically, the neonics were found to adversely effect nontarget endangered species: imidacloprid – 1,445  (79%), clothianidin – 1,225 (67%), and thiamethoxam- 1,396 (77%). Harmful effects were not limited to a specific subgroup – dozens of species were affected within all groups, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, plants, and aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates.

These findings are stark in the context of actions by the previous administration to weaken the biological evaluation process. Under new “Revised Methods” the agency released, many of the ways that protected species are commonly hurt or killed by pesticides are ignored, such as down stream impacts, and secondary effects like for instance, when harm to a pollinator population effects the fitness of an endangered plant. It is critical that EPA and wildlife agencies conduct more research on the trophic impacts of pesticides, not less.

Thus, while even these grim determinations are likely significantly underplaying the danger posed by neonics, reports indicate the pesticide industry is concerned with how the Biden administration will ultimately act on these data. In its press release, EPA noted that these reviews came after the agency’s lackluster rubber stamp of the chemical class in early 2020. The agency indicates that, “Additional mitigation measures may be developed through formal consultation on the neonicotinoid pesticides. EPA is interested in finding ways, through discussions with stakeholders, to implement mitigation measures that further protect endangered and threatened species earlier in the ESA consultation process.”

While that does provide a small ray of hope, to date, agency actions under President Biden and Administrator Regan have resulted in the renewal of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat, defending a decision to allow use of once-banned aldicarb, and the re-approval of another bee-killing insecticide sulfoxaflor. The agency recently took overdue action on the insecticide chlorpyrifos, yet significant concerns remain over the precedent established by the way EPA made its decision.

Ultimately, any action taken by the administration to limit one chemical or chemical class without a broad-scale reorganization of how EPA conducts its pesticide reviews is insufficient. Real reform is necessary to stop industry influence over American’s health, environmental safety, and the dwindling species whose protection are critical for our long-term welfare. Help reinforce the message that the Biden administration must have EPA hold pesticide manufacturers accountable for the poisoning and damage they cause.

For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to wildlife and endangered species, see Beyond Pesticides’ Wildlife program page.  

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

Source: EPA, C&EN

(Beyond Pesticides, September 7, 2021) If regulations concerning “origin of organic livestock” and “access to pasture” seem beyond your comprehension as an organic consumer, think again. Lacking enforcement of strong regulations on these topics, organic dairy is in imminent danger.

Multinational food conglomerate Danone, owner of Horizon Organic, has just sent notice to 89 organic milk producers in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and at least three counties (Clinton, Franklin and Saint Lawrence) in New York that it is cancelling their contracts. While this action is devastating to the affected farms and the economies of those states, it has much broader implications.

Why is Danone cancelling contracts as organic milk production in the Northeast is increasing? In Danone’s words, the company “will be supporting new partners that better align with our manufacturing footprint.” Ed Maltby, executive director of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers, explains this “footprint,” with reference to low cost, ultra-pasteurized milk that is easily transported and warehoused, which has become a staple on the organic shelf. More importantly for the future of organic dairy is the expectation that USDA will promulgate a weak regulation on origin of livestock—that “will allow the massive loophole of being able to sell or transfer transitioned animals as certified organic.” Such a regulation, in combination with the continued failure to enforce rules requiring organic livestock to have access to pasture, makes it profitable to produce “organic” milk in industrial confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where cows are fed cheap imported “organic” grain instead of pasture. Organic consumers do not want CAFO [concentrated animal feeding operation] milk, but many will have no other choice without strong regulations.

Tell USDA that strong regulations are essential to protect organic dairy and consumer support for organic.

Letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Deputy Administrator, National Organic Program 

As an organic consumer, I am very concerned about the future of organic dairy. Multinational food conglomerate Danone, owner of Horizon Organic, has just sent notice to 89 organic milk producers in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and at least three counties (Clinton, Franklin and Saint Lawrence) in New York that it is cancelling their contracts. While this action is devastating to the affected farms and the economies of those states, it has much broader implications that affect all organic consumers.

Why is Danone cancelling contracts as organic milk production in the Northeast is increasing? In Danone’s words, the company “will be supporting new partners that better align with our manufacturing footprint.” What is this “footprint”? Low cost, ultra-pasteurized milk that is easily transported and warehoused has become a staple on the organic shelf. That doesn’t live up to my expectations as an organic consumer.

But more importantly for the future of organic dairy is the expectation that USDA will promulgate a weak regulation on origin of livestock—that will allow the massive loophole of being able to sell or transfer transitioned animals as certified organic. Such a regulation, in combination with the continued failure to enforce rules requiring organic livestock to have access to pasture, makes it profitable to produce “organic” milk in industrial concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where cows are fed cheap imported “organic” grain instead of pasture. Organic consumers do not want CAFO milk, but many of us will have no other choice without strong regulations.

Please do the following:

* Adopt strong regulations governing origin of organic livestock that do not allow transitioned animals to retain their organic certification for milk when they are transferred or sold. The recent loss of Northeast organic dairy family farms can be blamed partly on USDA who created an un-level playing field with its failure to publish the regulation during the last decade.

* Enforce regulations requiring access to pasture. The recent loss of Northeast organic dairy family farms can be blamed partly on USDA, which allows some certifiers to fail to interpret or enforce the access to pasture regulation in their definition of the grazing season.

We pay a premium for organic milk because we want milk from farms that follow strict organic practices. Without strong enforcement, the organic label is a farce and will lose its value in the marketplace.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 6, 2021) This Labor Day, as we live through our second year of the coronavirus pandemic, it is especially appropriate that we continue to express gratitude to all essential workers—healthcare workers, farmworkers, food processors, grocery workers, and others that put their lives on the line every day. But our gratitude does not protect anyone’s health. Nobody should have to risk their health for a job. That’s why, on this Labor Day, we must renew our commitment to eliminate the racial and economic inequities in our society that contribute to disproportionate risk to the health and well-being of workers, especially people of color. We can do this through the adoption of local, state, and national policies that eliminate toxic pesticide use, which disproportionately affects workers.

As we as a nation recognize that systemic change is needed to fight racial and economic injustice, we are faced with questions that go to the core of our society—the distribution of wealth, a livable wage, investment in and access to education and health care, protection of the right to vote, and an environment that sustains life.

This is a moment for building coalitions in our communities to advance policies that ensure all aspects of a healthful life and environment, supported by our social structures. In doing this, we recognize that we must join together to build the necessary power to effect meaningful and transformational change that confronts the existential public health (including worker health), climate, and ecological crises.

Our work to advance systemic change will continue to seek changes in underlying policies that codify disproportionate harm, such as federal pesticide law that is built on a foundation that allows elevated and disproportionate risk to workers who are excluded from EPA’s cumulative risk assessment (under the Food Quality Protection Act, amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), which aggregates dietary and non-dietary, but explicitly not occupational, exposure to pesticides, while including a mandate to protect children. With this, the law effectively requires EPA to allow higher rates of harm for workers, particularly farmworkers, landscapers (workers who are disproportionately people of color), and others occupationally exposed to pesticides.

EPA’s recent decision to ban food uses of chlorpyrifos, but still allow it to be applied on golf courses, road medians, processed wood products, and more, is just one more glaring example of EPA’s failure to protect workers who handle toxic pesticides, and the general population and planet.

Change starts in our communities. The coronavirus pandemic has increased our understanding of disproportionate harm from Covid, with the recognition of elevated illness and death among essential Black and brown workers in our community. We have learned that those with preexisting adverse health conditions (or comorbidities) are at elevated risk. As we rethink our approach to pesticide reform, we ask: Does a science-based, public health-oriented, occupational safety focused, children-concerned, ecologically protective society allow the use of toxic pesticides that are unnecessary to achieve land management, quality of life, and food productivity goals? The answer, of course, is “no.”

Now is the time to eliminate worker and community hazards with the adoption of organic land management practices and policies in all our communities. We can eliminate petroleum-based toxic pesticides and fertilizers, protecting workers, and achieve beautiful landscapes and safe playing fields and parks. With increased momentum nationwide, in all parts of the country, all communities can make the transition, as we work with states and the federal government to eliminate our unnecessary dependence on toxic pesticides.

In our communities, let’s protect the workers, public health, and the environment. To discuss transitioning your community to organic land management, contact [email protected].

—Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 3, 2021) Groupe Danone, multinational corporate owner of Horizon Organic, has announced that it is terminating its contracts with 89 small-to-medium-sized organic dairy producers in the Northeast as of August 2022. At that point, all of Horizon’s contracted organic dairy farms in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and northern New York may well have no buyers for their milk and will likely face a very uncertain future. In July 2021, Beyond Pesticides covered a major contributor to this development — the failure of the NOP (National Organic Program) to protect the integrity of organic dairy, which failure has advantaged large producers over smaller operations (see more on this below). This development in a region with historically strong demand for organic dairy products is of concern on several fronts, not the least of which is the fate of these small producers.

A letter with the news was sent by Danone to 28 Vermont producers, 14 in Maine, 2 in New Hampshire, and 45 in New York State’s three northernmost counties. The company plans, instead, to source milk primarily from larger producers, including “organic” concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) — in Ohio, Pennsylvania, the Midwest, and some Western states — that can produce milk at lower cost, leaving the Northeast region’s small and medium size organic dairy farms in the lurch.

In email communication between Danone and the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA), the company cited “growing transportation and operational challenges in the dairy industry, particularly in the Northeast” as justification for the move. CBS Boston reports that,“The company told Vermont officials that it did not want to transport milk from the [Northeast] region to its plant in New York.” Marion Nestle’s “Food Politics” blog reports the company’s additional comment: “We will be supporting new partners that better align with our manufacturing footprint,” and translates those comments to the real reason — “organic milk in the Northeast costs more, so Danone is cutting its losses.”

As Dr. Nestle points out, the larger dairies, and CAFO operations in particular (especially in Texas) have huge herds and operate with the cost advantages of that scale. Danone indicates that it is cheaper to purchase milk from these producers and ship it East, despite their distance from the Western New York processing plant the company is choosing to use, than to buy from smaller, Northeast producers. Danone insists it did not make this decision lightly, adding that “We are committed to continuing to support organic dairy in the East, and in the last 12 months alone, we have onboarded more than 50 producers new to Horizon Organic that better fit our manufacturing footprint.”

In a Beyond Pesticides interview, NODPA Executive Director Ed Maltby explained Danone’s dropping of contracts with these 89 dairies and at the same time, entering into new contracts with 50 others in the region. This at first blush appears odd, and certainly it contradicts Danone’s comment about not wanting to transport milk from the Northeast to its processing plant near Buffalo. (This plant can process ultra-pasteurized milk, which is easily warehoused and transported, and has become a staple of the organic dairy sections of retail stores.)

But as Mr. Maltby set out, those 50 new suppliers are larger dairies (which mean fewer tanker stops to pick up milk) that are also located along more major routes, making pickup trips easier than visiting many small dairies that may be located in more outlying areas. Danone is looking to amplify savings associated with what it deems more-efficient milk collection.

Mr. Maltby adds that the impacts of Danone’s abandonment of smaller Northeast organic dairy farms will be felt throughout their rural communities. The potential damage extends beyond the potential shuttering of the affected dairy farms. Nicole Dehne, director of Vermont Organic Farmers, notes that if these dairy farms are forced to shut down, “the ripple effect[s] on the local economy would be notable. Producers employ breeders, vets and grain companies, for example. Organic farmers are also required to manage their farms so they’re hospitable to the local ecosystem. They have to improve soil health on their farms. They have to plan and manage for biodiversity. So it’s also kind of devastating to think that we might lose that acreage that’s being managed in that way.” Marion Nestle says in her “Food Politics” blog: “This is Big Organic Dairy in action, and it’s not pretty.”

The Portland Press Herald reports more of Ed Maltby’s commentary, which goes to Dr. Nestle’s point: “Danone is effectively consolidating their supply base. The way they’ve done it is (what) any large conglomerate company would do. They do it impersonally. It’s not as if they are holding meetings with farmers in the area and saying these are the challenges we’re having in transporting milk and can we work together.”

A bit of the relevant corporate consolidation history: Stonyfield Farm, a long-standing independent manufacturer based in New Hampshire, was fully acquired by Groupe Danone in 2014. Then, Danone announced its intention to sell the Stonyfield subsidiary to avoid antitrust claims and to clear the way for the acquisition of the organic food producer WhiteWave Foods (owner of Horizon Organics). In 2017, Lactalis bought Stonyfield. Antitrust claims have been leveled against Danone previously, including by NODPA, over concerns about monopsony — a market situation in which there is only one buyer.

The Portland Press Herald article notes that this move by Danone is the most recent in a pattern of consolidation that has happened in other agricultural sectors. When the demand for organic milk took off from the late 1990s through the first decade or so of the 2000s, the organic milk sector grew rapidly, by 10–15% annually. This was likely fueled, in part, by public reaction to the use of rBGH, recombinant growth hormone, on conventional dairy herds.

Mr. Maltby is quoted again: “The rocket-ship growth drew in smaller farmers who saw the potential to earn a more stable living while also taking better care of the land and their animals . . . especially in the Northeast, where the climate is friendly to growing the pasture grass that organic dairy thrives on. The stable price plus the more natural way of farming was very attractive. . . . (At one point) there were over 200 organic dairy farms in Vermont and up to 17 in Maine, and that was because the brand and the buyers at that time were looking for farms near to their major markets,” including Boston and the New York City region.

But the “consolidation” ethos that prevails in the corporate universe has come to much of the agricultural landscape, including organic dairy. Some have called this moment an inflection point for the industry. The aggregate forces of (1) rising and disparate production costs (which are higher for smaller operations and in the Northeast), (2) slowing of demand as supply has increased, due to more “industrial/CAFO “organic” dairy coming on line, and (3) increased demand for non-milk, plant-based alternatives, are resulting in developments such as Danone’s bailing on small Northeast organic milk suppliers. Some consider that the decision signals a cooling of the organic dairy sector following 20 years of unrelenting growth.

An additional, and fairly invisible-to-the-public factor in this fraught landscape is the long-standing and unresolved “Origin of Livestock” issue. An ambiguity in the NOP definition of what constitutes an organic herd of cows has enabled very large dairy CAFOs to develop in the Midwest and parts of the West — the very suppliers to which Danone will turn. (Read more on CAFOs and “organic” CAFOs here, here and here.)

Under NOP rules, milk sold or represented as organic must be from livestock that have been under continuous organic management for at least one year. But this one-year transition period was created for conversion of a conventional herd to organic — an important feature when the National Organic Standards were created and the certified organic program and label were just launching in the U.S. Once a herd has been converted to organic production, all dairy animals must be under organic management from the last third of gestation.

The Organic Trade Association offers this description of the problem: “Due to a lack of specificity in the regulations, some USDA-accredited certifiers allow dairies to routinely bring [cheaper,] non-organic animals into an organic operation, and transition them for one year, rather than raise their own replacement animals under organic management from the last third of gestation. . . . [This] is a violation of the organic standards and creates an economic disadvantage for organic farmers who raise their own organic replacement animals under organic management in accordance with the regulations.”

This ambiguity has been exploited by what Dr. Nestle calls “Big Organic” — industrial producers (e.g., “organic” CAFOs) and processors such as Danone. Beyond Pesticides has noted that this loophole allows large industrial operations to undercut dairy farmers who operate with integrity — raising and managing their calves from birth organically — and compromises the organic nature of the product the consumer buys, threatening the integrity of the certified organic standard.

The loophole should have been remedied years ago; a revised rule was proposed in 2015, but no Final Rule has yet been issued. Beyond Pesticides wrote in July 2021: “We need a Final Rule on the origin of livestock and we need it now. At the beginning of the organic dairy movement, one of the big drivers was economic justice for farmers. We have lost thousands of farmers since then. Organic production was a viable alternative for family-scale producers and it has worked. However, much of the growth in the industry has been usurped by industrial scale operations gaming the system. If it wasn’t for the factory farms there could have been thousands of additional dairies saved and converted to organic.” Beyond Pesticides wrote in July to the Deputy Administrator of the NOP with its recommendations, including that the sale of transitioned animals as certified organic should be prohibited, among others aimed at preventing abuse of the transition option.

The uphill slog for small Northeast organic dairy farmers trying to compete with large industrial operations is exacerbated by the relatively higher costs of production in the region. Ed Maltby notes that costs for labor, land, insurance, and taxes are all higher in the Northeast than in most other regions of the country. He compared the producer cost for production of 100 pounds of organic milk: $36 in the Northeast, compared to $27–32 in the Midwest and West.

Another exploited loophole in enforcement of NOP rules relates to the “Pasture Rule” — how dairy herds feed. The NOP’s Pasture Rule for Organic Ruminant Livestock (established in 2011) sets out requirements for the grazing season. Organic ruminant livestock—such as cattle, sheep, and goats—must have free access to certified organic pasture for the entire grazing season. This period is specific to the farm’s geographic climate, but must be at least 120 days. In most cases, it will be much longer than 120 days. (There are also “dry matter” and documentation requirements in the rule.) The Pasture Rule explicitly says, “Organic producers should strive to maximize the number of days their animals are on pasture. The intent of the Pasture Rule is to ensure that organic ruminant operations are pasture-based systems, as well as to increase pasture productivity and pasture quality over time.”

This pasturing provision reflects a fundamental feature of organic dairy that distinguishes it from conventional dairy production. Yet, industrial “organic” dairy operations are using huge amounts of imported organic grain (corn and soy, in particular) to feed their herds. As the Cornucopia Institute documents in its 2018 report, The Industrialization of Organic Dairy, there have occurred many violations of the Pasture Rule during the past decade, particularly by industrial “organic” CAFOs. The report notes: “Large dairies have shifted from trying to justify their lack of grazing and pasture for their lactating dairy cows to creating the illusion of meeting the low standard set by the USDA. This illusion is made possible by a number of agreeable accredited organic certifying agents who are willing to collect large certification fees while looking the other way, facilitated by deficient oversight of these agents by the NOP.” Obviously, poor enforcement of standards via certifiers is also a wrench in the system.

Beyond Pesticides wrote, a few years ago: “We have ‘organic’ dairy CAFOs with 15,000 cows in a feedlot in a desert, with compelling evidence by an investigative reporter that the CAFO is not meeting the grazing rule — by a long shot.” The National Organic Coalition writes, “The lack of consistent enforcement with regard to dairy pasture requirements as well as origin of livestock rules have contributed to the oversupply of organic milk in the market. This has had a devastating effect on organic dairy prices to farmers, and left many organic farmers and those transitioning to organic with stranded investments because there are no buyers for their milk.”

What do Northeast dairy farmers and other make of this development? And what are they to do? This action by Danone is a very big deal in the region, and response from producers, advocates, and officials in the region has been more vociferous than the company may have been expecting. Damage to its public face and the goodwill of consumers may be at some risk.

Abbie Corse, an organic dairy farmer who sells to Organic Valley and is a board member of both the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) of Vermont and the Vermont Climate Council, had this to say: “Organic farms are beginning to follow the same consolidation trends as conventional farms. It’s attributable to loopholes in the National Organic Program. . . . Larger farms can now become certified, which has caused the market to become flooded. It’s allowing larger farms to enter into the marketplace where small farmers were. . . . I know that it has been an articulated priority of our congressional delegation to continue to push on the loopholes being closed, specifically for the origin of livestock and the pasture rule. . . . That would go a long way towards correcting for the equitable access in the marketplace for small farmers and their ability to thrive.”

Ms. Corse added that the mental stress of Danone’s action on producers is significant. “These aren’t just jobs. These aren’t just pieces of the economy. These are entire lives that are tied up in a farm. Even having to go through a process of receiving a letter like this . . . I don’t think the average person understands what that means for these folks.”

Maine Dairy farmer Lauren Webber called the move by Danone “perplexing,” given that Horizon had just “recently required that all of its Maine producers go through an extensive audit and documentation process for their operations, only to dump them a few weeks later.”

Officials in the affected states are working to call together stakeholders to try to address and solve this crisis. In Vermont, the Secretary of the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, Anson Tebbets, is putting together a task force to address the problem; it is expected to include farmers, economic development officials, the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) of Vermont, the University of Vermont Extension, and the Vermont Farm Bureau. NOFA Vermont’s Policy Director Maddie Kempner commented, “Not having a buyer for your milk is a really severe position to be in for these farmers. So we’re doing our best to make sure we’re seeking solutions for alternative markets for their milk, but also, [to] make sure the farmers feel as individually supported as possible.”

According to Ed Maltby, these Northeast producers are really between a rock and a hard place, with few viable options. Some hope to find other buyers for their milk, such as Organic Valley/CROPP Cooperative, the largest remaining processor in the region, but as VTDigger reports, “Other buyers in the area, including Stonyfield Organic, Organic Valley and Upstate Niagara Cooperative, appear to have limited capacity to accept new producers.” Organic Valley CEO Bob Kirchoff said in a written statement that he does not yet know if the company will be able to help the Northeast farmers, adding that, “Organic farming is facing the same crisis we’ve seen in conventional agriculture — consolidation, industrialization, ‘get big or get out.’ It will take a lot of people working together to solve it, but we all must be bold enough to believe we can.”

Other producers will, as Ed Maltby suggests, likely switch to corn or hay production, or retire from farming and try to sell off their assets and reconcile their debt, which may leave them with relatively little cushion in the end. The ripple effects referred to earlier could include impacts on other rural businesses, and potentially, the sale of some valuable agricultural land to developers, which means more farmland loss (already a major problem, according to the American Farmland Trust).

As for potential solutions for Northeast organic producers, Mr. Maltby says there are few immediate ones, and refers readers to NODPA’s website coverage of the matter and actions the public can take to advocate for resolution. One of those is to communicate directly with USDA (the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under which the NOP operates) and Congressional representatives to ensure that the Origin of Livestock is a strong regulation that does not allow transitioned animals to retain organic certification when they are transferred or sold.

Mr. Maltby posits that one sensible approach would be for Danone to establish a processing plant near New York City — which it could easily afford to do. This would allow it to sell more easily to huge and critical markets in the greater New York City and Boston areas, but also, to service the milk supply it could buy from Northeast, some mid-Atlantic, and Pennsylvania producers. But he is not betting the farm on that outcome.

He also notes there may be some opportunity for Danone’s “B Corp” legal status to be challenged, given its behavior. (B Corporations are businesses whose legal classification requires them “to consider the impact of their decisions on their workers, customers, suppliers, community, and the environment.”) Dr. Nestle apparently concurs, writing, “Danone proudly proclaims its B Corp status [and] cites its B Corp ambition: ‘an expression of our long-time commitment to sustainable business and to Danone’s dual project of economic success and social progress.’ Social progress, anyone?”

The squeezing out of small organic producers who operate with integrity is a major concern for the organic dairy sector, of course, but also, for the larger issue of organic integrity and the public’s trust in the meaning of the certified organic label. Is the milk that comes from an “organic” CAFO the same product as milk that comes from a small Vermont dairy whose herd is on pasture for half the year? Many believe it is not. In 2018, Beyond Pesticides wrote of “organic” CAFO-produced milk: “The Washington Post’s 2017 report found that Aurora Organic Dairy, a major milk supplier for big box retailers like Walmart and Safeway, is producing milk that was less nutrient dense compared to small-scale organic family farms. . . . The subsequent [report] . . . found that the living conditions indicated by the photos [of CAFOs] did result in cows producing nutritionally deficient milk.”

The NOP must clarify rules, tighten enforcement of standards, and level the playing field for small- and medium-sized producers, who are currently disadvantaged by the competitive perquisites the large conglomerate operations enjoy. Members of the public are encouraged to contact federal elected officials and the USDA itself to advocate for such changes. Meanwhile, consumers can consider their own dairy purchases and vote with their food dollars to support ethical, sustainable, and transparent organic brands that source from smaller, regional producers. For more information on why it is so important to not only protect, but strengthen the organic label, see Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

Sources: https://www.foodpolitics.com/2021/08/24686/, https://vtdigger.org/2021/08/23/danone-owner-of-horizon-organic-terminates-contracts-with-vermont-farmers/ and https://nodpa.com/n/5995/URGENT-ORGANIC-DAIRY-NEWS-Updated-82921-Danone-Exiting-the-Northeast-Region

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 2, 2021) A McMaster University (Canada) study demonstrates exposure to the recently banned, commonly used insecticide chlorpyrifos promotes obesity development, even at low doses. Obesity generally occurs following a caloric imbalance between food intake, absorption, and energy expenditure. Although various factors can promote obesity, researchers suggest environmental toxicants like chlorpyrifos play a role in obesity development through protein/enzyme suppression.

According to the Center for Disease Control, 42 percent of the U.S. population is obese and at risk for type two diabetes, cardiovascular (heart) disease, stroke, several cancers, and other critical health issues. Therefore, research like this highlights the significance of investigating how toxic chemical exposure can impact health to prevent adverse disease outcomes. Researchers note, “These studies suggest that the effects of environmental toxicants on the development of obesity may have been underestimated as all studies to date have been conducted in mice housed at RT [room temperature]. Future studies examining the mechanisms driving reductions in β-AR [beta adrenergic receptors] signaling and whether there are associations between BAT [brown adipose tissue] metabolic activity and CPF [chlorpyrifos] in humans will be important.”

Several environmental pollutants have links to obesity development via the effects on gut health, endocrine (hormone) and metabolic system, and adipose (fat) tissues development. However, few studies consider how environmental toxicants impact brown adipose tissue (BAT) activation and the body’s ability to burn calories (thermogenesis). Thus, researchers used a stepwise screening approach to assess 34 commonly used pesticides and herbicides in brown fat cells (brown adipose tissue). Furthermore, scientists specifically tested the effects of chlorpyrifos among mice on high-calorie diets.

The study finds that chlorpyrifos (an organophosphate insecticide) suppresses uncoupling protein 1 (UCP1), responsible for regulating BAT thermogenesis, at concentrations as low as 1 (picomolar) pM. The primary exposure route is through diet, as the major cause of obesity is diet-induced thermogenesis suppression. Notably, the study focuses on thermoneutral housing for mice participants, which better mimic human conditions modeling metabolic disease development. Thus, chlorpyrifos exposure impairs BAT activation in thermoneutral mice on a high-fat diet, resulting in a greater risk of obesity, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and insulin resistance. Chlorpyrifos alters protein modifying enzymes, protein kinases responsible for maintaining UCP1 function, thus resulting in activation of BAT and suppression of calorie burning. (See “Pesticides and the Obesity Epidemic.”)

The obesity rate is increasing and has been over the last five decades. Although general over-eating and under-exercising attribute to obesity, researchers find the current obesity epidemic has alternative factors contributing to development. Besides genetics, exposure to obesogenic compounds like pesticides can promote obesity development. These compounds routinely cause reproductive, cardiovascular, and endocrine (hormone) issues among exposed individuals, especially farmers. Bruce Blumberg, Ph.D., professor of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, defines obesogens “as chemicals that inappropriately stimulate the development of fat cells or the storage of fat into those cells, either directly by fiddling with how the cells work, or indirectly altering appetites tied to metabolism.” Many obesogenic compounds are endocrine disruptors that directly impact hormone and receptor function and include pesticides like organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethroids. Furthermore, endocrine disruption can negatively impact reproductive function, nervous system function, metabolic/immune function, hormone-related cancers, and fetal/body development.

Several studies link pesticide exposure to endocrine disruption with epigenetic (non-genetic influence on gene expression) effects. As far back as 15 years ago, a Washington State University study linked pesticide exposure to multi-generational impacts on male fertility in rodents. According to multiple studies, glyphosate exposure has adverse multi-generational effects causing negligible observable effects on pregnant rodents but severe effects on the two subsequent generations. These impacts include reproductive (prostate and ovarian) and kidney diseases, obesity, and birth anomalies. Therefore, obesogenic compounds also impact the general population and have implications for future generational health. For instance, studies demonstrate that ancestral DDT exposure increases the risk of breast cancer and cardiometabolic disorder—promoting an epigenetic inheritance of obesity—up to three successive generations. Although the U.S. banned DDT over five decades ago, the insecticide is still environmentally persistent in all ecosystems and remains in use in some countries. Like DDT, exposure to other POPs like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) during pregnancy can increase cardiometabolic disorders like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases among offspring. Since DDT/DDE residues, current-use pesticides, and other chemical pollutants contaminate the environment, exposure to these chemical mixtures can synergize to increase toxicity and disease effects.

The study results indicate that chlorpyrifos negatively affects metabolic function, playing a role in inhibiting calorie burning or thermogenesis. The suppression of thermogenesis allows calories to accumulate in the adipose tissue rather than convert to energy. Scientists partially attribute the obesity epidemic to environmental toxicant exposure. Many of these contaminants are lipophilic, bioaccumulating in fatty adipose tissue. Therefore, these results explain why lifestyle changes around diet and exercise rarely sustain weight loss. Senior author and professor at McMaster University, Gregory Steinberg (PhD), notes, “chlorpyrifos would only need to inhibit energy use in brown fat by 40 calories every day to trigger obesity in adults, which would translate to an extra five lbs of weight gain per year.”

This study is the first toxicological assessment to investigate obesity and obesity-related illnesses in rodents under thermoneutral conditions, or the temperature at which an organism does not need to regulate body heat. Thermoneutral conditions are a better predictor of health effects among humans associated with chemical exposure. Past studies using room temperature mice fail to capture the scope of obesity-related health effects, even at chemical concentrations known to cause toxicity in animal studies (i.e., neurotoxic effect and reproductive effects). However, researchers discovered that exposure to real-world concentrations of chlorpyrifos under thermoneutral conditions promotes weight gain, non-acholic fatty liver disease, and insulin resistance.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced the cancellation of all chlorpyrifos food production uses in the U.S., as chemical contamination among the general population remained considerable even after implementing residential use restrictions over two decades ago. However, the pesticide marketplaces still contain many chemicals that cause similar endocrine-disrupting, cancer-causing, neurotoxic health effects. This study takes place in Canada, which has long banned chlorpyrifos for food uses. However, imported goods can still contain chemical residues, as indicated by this study. Furthermore, chlorpyrifos residues do not disappear immediately after end-use and will persist in our environment for quite some time. Therefore, studies like this can help government and health officials understand the mechanism chemical toxicants use to alter metabolic function, promoting the obesity epidemic.

It is essential to understand the effects that obesogenic pesticides may have on the health of current and future generations. Beyond Pesticides believes that we must mitigate the multi-generational impacts pesticides pose on human and animal health.  However, there is a lack of understanding behind the cause of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data. Therefore, lawmakers and regulators should consider taking a more precautionary approach before introducing these chemicals into the environment. With far too many diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, reducing pesticide use is a critically important aspect of safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities.

Learn more about the effects of pesticides on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, supporting a shift away from pesticide dependency. This database is a fantastic resource for additional scientific literature documenting elevated rates of body burdens, including obesity, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides. Adopting regenerative-organic practices and using least-toxic pest control can reduce harmful exposure to pesticides. Solutions like buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Learn more about the multi-generation impacts of pesticides on our health via Beyond Pesticide’s journal Pesticides and You. Furthermore, view Michael Skinner’s (Ph.D.) talk on Epigenetic Transgenerational Actions of Endocrine Disruptors on Reproduction and Disease delivered at Beyond Pesticides’ 2014 National Pesticide Forum.

Advocate for toxic pesticide use elimination by telling EPA to ban all uses of chlorpyrifos and other environmental toxicants through Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week. 

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

Source: Science Daily, Nature Communications

(Beyond Pesticides, September 1, 2021) A study published in Environmental Pollution finds the risk of acute childhood leukemia (AL) increases with prenatal and newborn exposure to pesticides (i.e., insecticides and herbicides). The study results support the hypothesis that chronic environmental pesticide exposure increases childhood leukemia risk up to two times. Maternal exposure has a stronger association with leukemia than childhood exposure. Insecticides and herbicides are of particular significance in increasing leukemia risk, especially for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Although medical advancements in disease survival are more prominent nowadays, childhood AL remains the secondary cause of child mortality following physical injury. Furthermore, childhood leukemia survivors can suffer from chronic or long-term health complications that may be life-threatening.

Although the etiology or cause of childhood AL involves the interaction of multiple components like lifestyle and genetics, emerging evidence indicates that environmental contaminants like pesticides (e.g., occupational exposures, air pollution, pesticides, solvents, diet, etc.) play a role in disease etiology. Pesticide contamination is widespread in all ecosystems, and chemical compounds can accumulate in human tissues resulting in chronic health effects. Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of pesticide exposure as their developing bodies cannot adequately combat exposure effects. Already, studies find low levels of pesticide exposure during pregnancy or childhood cause adverse health effects from metabolic disorders to mental and physical disabilities. Moreover, several studies demonstrate an association between environmental or occupational pesticide exposure and the risk of childhood cancer, specifically focusing on leukemia.

Acute leukemia is the most common type of childhood cancer, affecting one out of three individuals, ages 0 to 14 years. Although the disease is rare, incidents are steadily increasing among adolescents and have been over the last 30 years. Therefore, studies like these highlight the importance of understanding how pesticide use can increase the risk of latent diseases (e.g., cancers) among vulnerable populations, such as children/infants. The authors note, “…[T]he findings of the present meta-analysis provide some evidence that low-dose long-term exposure to pesticides, mainly during pregnancy, increases the risk of childhood AL, especially among infants, supporting the still harmful role of pesticides…Moreover, mechanistic studies are deemed necessary to shed light into potentially relevant molecular pathways that underlie these associations, if replicated in future research.”

Despite several scientific studies demonstrating an association between pesticide exposure and adverse health outcomes like acute childhood leukemia (AL), methodological evidence remains inconclusive. The researchers evaluate the currently available, peer-reviewed literature on the association between pesticide exposure and different types of childhood AL, including acute lymphoblastic (ALL), acute myeloid (AML), and infant leukemia. The literature review focuses on studies published until January 2021 with specific attention to methodology. Researchers categorize effects by pesticide type, exposure-outcome (e.g., leukemia type), window/timeframe of exposure, and exposed population in evaluating the vast array of current studies.

The study results identify 55 studies from over 30 countries pertaining to over 200 different pesticide exposures from over 160,000 participants. Regardless of pesticide type, leukemia type, exposure timeframe, and population group, methodological studies demonstrate pesticide exposure increases the risk of childhood leukemia, particularly for infants. Maternal exposure to pesticides during gestation results in a more elevated leukemia risk for children than childhood (postnatal) exposure. Whether pesticide exposure is occupational or mixed, parental exposure to pesticides has the highest association with AL risk, including paternal (father) exposure. Exposure during pregnancy results in a 1.5 times greater risk of developing AL, with a 2.5 times increase in risk for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. When assessing pesticide subtypes, maternal exposure to insecticides and herbicides augments AL risk by a ratio of 1.6 and 1.4, respectively. Infant leukemia incidents depend on maternal pesticide exposure during pregnancy, with a higher risk for acute lymphoblastic and the highest risk for infant acute myeloid leukemia.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. This bodily contamination has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. A 2020 study finds the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which prenatal pesticide exposure can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates that increase the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Therefore, pesticide exposure during pregnancy has implications for both mother and child’s health. 

Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxicants increase susceptibility to diseases. For decades, studies have long demonstrated that childhood and in utero exposure to the U.S. banned insecticide DDT increases the risk of developing breast cancer later in life. Moreover, a 2021 study finds previous maternal exposure to the chemical compound during pregnancy can increase the risk of breast cancer and cardiometabolic disorders (e.g., heart disease, obesity, diabetes) up to three successive generations. However, studies find numerous current-use pesticides and chemical contaminants play a role in similar disease outcomes, including mammary tumor formation. Recent research from the Silent Spring Institute links 28 different EPA registered pesticides with the development of mammary gland tumors in animal studies. Many of these said chemicals are endocrine disruptors, thus have implications for breast cancer risk. Even household cleaners, many of which are pesticides, can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children. Furthermore, long-term exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides increases adverse health and cancer risk, specifically among women. Since DDT and its metabolite DDE residues, current-use pesticides, and other chemical pollutants contaminate the environment, exposure to these chemical mixtures can synergize to increase toxicity and disease effects.

The scientific connection between pesticides and associated cancer risks is nothing new. Several studies link pesticide use and residues to various cancers, from more prevalent forms like breast cancer to rare forms like kidney cancer nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor). Sixty-six percent of all cancers have links to environmental factors, especially in occupations of high chemical use. In addition to the link between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses being robust, over 63 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent commonly used school pesticides have links to cancer. U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute also finds many cancer-causing substances are endocrine disruptors. Globally, cancer is one of the leading causes of death, with over 8 million people succumbing to the disease every year. Notably, the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) predicts new cancer cases to rise 67.4% by 2030. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmental pollution from pesticides—can drive cancer development to avoid exposure and lessen potential cancer risks.

Although pesticides products are subject to an extensive toxicological assessment before registration, current regulatory guideline studies fail to assess genotoxicity and carcinogenicity in utero that induces infant leukemia incidents. Children are more susceptible to the toxic effect of pesticide exposure as their endocrine and metabolic systems cannot adequately detoxify and excrete chemical compounds. Moreover, pesticides can hinder childhood development making children more vulnerable to acute health effects like asthma/respiratory issues, gut dysbiosis, cardiovascular diseases, and other physical and mental birth abnormalities.

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Hence, studies concerning pesticides and cancer help future epidemiologic research understand the underlying mechanisms that cause the disease. There is a serious deficiency in understanding the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases, including predictable lag time between chemical exposure, health impacts, and epidemiologic data. Therefore, advocates maintain that lawmakers and regulators should take a more precautionary approach before introducing these chemicals into the environment. With far too many diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, eliminating pesticide use is a critically important aspect of safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) is a vital resource for additional scientific literature that documents elevated cancer rates and other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on pesticide exposure’s multiple harms, see PIDD pages on leukemia and other cancers, birth/fetal defects, endocrine disruption, and other diseases.

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

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

Source: Environmental Pollution 

(Beyond Pesticides, August 31 2021) To ensure long-term ecological, human health, and socioeconomic benefits, food production, distribution and consumption must transition from conventional to regenerative, organic food value chains, as outlined in research published in the journal Productions and Operations Management. “We are paying a high price for a lack of transparency in our food supply and realize that taking shortcuts, or efficiencies, is not sustainable,” said Aleda Roth, PhD, study coauthor and professor in the Wilbur O. and Ann Powers College of Business at Clemson University. “We need to look at multiple performance outcomes, and in doing so, it will become evident that a regenerative, socially responsible approach to agriculture is imperative to a sustainable food supply, but it also extends across other business sectors.” This research is the latest to underscore the importance of revamping the U.S. food system towards a focus on organic practices that account for externalities and provide multiple add-on benefits for society at large.  

To make the case, Dr. Roth and her co-author Yanchong Zheng, PhD, an associate professor in the Sloan School of Management at MIT, define and contrast conventional and regenerative, organic food value chains, with an eye toward “quadruple aim performance (QAP).” This is defined as a supply chain outcome that synergizes positive financial results with benefits to human, ecological and socioeconomic well-being.

A range of deleterious “upstream” production practices are identified within each QAP component. To begin, the authors make the case that “squeezing market prices and rising expenses” within conventional chemical agriculture are causing significant financial strain on most farmers. The data show that the wealthy top 1% of farmers accepted nearly $2 million in federal subsidies on average while the bottom 80% garnered an average of only $8,000. Genetically engineered crops are singled out for their poor financial record with farmers, noting that patent holders, not farmers, own GE seeds, and must repurchase them every year, putting most farmers in a “financial straight jacket.” Further, farmers that develop a pesticide-induced disease after growing pesticide-tolerant GE crops are unlikely to find quick financial restitution and thus are likely to suffer lost income, increased health care costs, and other expenses.

In outlining the human and ecological impacts of conventional chemical food production, Rachael Carson is used to frame the discussion, highlighting the prophetic nature of her work and the frustrating reality that the situation today is in many ways worse than in Carson’s era. Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers and significant release of greenhouse gasses, the rampant poisoning of the earth through toxic pesticide use, contributing to a worldwide insect decline are cited as evidence that, “Time is running out, as we cannot escape the accelerated rate and magnitude of conventional farming on the destruction of our planet’s natural ecosystem.” It is noted that the discussion around pesticide impacts in conventional agriculture pit federal regulators and the chemical industry against public health scientists and the non-profit sector. Federal regulators are cited for allowing a range of pesticides restricted in other countries, as well as chemicals like glyphosate, putting human health at increased risk.

From a socioeconomic standpoint, the conventional food chain is cited for its failure to protect the most vulnerable residents, including farmworkers, infants and young children. Cheap, highly processed food is accessible, but “food deserts” make it so that many cannot access healthy options.

Unfortunately, the damage caused by conventional chemical-intensive production has both up and “downstream” effects. Once conventional goods are produced, they enter a complex supply chain that is significantly lacking in transparency, and controlled by few processors and manufacturers. Although this enables economy of scale, small-scale producers are financially hard hit within this paradigm, subject to downward price pressures and price manipulation. The complex, far-flung supply chain also results in harm to the environment due to the use of greenhouse gases in transportation, and the waste stream associated with product packaging. Human health is often an afterthought, with fraudulent food a rampant problem in developing countries, concerning issues around food safety and contamination, and the spillover health impacts from the a chemical-reliant production system. In a drive for profit above all else, the conventional chemical-intensive system results in socioeconomic harm to workers, with the authors citing recent incidents regarding the treatment of workers at Smithfield meat packing plants during Covid-19 outbreaks.

“Conventional chains cut corners in many ways and are not viable, nor renewable,” Dr. Roth said. “Toxins, like pesticides, herbicides, and heavy metals often found in global food chains have human well-being impacts that, among other things, degrade soil, water, and air. Extensive use of synthetic chemicals and pollution creates a vicious cycle that lowers public health and heightens the needs for the intensity of health-care services, which drives up societal costs.”

Regenerative, organic food chains, which include practices like crop rotation, no tillage, cover crops and the use of compost, are cited for their ability to reduce hazardous inputs that are part and parcel to the conventional chemical supply chain. Through organic practices, the authors note that “farmers can build more resilient food supplies that simultaneously act to clean the environment, reduce toxins, improve nutrients, provide farmer families with more financial stability—and improve socioeconomic well-being in terms of food security and health.” While the upstream benefits of organic production are relatively cut and dry, the authors note the need for changes in the downstream food chain. This includes: (i) increasing the use of contracts with guaranteed sales, (ii) fostering the development of more farmer co-ops, (iii) shortening supply chains by increasing local sales through CSAs [community supported agriculture] or other local models, (iv) educating consumers to close the loop in the supply chain by encouraging composting, and (v) meaningfully increasing the transparency and traceability of products within the food supply chain.

“There is mounting scientific evidence that the cost of not acknowledging conventional food chains’ undesirable and frequently hidden spillover effects is no longer defensible or viable. Increasingly, the many hidden costs associated with chemically reliant factory farming are being revealed, and many of the cracks in efficiency-oriented food supply chains surfaced with COVID-19,” Dr. Roth said. “We find that forward-thinking farmers and ranchers are making radical changes toward environmental stewardship, and there is growing evidence that consumers are positively responding and demanding a safer, yet cost-effective, way to bring food from farm to the table.”

The authors argue that QAP “is essential to the well-being of democracy,” and that it is important to apply these principles to one’s daily life. Ignoring the hazardous effects of conventional chemical food supply chains is no longer acceptable, the study notes. “There is mounting scientific evidence that the cost of not acknowledging these undesirable and frequently hidden spillover effects is no longer defensible or viable.”

“We must move away from a linear, efficiency-oriented food system toward a more circular, regenerative design, where wastes are reused and recycled. This paradigm shift requires systemic efforts from all parties in the food chain from producers to processors, manufacturers, wholesale, retail, food services, and eventually consumers, to all who contribute to a circular, closed-loop ecosystem,” said Dr. Zheng.

Studies increasingly show that organic practices provide multiple functional benefits for health, the environment, and society writ large. Help Beyond Pesticides promote the organic future we all deserve, and the world desperately needs. Learn more through the Why Organic webpage, and visit the Action of the Week archives for ways to take action to strengthen and defend the organic label.

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

Source: Clemson University, Productions and Operations Management

(Beyond Pesticides, August 30, 2021) As with other actions on pesticides, EPA’s chlorpyrifos decision is filled with exceptions that respond to vested interests seeking to ignore or deflect the science. EPA, since announcing its decision in 1999 to ban “residential” uses of chlorpyrifos, continues to allow the following uses: (i) Residential use of containerized baits; (ii) Indoor areas where children will not be exposed, including only ship holds, railroad boxcars, industrial plants, manufacturing plants, or food processing plants; (iii) Outdoor areas where children will not be exposed, including only: golf courses, road medians, Industrial plant sites; (iv) Non-structural wood treatments including: fenceposts, utility poles, railroad ties, landscape timers, logs, pallets, wooden containers, poles, posts, and processed wood products; (v) Public health uses: Fire ant mounds (drench and granular treatment); (vi) nurseries and greenhouses; and (vii) Mosquito control. These uses are unaffected by EPA’s announcement.

We need to finish the chlorpyrifos job. Tell EPA to ban all uses of chlorpyrifos.

The collective effort to remove this one chemical is a tremendous feat in eliminating one exposure to a hazardous material for children. Achieving the ban on food uses required an enormously resource-intensive effort at a time in history when we are running against the clock in an urgent race to transition our society and global community away from the use of petroleum-based, toxic pesticides—to move to meaningful practices that sustain, nurture, and regenerate life.

EPA was forced into its decision by a court order that was precipitated by an agency decision to reverse course after proposing to stop food uses of chlorpyrifos in 2017. Despite a mountain of scientific data challenging chlorpyrifos’s safety, it was embraced by industrial agriculture, the golf industry, and others, and deemed too valuable to the bottom line of its manufacturer, Corteva (formerly Dow AgroSciences). Pesticide manufacturers are also motivated to steer EPA away from adverse health and environmental effects findings on their products in order to avoid potential litigation by those harmed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco in its ruling in May, 2021, in which it mandated EPA action, said, “The EPA has had nearly 14 years to publish a legally sufficient response to the 2007 Petition [filed by environmental and farmworker groups].” The court continued, “During that time, the EPA’s egregious delay exposed a generation of American children to unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos.”

But before all the recent activity, in 1999, EPA had negotiated a compromise with Dow that stopped most residential uses of chlorpyrifos. Why? For the same reason that EPA finally acted on food. This neurotoxic chemical is harmful to children. That was 22 years ago and followed a campaign by Beyond Pesticides and others to remove Dursban/chlorpyrifos from the market because of indoor ambient air contamination of homes and buildings and lawn and landscape exposure. It should be noted that Dursban had been viewed with promise by regulators as the alternative to the organochlorine insecticide chlordane, which Beyond Pesticides sued to remove from the termite use market—a remaining use after the agricultural, lawn, and garden uses were finally taken off the market in 1983, with decades of review by numerous agencies. Its cancer-causing properties and ecological effects could no longer be defended. The cancellation of termite use followed in 1988 after millions of homes were potentially contaminated, with high risk factors for cancer.

It all comes down to this: Do we want a society that is science-based, public health-oriented, occupational safety focused, children-concerned, ecologically protective or one that allows the use of toxic pesticides that are unnecessary to achieve land management, quality of life, and food productivity goals? Should victims of poisoning have to plead with regulators to protect them? Should organizations have to fight chemical-by-chemical to achieve basic levels of protection from individual neurotoxic, cancer causing, endocrine disrupting pesticides? Of course not. This is exactly what has happened with the insecticide chlorpyrifos and continues to occur with other pesticides. There’s no question, we need an EPA that doesn’t play politics with health and the environment.

With all this as context for the chemical treadmill, next up after chlorpyrifos may be the insecticide bifenthrin, a synthetic pyrethroid. It too is a neurotoxic, cancer-causing, endocrine disrupting pesticide. And if that is not enough, there are others waiting in the wings. 

But first we need to finish the chlorpyrifos job. Tell EPA to ban all uses of chlorpyrifos.

U.S. EPA Administrator Michael Regan

I am writing to ask EPA to finish the chlorpyrifos job. Ban all uses of chlorpyrifos.

Does a science-based, public health-oriented, occupational safety focused, children-concerned, ecologically protective society allow the use of toxic pesticides that are unnecessary to achieve land management, quality of life, and food productivity goals? Should victims of poisoning have to plead with regulators to protect them? Should organizations have to fight chemical-by-chemical to achieve basic levels of protection from individual neurotoxic, cancer causing, endocrine disrupting pesticides? Of course not. Yet, this is exactly what has happened with the insecticide chlorpyrifos and continues to occur with other pesticides. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement that the food uses of the chlorpyrifos will be banned after being registered 65 years ago should be cause to end its remaining uses.

As with other actions on pesticides, EPA’s chlorpyrifos decision is filled with exceptions that respond to vested interests seeking to ignore or deflect the science. EPA, since announcing its decision in 1999 to ban “residential” uses of chlorpyrifos, continues to allow the following uses: (i) Residential use of containerized baits; (ii) Indoor areas where children will not be exposed, including only ship holds, railroad boxcars, industrial plants, manufacturing plants, or food processing plants; (iii) Outdoor areas where children will not be exposed, including only: golf courses, road medians, Industrial plant sites; (iv) Non-structural wood treatments including: fenceposts, utility poles, railroad ties, landscape timers, logs, pallets, wooden containers, poles, posts, and processed wood products; (v) Public health uses: Fire ant mounds (drench and granular treatment); (vi) nurseries and greenhouses; and (vii) Mosquito control. These uses are unaffected by EPA’s announcement.

EPA was forced into its decision by a court order that was precipitated by an agency decision to reverse course after proposing to stop food uses of chlorpyrifos in 2017. Despite a mountain of scientific data challenging chlorpyrifos’s safety, it was embraced by industrial agriculture, the golf industry, and others, and deemed too valuable to the bottom line of its manufacturer, Corteva (formerly Dow AgroSciences). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco in its ruling in May, 2021, in which it mandated EPA action, said, “The EPA has had nearly 14 years to publish a legally sufficient response to the 2007 Petition [filed by environmental and farmworker groups].” The court continued, “During that time, the EPA’s egregious delay exposed a generation of American children to unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos.”

But before all the recent activity, in 1999, EPA had negotiated a compromise with Dow that stopped most residential uses of chlorpyrifos. Why? For the same reason that EPA finally acted on food. This neurotoxic chemical is harmful to children. That was 22 years ago, and followed a campaign by Beyond Pesticides and others to remove Dursban/chlorpyrifos from the market because of indoor ambient air contamination of homes and buildings and lawn and landscape exposure. It should be noted that Dursban had been viewed with promise by regulators as the alternative to the organochlorine insecticide chlordane, which Beyond Pesticides sued to remove from the termite use market—a remaining use after the agricultural, lawn, and garden uses were finally taken off the market in 1983, with decades of review by numerous agencies. Its cancer-causing properties and ecological effects could no longer be defended. The cancellation of termite use followed in 1988 after millions of homes were potentially contaminated, with high risk factors for cancer.

It is time to ban all uses of chlorpyrifos.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2021) On August 24, as reported by The Maui News, the Maui (Hawai’i) County Council approved legislation that will stop use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers in county land management practices, allowing only those materials permitted under federal organic law. The approach set out in the bill is the creation of a comprehensive list of such materials that will be either allowed or prohibited for use, as the legislation indicates, on “any County highway, drainageway, sidewalk, right-of-way, park, building, community center, or other facility.” This decision comes on the heels of years of grassroots work and advocacy, including that of Beyond Pesticides Director of Hawai’i Organic Land Management Program Autumn Ness.

The legislation (CR 21-56), which passed with a vote of 8–0 (with one member excused), will regulate pesticide and fertilizer use on county properties broadly, but will not affect property managed by the state or private owners, county agricultural parks, or county property used for agricultural purposes. The new ordinance will take effect for most county parcels one year from the August 24 approval date; the effective date for Maui’s War Memorial Stadium Complex and Ichiro “Iron” Maehara Baseball Stadium is two years from approval, and for the Waiehu golf course, three years hence.

The legislation sets out the stipulations of the federal National Organic Program (NOP), asserting that no synthetic pesticides and fertilizers may be used unless they are compatible with organic systems as permitted under NOP, with some specific exemptions. (The sections of the federal code cited in the legislation, which detail such compatible materials, are found under the Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations: 205.601, 205.603, 205.605, and 205.606.)

At the county council meeting, community members gave testimony in support of the legislation, citing worries about impacts of synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use on young people who use county sports fields and parks, and about environmental impacts, including those on marine life. (Maui County has numerous oceanfront parcels under its management.) Council Member Shane Sinenci, who introduced the proposed legislation, said of its final passage, “This shows that we are very responsible stewards for our keiki [children], kupuna [ancestors], and the kai [sea].”

At a previous, July 21, meeting of the Council’s Climate Action, Resilience, and Environment (CARE) Committee, members voted 6–0 to recommend the bill, The Maui News reported at the time, moving the legislation forward to consideration by the full council.

At that July committee meeting, the Maui Department of Parks and Recreation spoke in support of working toward “eliminating hazardous substances and using organic alternatives on golf courses, fields and public parks,” noting that beach parks are not currently treated with chemicals. The point was reiterated at the August 24 full council meeting when Chair Alice Lee pointed out that the county and the Department of Parks and Recreation have already been taking steps to reduce pesticides and fertilizers. 

Advocates at the CARE meeting included the Maui Nui Marine Resource Council, Sierra Club–Maui Group, West Maui Green Cycle LLC, and the Napili-based Hawaii Association for Marine Education and Research. These organizations pushed for reduction or full elimination of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers because of their damaging environmental impacts.

Communication and outreach director for the Maui Nui Marine Resource Council, Anne Rillero, said, “We believe that this bill is critical as the county is the owner of numerous coastal properties. . . . It has a responsibility for caring for its lands in a manner that protects the health of our nearshore coral reefs, marine wildlife, water quality, and also for the people who enjoy the ocean — we use it for fishing, recreation, [and] cultural connections.”

In commenting on the CARE Committee’s decision, Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman said, “We need to stop the use of hazardous chemicals, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers, and replace them with a different approach. We do not need toxic pesticides to achieve our community goals for aesthetic[s] or safety in the parks, [on] playing fields or sports fields, and along the roadside. We are not talking about product substitution. We are talking about a systems change” — to organic, regenerative approaches to all land management.

Beyond Pesticides has long educated the public and policymakers about the many damaging effects of synthetic chemical pesticide (and petrochemical fertilizer) use in agriculture and other land management. It has also identified the efforts of the agrochemical industry to dominate the marketplace, “greenwash” its toxic products, distort scientific research, compromise the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and push back against pesticide regulation of nearly any kind until economic pressures become so extreme that companies strike deals with EPA to remove a single ingredient from the marketplace.

Industry sometimes creates trade groups and so-called “astro-turf” organizations — those that purport to represent the grassroots, but are in fact industry funded and led, and often have “green” names — to do the sector’s messaging. Sometimes, farmers who have grown conventionally (with chemicals) for decades and have little or no experience with anything else band together and resist pesticide regulation. Mr. Feldman noted, in his August testimony to the Maui County Council, that, “In my experience, those questioning the viability and cost-effectiveness of organic practices typically do not have experience with organic land management. The council can be confident that organic management systems work, whether we are producing food, growing grass, or managing rights of way. Historically, the companies represented by the ‘farm’ groups you’re hearing from in opposition to [CR] 21-56 [maintained that] organic food production was not commercially viable; it is now a $60 billion industry. As a parks manager in Montana said to me last week — whether you’re growing crops or growing grass, managing in sync with the ecosystem is the same.”

Mr. Feldman also offered testimony on CR 21-56 to the full Maui County Council in early August. He emphasized that such regulation is scientifically valid, whether assessed from the perspective of public health impacts, risks to ecological systems, the climate emergency, or the biodiversity crisis — all of which would be mitigated by enactment of this legislation.

Mr. Feldman endorsed the transition to a “whole systems” approach to county land management that this law would launch, saying that it “creates a framework for nurturing desirable plant life in a management system, like the one we developed for the organic transition plan provided to Maui County.” Beyond Pesticides has been working on Mau’i, Kaua’i, and the Big Island, and — with Osborne Organics — has developed organic land management plans for public parks and playing fields. The plans include soil testing (for soil chemistry and soil biology), development of protocols, and training of county landscaping staff.

Autumn Ness, director of Beyond Pesticides Hawai’i organic land management program, commented on passage of CR 21-56 [via personal communication with author]: “This bill has been at least six years in the making. Maui has a very strong grassroots movement of people who have been organizing . . . for years. Maui residents are educated on issues surrounding pesticides, GE [genetically engineered] crops, and the influence of chemical companies in the agriculture and landscaping industries. This grassroots movement has organized around . . . state policies such as the law banning chlorpyrifos in Hawaii in 2018, and around this bill, and is a force working to increase organic agriculture to be a larger part of our island economy. This bill shows that long-term movement building, elections work, [and] collaboration with scientists and organic landscape experts are all essential to long-term systems change. Beyond Pesticides’ support, collaboration, and scientific and technical expertise were a big part of this bill’s success. Beyond Pesticides Hawaiʻi is committed to supporting the Maui County departments in whatever ways necessary, and to continuing our work with Kauaʻi and Hawaiʻi counties as they work on pilot projects and legislation that will protect residents there from pesticide exposures.”

Ms. Ness shared the comment of Kelly King, Chair of the Maui County CARE Committee: “The pesticide ordinance is a great step in reducing the chemical applications in our parks and around county facilities. While I fully understand the challenges in the agricultural sector, we need to take steps where we can to reduce the harmful effects of pesticide residue where it has potential to directly affect our residents — parks and ballfields especially, but also in runoff that is negatively impacting our reefs and natural marine habitats. The ‘inconvenient truth’ is that many of the chemicals and materials (e.g., plastics and Styrofoam [polystyrene]) that were invented to make our lives easier are now being shown to have unintended negative consequences; and, despite the economic interests that are now deeply invested in these products, we must come together for the good of all to rethink our ‘modern practices.’”

Responding to the county council’s August 24 approval of the legislation, Mr. Feldman added, “This legislation represents the most comprehensive restriction of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers on public lands in a major county in the U.S. It represents a clear commitment to the elimination of petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers and an incredibly important effort to confront the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and the protection of the health of workers and communities.”

For the myriad crises the country and world face, and for the benefits that a shift away from chemical land management would confer, Beyond Pesticides advocates for an urgent transition to organic regenerative agriculture and organic land management, and seeks robust federal leadership and planning to achieve this goal. The organization remains steadfast in its mission to reverse the destructive environmental and public health path on which industry interests and compromised federal agencies have set the nation, and to advance the adoption of organic practices and policies that respect the fundaments — the natural resources and dynamics, biological and biochemical processes, and ecosystem interdependency that allow and support all life.

Sources: https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2021/08/pesticides-and-fertilizers-to-be-reduced-and-managed/, https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2021/07/bill-would-regulate-pesticide-use-on-maui-county-property/, and author’s personal communication with Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman, and Beyond Pesticides Director of Hawai’i Organic Land Management Program Autumn Ness

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 26, 2021) A recent study published in Environmental Research demonstrates that exposure to the herbicide glyphosate and its breakdown product reduces pregnancy length, increasing the risk of preterm birth. Preterm births occur when a fetus is born early or before 37 weeks of complete gestation. Premature births can result in chronic (long-term) illnesses among infants from lack of proper organ development and even death.

Birth and reproductive complications are very common among individuals exposed to environmental toxicants, like pesticides. Considering the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports the preterm birth rate is increasing annually, studies like this can help government and health officials safeguard human health by assessing adverse health effects following prevalent chemical exposure. The study notes, “Given the prevalent and rising exposures to glyphosate and GBHs [glyphosate-based herbicides], confirmatory studies are needed to explore reproductive effects of glyphosate and GBHs to re-assess their safety on human health and to explore possible programming consequences to lifelong health.”

GBHs are the most commonly used herbicides, readily contaminating soil, water, and food globally. Although GBHs’ ubiquitous nature has been linked to carcinogenic effects, specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma, much less research considers exposure effects on reproductive health. The study’s scientists aimed to examine the relationship between prenatal glyphosate exposure and pregnancy length. During the second trimester, researchers gathered urine samples from 163 pregnant American women in The Infant Development and the Environment Study (TIDES). They measured each sample for concentrations of glyphosate and the primary metabolite (breakdown product), aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA).

The results demonstrate that 94 percent of all urine samples contain detectable amounts of glyphosate and AMPA. Of the 163 participants, 69 gave birth prematurely, with almost 53.6 percent being spontaneous deliveries (unassisted vaginal births), 40.6 percent medically induced, and 5.8 percent unclassifiable. Maternal glyphosate and AMPA levels associated with shorter gestation, or pregnancy length, are significantly higher among women giving spontaneous premature births.

Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate-based herbicide use (e.g., Roundup) has put human, animal, and environmental health at risk. The chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion, loss of services). Exposure to GBHs has implications for specific alterations in microbial gut composition and trophic cascades. Similar to this paper, past studies find a strong association between glyphosate exposure and the development of various health anomalies, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and autism. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” stark evidence demonstrates links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. EPA’s classification perpetuates adverse impacts especially among vulnerable individuals, like pregnant women and infants. Recent research detects over 100 chemicals in pregnant women’s bodies, with 89% of compounds of unknown origin or lacking adequate data. Many of these environmental pollutants (i.e., heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyl, and pesticides) are chemicals that can move from the mother to the developing fetus at higher exposure rates. Hence, prenatal exposure to these chemicals may increase the prevalence of birth-related health consequences like natal abnormalities and learning/developmental disabilities. With the range of ever-present environmental hazards, advocates argue that regulators act quickly and embrace a precautionary approach. Because of disproportionate risk in people of color communities, the contamination and poisoning associated with glyphosate is an environmental justice issue.

Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. Agrochemical company Bayer/Monsanto patents glyphosate as an antibiotic. Exposure hinders enzymatic pathways in many bacteria and parasites. However, studies find glyphosate exposure disrupts the microbial composition in both soil and animals—including humans—discerningly eliminating beneficial bacteria while preserving unhealthy microbes. Moreover, resistance to pesticides is also growing at similar rates among genetically engineered (GE) and non-GE conventionally grown crops. This increase in resistance is evident among herbicide-tolerant GE crops, including seeds genetically engineered to be glyphosate-tolerant. Although one industry-stated purpose of GE crops is to reduce pesticide use, crops have become more pesticide-dependent, resulting in increased weed and insect resistance. Therefore, the use of antibiotics like glyphosate allows residues of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria on agricultural lands to move through the environment, contaminate waterways, and ultimately reach consumers in food. Both human gut and environmental contamination can promote antibiotic resistance, triggering longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, and the inability to treat life-threatening illnesses.

Glyphosate-based herbicides’ impact on reproductive health is an increasingly common phenomenon, and this study adds to the growing scientific evidence that glyphosate is a reproductive toxicant. A recent University of Michigan study already demonstrates high levels of glyphosate in urine during the third trimester of pregnancy have significant associations with preterm birth outcomes. In 2017, Beyond Pesticides reported that prior research finds detectable levels of glyphosate in 63 of 69 expectant mothers. Women with higher chemical levels have significantly shorter pregnancies and babies with lower birth weights. While studies are now findings concerning associations, there has been evidence of glyphosate’s impact on birth outcomes for decades.

Despite external exposure to glyphosate being lower than regulatory limits, the study finds exposure remains widespread among the general U.S. population. Ubiquitous exposure is concerning as increasing evidence suggests current EPA regulatory limits may not be safe for human health. The study suggests that glyphosate-inducing oxidative stress and uterine inflammation are the biological mechanisms that play a role in preterm births. Biomarkers for oxidative stress and inflammation have associations with preterm births and shorter pregnancy duration. Furthermore, recent studies demonstrate glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor and thus warrants a re-evaluation of safety to protect human health, particularly among vulnerable populations. While laboratory evidence (most often produced by the chemical manufacturers themselves) may indicate associations with birth abnormalities, it is all too easy for regulators to hide behind risk and chance. Substantial epidemiological data is building for birth abnormalities as it has now been for cancer effects. Regulators are adamant that label changes will avert these dangers or even that the risks are too low for any action at all. However, regulators at EPA lean on risk calculations, which advocates say subvert their responsibility to protect the public.

Bayer announced the removal of glyphosate from all “residential” lawn and garden products sold in the U.S. by 2023. However, no changes are to come for professional and agricultural products that constitute most GBH use. It is still unclear whether Bayer’s cancellation announcement will affect only the residential do-it-yourselfer or all applications to residential areas. Therefore, researchers caution, “Future studies may benefit from assessing exposure at multiple time points. However, continuous exposure could occur in the general population because diet is the most likely source of glyphosate.”

Beyond Pesticides challenges the registration of chemicals like glyphosate in court due to their impacts on soil, air, water, and our health. While legal battles press on, the agricultural system should eliminate the use of toxic synthetic herbicides to avoid the myriad of problems they cause. In the absence of protective regulations from the widespread use of pesticides like glyphosate, U.S. residents, particularly vulnerable populations like pregnant mothers, should take precautions. One important step can be switching to organic. Organic agriculture is necessary to eliminate toxic chemical use and ensure the long-term sustainability of food production, the environment, and the economy. Organically managed systems support biodiversity, improve soil health, sequester carbon (which helps mitigate the climate crisis), and safeguard surface- and groundwater quality. Moreover, considering glyphosate levels in the human body reduces 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and resulting adverse health effects.

Learn more about how purchasing and consuming organic products can reduce pesticide exposure and the harmful health and environmental impacts of chemical-intensive farming produces. Additionally, learn more about the effects of pesticides on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. Find out more about how organic is the right choice for both consumers and farmers by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ webpages on Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture and Keeping Organic Strong.

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

Source: Environmental Health News, Environmental Research

(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2021) Scientists at Oregon State University have found a highly effective bait for slugs and snails: bread dough. Although not quite as exciting as the slug-liquefying nematodes the OSU research team published data on last year, bread dough has the potential to revamp mollusk management, particularly in developing countries where resources are limited. “Bread dough is a nontoxic, generic, and effective tool that could be used in the detection and management of gastropods worldwide,” said study lead author Rory Mc Donnell, PhD. “It represents a tool to aid in managing pest gastropod infestations, either using baited traps or in attract-and-kill approaches. It could also be incorporated into existing baits to improve their attractiveness.”

Critically, bread dough was found to be a more effective bait than commercial attractants like the product Deadline® M-Ps™, which contains the hazardous compound metaldehyde. To test effectiveness, researchers began by making the bread dough using a combination of flour, water and yeast. In a lab setting, slugs were starved for 24 hrs, and then given the option of either bread dough or water (water was used as a control to test if the slugs were simply attracted to humidity). Researchers determined through this trial that slugs were most attracted to bread dough aged between 2 and 8 days.

A similar setup compared the attractiveness of bread dough against Deadline® M-Ps™ using the common garden snail C. aspersum. Of 20 slugs tested, 14 went for the dough, three went for the commercial bait, while three were unresponsive. Field trials were then established to determine real world efficacy. The traps employed, including the Snailer, which allows entry but bars exist, as well as a simple Petri dish, were loaded with bread dough, and a liquid form of metaldehyde was added to the bottom. A control using water and liquid metaldehyde was also used. Slugs and snails overwhelmingly chose to feed on the bread dough baited traps. At one site, on mining reclamation land infested with the land snail X. obvia, researchers were able to trap over 18,000 over the course of two days. Only roughly 850 snails were collected in control bait.

“We gave them a choice of food and they consistently went for the bread dough,” Dr. Mc Donnell said. “They really, really like it. They went bonkers for it. Bread dough outperformed everything.” Although researchers used toxic metaldehyde to kill slugs when they got to the bait, discretely located traps can ensure that a pesticide is not used in a broadcast manner and disposed of properly. However, many traps and baits, such as the Snailer, will work with bread dough and water without the need for additional pesticide, as they bar pests from exiting and cause the slug or snail to drown. Use of metaldehyde should generally be discouraged as the chemical is a suggestive carcinogen, with evidence of neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, and reproductive harm. Although the National Organic Program permits the use of the iron phosphate in slug and snail control, its efficacy relies on a synergy between iron phosphate and a so-called “inert” ingredient known as EDTA. In 2014, Beyond Pesticides called on the National Organic Standards Board to delist iron phosphate slug products due to the risks EDTA poses to soil organisms, as well its ability to contaminant soil, sediment and local waterways.

Beyond these concerns lies the fact that current data shows that common commercial slug-control products only kill between 10% to 60% of slugs in a given population. Efficacious biological controls are on the horizon, and have long been registered in Europe, but their cost is often quite high as to be prohibitive for many farmers. Bread dough thus provides a near universally available bait for farmers and gardeners around the globe.  

“With worldwide trade and travel, we are getting a homogenization of slugs and snails on planet Earth because of the widespread introduction of species,” Dr. Mc Donnell said. “This is not just a modern phenomenon. Slugs and snails have been traveling with humans for thousands of years. But it’s getting more severe because of purposeful introductions, global trade, intensification of agriculture and development of new crops.”

Managing slugs can be frustrating and often stomach churning. Cultural practices can help get a handle on slug populations, but some form of direct control is often needed. If slugs are suspected of causing crop damage, populations should be regularly monitored using a baiting system. Work to reduce moisture and consider the type of mulch that is being applied. Never water at night, and consider tactics like drip irrigation in particularly damp, slug-prone areas. Hand-picking slugs out of the garden with a disposable glove and placing them into soapy water is one of those stomach-churning activities associated with a slug infestation, but an effective way to reduce populations in a garden. Domestic foul can be helpful at lowering slug populations but need to be closely monitored around growing crops.

See Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage on least toxic control of snails and slugs for more information about how to address these pests without toxic pesticides.

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

Source: Oregon State University, MDPI

(Beyond Pesticides, August 24, 2021) Organic agriculture provides multiple ecosystem functions and services at greater economic benefit to farmers than conventional, chemical-intensive cropping systems, according to research recently published in the journal Science Advances. The study, conducted by a team of scientists based in Switzerland, goes beyond farming evaluations based solely on ecosystem services to include socioeconomic elements. “We did this because agroecosystems also have a socioeconomic dimension for producers and policy makers,” the authors note. While it is unsurprising based on prior research that organic practices provide greater environmental and economic benefits, the study lays bare the true cost of policies that myopically focus on yield while ignoring other factors.

Researchers conducted their study using data derived from a long-running Farming System and Tillage Experiment (FAST) based in Switzerland. FAST tracked four types of cropping systems: conventional intensive tillage, conventional no tillage, organic intensive tillage, and organic reduced tillage. Cropping systems were evaluated based on four broad categories, including provisioning (ie food production), regulating (ie water, air, and soil management), and supporting (ie biodiversity and soil health) ecosystem services, as well as socioeconomic well-being. These categories were subsequently broken down into nine assessments: soil health preservation, erosion control, biodiversity conservation, water and air pollution control, food production, income, work efficiency, and financial autonomy.

Organic farming significantly increased soil health preservation and erosion control when compared to intensively tilled conventional systems. These benefits were   primarily seen in the organic reduced tillage approach, highlighting the benefits of that practice. Researchers found that yields dropped from conventional to organic systems, although differences were seen between particular crops – with less pronounced disparities between legume crops compared to corn. Organic systems also resulted in higher income, due to the higher price organic products command in the marketplace.

In general, researchers see the greatest differences between the conventional intensive tillage and organic reduced tillage systems. Both of these cropping systems have pronounced trade-offs. High productivity is negatively associated with supporting services like soil health and biodiversity conservation. Supporting and regulating services, however, are strongly associated with each other. For example, good soil management interacts with greater soil diversity to foster improved soil health.

The study provides a tool (located here: https://apps.agroscope.info/sp/fast) for researchers and policymakers to employ to review how emphasis on different ecosystem services or economic factors effect the trade offs that result on the ground.

Scientists note that although there is a tradeoff between productivity and environmental benefits, focus has been traditionally placed on productivity because the hazards conventional agriculture poses to the environment are often not considered, and generally externalized to society at large. The authors note that policy changes can help fill this gap – explaining that direct payments to farmers can help compensate them for reductions in yield while other ecosystem services improve.

It is evident that agriculture that is solely focused on yield is unsustainable. While negatively impacting a range of environmental factors that can affect harvests in the long term, conventional chemical cropping systems nonetheless do not provide a better economic outlook for farmers.  

Past research shows that organic farming can help address economic insecurity, the climate crisis, and public health disparities. In organic hotspots, considered counties with high levels of organic agricultural activity whose neighboring counties also have high organic activity, median household incomes are $2,000 higher than average and poverty levels are lower on average by 1.3%.

Organic agriculture can and must feed the world. But it is also critical that organic standards maintain the beneficial practices that continue to protect ecosystems and the critical services that provide for humanity. Act today to tell USDA to ensure that organic farming protects native ecosystems.

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

Source: Science Advances

(Beyond Pesticides, August 23, 2021) “Biopesticides”—widely regarded as an alternative to chemical pesticides and hence given a special status in regulation—need a better definition. “Biopesticide” is generally poorly understood, and defined differently by various entities and stakeholders. The term can be misleading and mixes contradictory approaches. It is troublesome when we continue to look for product replacements or substitutions for agricultural practices that are clearly ineffective, and in the process avoid the changes necessary to transition to organic practices, which represent the real, long-term solution to concerns among chemical-intensive farmers that they are losing pesticides in their arsenal, either to organism resistance or regulatory restrictions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses the following definition for “biopesticides”:

• Substances that interfere with mating, such as insect sex pheromones, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps (and synthetic analogs of such biochemicals);
• Microbial pesticides consisting of a microorganism (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as the active ingredient;
• Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs), pesticidal substances that plants are genetically engineered to produce.

Tell EPA it’s time to redefine “biopesticide.” It is deceptive and misleading. The definition should not include genetically modified organisms or synthetic analogs of naturally occurring biochemicals.

EPA requires much less data to register a biopesticide and registers it in much less time. There are currently 390 biochemical and microbial active ingredients registered as biopesticides and 34 PIP active ingredients. In effect, EPA encourages their use by regulating them less stringently, characterizing them in the following ways: (i) they are “usually inherently less toxic,” (ii) that they “generally affect only the target pest and closely related organisms,” (iii) that they “often are effective in very small quantities and often decompose quickly,” and (iv) that “used as a component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs, biopesticides can greatly reduce the use of conventional pesticides” [emphasis added]. The broad category “biopesticides” and waffle words used by EPA reflect hidden hazards.

For example, PIPs are certain to result in pesticide resistance because they are incorporated into plant tissue, thus exposing insects to the pesticide regardless of whether the plant is under serious attack. These certainly should not be part of IPM because their use is prophylactic. The vast majority of PIPs incorporate Bacillus thuringiensis, which has resulted in widespread resistance to a relatively innocuous biological insecticide, making it unusable as a rescue treatment. PIPs occur throughout the plant, resulting in broad exposure—principally to livestock, but sometimes to humans—to not only the active ingredient, but the “genetic material necessary for its production.” Little is known about the persistence of these genetic bits in the environment, nor what their impacts on ecosystems might be.

With less data required, we have less information concerning potential hazards of biopesticides. Besides genetically engineered organisms, these include synthetic analogues of naturally occurring biochemicals. Synthetic pheromones have effects on human health that depend on the application method, “inert ingredients,” and retrieval/disposal. In addition, only a small fraction of known insect pheromones (which have effects that are mimicked by commercially available synthetic pheromones) have been thoroughly examined for their toxic or other pharmacological effects on non-target (including mammalian) species. Pheromones as used in pest management are synthetic analogs of parts of the pheromones found in nature. Because they lack the complexity of natural pheromones, they also lack the specificity of those pheromones. Thus, some pheromone products designed to disrupt the mating of pest insects can affect the behavior of many non-pests. In addition, microencapsulated pheromones may be a hazard to honeybees.

Some bioprotectant products may be ecologically sound and nontoxic; indeed, some fungi appear to hold great promise. Despite the lack of specificity, pheromone products have permitted growers to avoid the use of more toxic controls. They can be used in a way that complements alternative pest management methods, but synthetic analogs must be fully tested.

Tell EPA it’s time to redefine “biopesticide” and remove genetically modified organisms from this category. It is deceptive and misleading. Synthetic analogs of naturally occurring biochemicals should not be included in the definition.

Letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan

“Biopesticides” are widely regarded as an alternative to chemical pesticides and hence given a special status in regulation. However, “biopesticide” is generally poorly understood, and defined differently by various entities and stakeholders. The term is misleading in that it does not, as defined by EPA or others, denote a group of materials that naturally produced. It is also troublesome to encourage product replacements or substitutions and, in the process, avoid the changes necessary to transition to organic practices, which represent the real, long-term solution to concerns among chemical-intensive farmers that they are losing pesticides in their arsenal, either to organism resistance or regulatory restrictions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) includes as “biopesticides”:

1) Substances that interfere with mating, such as insect sex pheromones, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps (and synthetic analogs of such biochemicals);

2) Microbial pesticides consisting of a microorganism (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as the active ingredient;

3) Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs), pesticidal substances that plants are genetically engineered to produce.

EPA requires much less data and time to register a biopesticide. In effect, EPA encourages their use by regulating them less stringently, characterizing them in the following ways: (i) they are “usually inherently less toxic,” (ii) that they “generally affect only the target pest and closely related organisms,” (iii) that they “often are effective in very small quantities and often decompose quickly,” and (iv) that “used as a component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs, biopesticides can greatly reduce the use of conventional pesticides.” The broad category “biopesticides” and waffle words used by EPA reflect hidden hazards.

For example, PIPs are certain to result in pesticide resistance because they are incorporated into plant tissue, thus exposing insects to the pesticide regardless of whether the plant is under serious attack. These certainly should not be part of IPM because their use is prophylactic. The use of PIPs incorporating Bacillus thuringiensis has resulted in widespread resistance to a relatively innocuous biological insecticide, making it unusable as a rescue treatment. PIPs occur throughout the plant, resulting in broad exposure—principally to livestock, but sometimes to humans—to not only the active ingredient, but the “genetic material necessary for its production.” Little is known about the persistence of these genetic bits in the environment, nor what their impacts on ecosystems might be.

With less data required, we have less information concerning potential hazards of biopesticides. Besides genetically engineered organisms, these include synthetic analogs of naturally occurring biochemicals. Only a small fraction of known insect pheromones (or the synthetic analogs in commercially available synthetic pheromones) have been thoroughly examined for their toxic or other pharmacological effects on non-target species. Pheromones as used in pest management lack the complexity and specificity of natural pheromones. Thus, some pheromone products designed to disrupt the mating of pest insects can affect the behavior of many non-pests. In addition, microencapsulated pheromones may be a hazard to honeybees.

Some bioprotectant products may be ecologically sound and nontoxic. Indeed, some fungi appear to hold great promise. Despite the lack of specificity, pheromone products have permitted growers to avoid the use of more toxic controls and can complement alternative pest management methods, but synthetic analogs must be fully tested.

It’s time for EPA to redefine “biopesticide.”  It is deceptive and misleading. The definition should not include genetically modified organisms or synthetic analogs of naturally occurring biochemicals.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2021) The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a damning report on the agency’s progress in protecting the population from potentially damaging endocrine disruption impacts of exposures to synthetic chemical pesticides (and other chemicals of concern). The report’s summary statement says, “Without the required testing and an effective system of internal controls, the EPA cannot make measurable progress toward complying with statutory requirements or safeguarding human health and the environment against risks from endocrine-disrupting chemicals.” This OIG report identifies and details the failings that Beyond Pesticides covered in an April 2021 Daily News Blog article, and many more — the net of which is that “we have yet to see EPA use endocrine disruption findings in pesticide registration decisions.”

The OIG report chronicles a litany of failures. It finds that EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which is responsible for testing all pesticide chemicals for endocrine disrupting activity in humans, has failed to do so. Specifically, it has not implemented a section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act — the legislation that requires such testing. In addition, the report states that OCSPP’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has not implemented a 2015 recommendation that 17 pesticides undergo additional testing for endocrine disruption (ED) in wildlife so that an ecological risk assessment could be effectively conducted.

The report indicates that EPA has not created the tools (e.g., strategic guidance documents or performance measures) necessary to implement effectively the agency’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), created in 1998. According to the report, EDSP has not “conducted annual internal program reviews to monitor or assess progress in fulfilling regulatory requirements, and the EDSP has not effectively communicated with internal and external stakeholders. Moreover, previous OCSPP leadership provided acceptable corrective actions to meet the recommendations in a 2011 EPA Office of Inspector General report regarding the EDSP, yet failed to actually implement those corrective actions beyond an initial period of compliance with them. Lastly, some EPA staff indicated that they were instructed to function as if the EDSP was eliminated from the EPA’s budget. Because the EDSP has not had effective internal controls in place since 2015, it cannot have reasonable assurance that the objectives of the program will be accomplished and that resources will be allocated efficiently and effectively. ”

The human body’s endocrine system, comprising a variety of glands and the hormones they produce, is responsible for the activation, regulation, and de-activation of a huge variety of functions in, especially, development, reproduction, growth, metabolism, the cardiac and circulatory system, sleep, mood, and behavior, among others. The hormones secreted by the endocrine glands travel through the bloodstream to various organs and tissues, where they communicate critical regulatory messages.

The ingredients in many pesticides (and in many consumer products) act as endocrine disruptors in humans and other animals in several ways. They may: (1) mimic actions of hormones the body produces (e.g., estrogen or testosterone), causing reactions similar to those generated by the naturally produced hormones; (2) block hormone receptor cells, thereby preventing the actions of natural hormones; or (3) affect the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and/or excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones in tissues or at receptor sites. (See a Beyond Pesticides primer on pesticides and ED here.)

As the OIG report notes, “Small disturbances in endocrine function, particularly during certain highly sensitive stages of the life cycle, such as pregnancy and lactation, can lead to profound and lasting effects. Adverse endocrine-related effects in humans may include breast cancer, diabetes, obesity, infertility, and learning disabilities.” Beyond Pesticides would add to that list both direct and indirect implications of ED chemicals, such as other cancers, Parkinson’s disease, multiple reproductive disorders and anomalies (e.g., polycystic ovary syndrome, testicular dysgenesis syndrome, endometriosis, and reduced sperm count), alteration of the gut biome and resultant dysfunction, and metabolic disorders apart from diagnosable diabetes.

See Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database’s ED page devoted to diseases and disorders associated with exposures to ingredients in endocrine-disrupting pesticides and in consumer products, such as plastics, disinfectants, linings of canned food containers, toys, cosmetics, flame retardants, detergents. Given the omnipresence of such compounds in pesticides and in the materials stream broadly, exposures to ED chemicals can be frequent and even chronic.

In 2017, Europe’s Pesticide Action Network refined an earlier estimate by the European Union that more than 50 pesticide active ingredients operate as endocrine disruptors. (That earlier list included those identified by TEDX, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, which was launched by pioneering ED scientist Theo Colborn, PhD.) The update short-listed 37 pesticides of ED concern out of the nearly 500 on the market in Europe in 2015. In 2009, EPA created an EDSP “List 1” of 67 pesticides and “high production volume chemicals” used as pesticide inert ingredients that the agency deemed should be evaluated first for ED impacts. (EPA later reduced this list to 52 chemicals because 15 were subsequently canceled or discontinued.)

EPA’s EDSP uses a tiered testing process. Tier 1 Screening (which looks at high-exposure chemicals) aims to determine if a chemical could interact with the estrogen, androgen, and/or thyroid pathways, the three hormonal pathways in the body’s endocrine system. Tier 2 testing attempts to determine whether a chemical causes adverse effects, and to establish a dose–adverse response metric. EPA has decided that Tier 1 Screening results are insufficient to implicate a chemical as an endocrine disruptor — even when results show that a chemical can or does interact with the endocrine system. But Tier 1 results do determine which chemicals move on to Tier 2 testing — the results of which can influence regulatory decision making.

On this front, the OIG report says, “The OCSPP has not implemented Section 408(p)(3) of the FFDCA to test all pesticide chemicals for endocrine-disruption activity. In June 2015, the EPA recommended that 18 pesticides from List 1 needed additional Tier 2 testing. As of early 2021, the OCSPP has not issued any List 1–Tier 2 test orders for wildlife studies and has only issued test orders for two pesticides for human health studies. Likewise, although the EPA developed and published List 2 with 109 chemicals, the EPA did not issue any List 2–Tier 1 test orders. As a result, the EPA has not made meaningful progress in meeting its statutory obligation to test all pesticide chemicals for endocrine-disruption activity.” The report adds, pointedly, “Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program testing delays are inconsistent with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which directs the EPA to take appropriate action to protect public health if a substance is found to have an effect on the human endocrine system.”

Clearly, ED testing has been profoundly stalled. The report indicates that EPA failed to meet a directive from the House Appropriations Committee to publish a List 2 by October of 2010. In reality, the agency did so two and a half years after the deadline (in June 2013). Another directive — to issue, beginning in 2011, 25 test orders per year from List 2 — has been ignored: as of February 2021, EPA had not issued any List 2 / Tier 1 test orders. According to the OIG, responses from OPP staff laid the blame for this faulty record on a lack of overall support and direction for the EDSP from previous OCSPP leadership.

That explanation would appear to comport with some of the evidence unearthed by Sharon Lerner and reported in her The Intercept article, “Whistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office.” The article evinced not only laxity and managerial allegiance to industry interests, but also, downright corruption on the part of some managers at EPA. Beyond Pesticides reported the comment of Tim White, executive director of PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, “It will take new EPA Administrator Michael Regan, [MPA], new Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Michal Ilana Freedhoff, [PhD], and Congress to remedy the culture . . . and to rebuild both the science staff at EPA (which was severely eroded during the Trump administration), and the agency’s morale and culture, which were also badly damaged. He noted that as one of his first acts, Administrator Regan issued a memorandum outlining concrete steps to reinforce EPA’s commitment to science.”

The OIG report also cites EPA for: (1) not having adequate internal controls (e.g., strategic guidance documents or performance measures re: meeting statutory requirements) in place to ensure effective program implementation of the EDSP; (2) having conducted no internal review on progress in meeting the dictates of FFDCA; and (3) having no strategic planning document that makes priorities clear or guides program activities. It adds that EDSP needs to improve communication with stakeholders, both internal and external.

The report concludes: “In 1996, Congress directed the EPA to establish the EDSP, and the program received approximately $7.5 million in funding in fiscal year 2021. Yet, the EDSP can show only limited results. Without the required testing and an effective system of internal controls, the EPA cannot make measurable progress toward compliance with statutory requirements or safeguard human health and the environment against risk from endocrine-disrupting chemicals.”

The OIG report issued a series of 10 recommendations, directed to OCSPP Assistant Administrator Freedhoff, that address:
• tiered testing for ED impacts

• timelines for such testing
• strategic planning
• development of performance metrics
• improved communication, including to the public
• internal program review
• improved transparency

The report adds that EPA “generally agreed with our recommendations and provided acceptable corrective actions and estimated completion dates for all ten recommendations. The recommendations are considered resolved with corrective actions pending. We also revised our report where appropriate based on technical comments provided by [EPA].”

A response letter (included in the report) from Dr. Freedhoff confirms that OCSPP is in “general agreement with the 10 recommendations in the Draft Report regarding the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.” She outlined several change initiatives, including development of a Strategic Plan and a new organizational structure to ensure management accountability for the EDSP. She also acknowledges “the challenges faced by the EDSP in the past, including efforts from previous OCSPP leadership to not fully implement the EDSP and its funding,” but also pushes back somewhat on the charge of not making “meaningful progress in meeting [EPA’s] statutory obligation to test all pesticides for endocrine-disruption activity.”

Dr. Freedhoff identifies several achievements in that realm, although the items she proffers in her response are not dated, making it difficult to understand which, if any, of the actions she cites might be recent (as opposed to several years old). She did note that EPA has directed considerable effort and funding, over the past decade, to development of NAMs — New Approach Methods for testing chemicals for ED potential that are faster and more efficient, and that provide “more human-relevant and mechanistically driven data for use in the evaluation of estrogen, androgen, and thyroid bioactivity.” She wrote that she and OPP leadership are working on a transition of EDSP so as to make it more responsive, timely, and accountable.

Beyond Pesticides summed up the situation in a recent Daily News Blog that also advocated for members of the public to weigh in with EPA. “EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. EPA now issues Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) on pesticide registrations [with] . . . no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the potential for endocrine disruption, or [without] identifying additional data needs to satisfy Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program requirements in the PIDs. EPA cannot make findings of no unreasonable adverse effects without findings concerning endocrine disruption. In the absence of such findings, EPA must cancel and suspend the registration of each pesticide lacking data or findings. Please ensure that your agency meets its responsibility to protect the health of people and wildlife.” EPA must do better.

See While France Bans a Common Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides, EPA Goes Silent: EPA ignores statutory mandate to review pesticides that cause deadly illnesses at minute doses, defying classical toxicology.

Source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/_epaoig_20210728-21-e-0186.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2021) Does a science-based, public health-oriented, occupational safety focused, children-concerned, ecologically protective society allow the use of toxic pesticides that are unnecessary to achieve land management, quality of life, and food productivity goals? Should victims of poisoning have to plead with regulators to protect them? Should organizations have to fight chemical-by-chemical to achieve basic levels of protection from individual neurotoxic, cancer causing, endocrine disrupting pesticides? Of course not. But, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement that it is stopping food uses of the insecticide chlorpyrifos after being registered 65 years ago provides us with an important opportunity for reflection, not just celebration. The collective effort to remove this one chemical is a tremendous feat in eliminating one exposure to a hazardous material for children. That is the point. The action we’re celebrating required an amazingly resource-intensive effort at a time in history when we are running against the clock in an urgent race to transition our society and global community away from the use of petroleum-based, toxic pesticides—to move to meaningful practices that sustain, nurture, and regenerate life.

In this context, let’s put chlorpyrifos in perspective. EPA was forced into its decision by a court order that was precipitated by an agency decision to reverse course after proposing to stop food uses of chlorpyrifos in 2017. Despite a mountain of scientific data challenging chlorpyrifos’s safety, it was embraced by industrial agriculture, the golf industry, and others, and deemed too valuable to the bottom line of its manufacturer, Corteva (formerly Dow AgroSciences). Pesticide manufacturers are also motivated to steer EPA away from adverse health and environmental effects findings on their products in order to avoid potential litigation by those harmed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco in its ruling in May, 2021, in which it mandated EPA action, said, “The EPA has had nearly 14 years to publish a legally sufficient response to the 2007 Petition [filed by environmental and farmworker groups].” The court continued, “During that time, the EPA’s egregious delay exposed a generation of American children to unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos.”

But before all the recent activity, in 1999, EPA had negotiated a compromise with Dow that stopped most residential uses of chlorpyrifos. Why? For the same reason that EPA finally acted on food. This neurotoxic chemical is harmful to children. That was 22 years ago, and followed a campaign by Beyond Pesticides and others to remove Dursban/chlorpyrifos from the market because of indoor ambient air contamination of homes and buildings and lawn and landscape exposure. It should be noted that Dursban was viewed with promise by regulators as the alternative to the organochlorine insecticide chlordane, which Beyond Pesticides sued to remove from the termite use market—a remaining use after the agricultural, lawn, and garden uses were finally taken off the market in 1983, with decades of review by numerous agencies. Its cancer-causing properties and ecological effects could no longer be defended. The cancellation of termite use followed in 1988 after millions of homes were potentially contaminated, with high risk factors for cancer.

With all this as context for the chemical treadmill, next up after chlorpyrifos may be the insecticide bifenthrin. It too is a neurotoxic, cancer-causing, endocrine disrupting pesticide. And if that is not enough, there are others waiting in the wings. The picture is clear.

Even in a victory, like EPA’s chlorpyrifos decision, the action is typically filled with exceptions that respond to vested interests seeking to ignore or deflect the science. With chlorpyrifos, EPA, since announcing its decision in 1999 to ban “residential” uses of chlorpyrifos, continues to allow the following uses: (i) Residential use of containerized baits; (ii) Indoor areas where children will not be exposed, including only ship holds, railroad boxcars, industrial plants, manufacturing plants, or food processing plants; (iii) Outdoor areas where children will not be exposed, including only: golf courses, road medians, Industrial plant sites; (iv) Non-structural wood treatments including: fenceposts, utility poles, railroad ties, landscape timers, logs, pallets, wooden containers, poles, posts, and processed wood products; (v) Public health uses: Fire ant mounds (drench and granular treatment); (vi) nurseries and greenhouses; and (vii) Mosquito control. These uses are unaffected by EPA’s announcement yesterday.

Corteva’s statement prior to the EPA announcement was predictable, as the company and the chemical industry generally pushes pesticide dependency: “Chlorpyrifos is a critical pest management tool used by growers around the world to manage many pests. . . We will continue to support the growers who need this important product.” Similarly, the pesticide industry’s partner, the Golf Course Superintendents Association, stated, “Chlorpyrifos is a vital tool for controlling damaging pests on golf courses.” These are self-serving statements because the industry’s products create ongoing product dependency by focusing on killing organisms and life in the soil, rather than preventing pest problems with cultural practices and soil supplements that work in concert with nature and create resiliency.

In the absence of a functional federal system that sticks to the science in an effort to protect public health and the environment, states have intervened to fill the void. The pattern with chlorpyrifos is not any different than the history of state intervention on chemicals like DDT, 2,4,5-T, Ethylene Dibromide, and numerous others, where states have acted to curtail specific pesticide use, in some cases years ahead of EPA. Hawaii, New York, Maryland, and Maine all acted to different degrees to restrict chloroyrifos in advance of EPA. 

In response to the Maine chlorpyrifos ban in June, 2021, Rick Deadwyler, a lobbyist with Corteva AgriScience, was quoted as saying that studies “have shown that current uses of chlorpyrifos meet the U.S. regulatory standard of a “reasonable certainty of no harm.” Therein lies the systemic problem. EPA is subject to a standard (spelled out in the law’s legislative history or report language) that utilizes a risk assessment process that determines reasonableness. That standard has enabled the agency to assume the need for the chemical and adopt self-described protections from exposure that do not reflect reality. In so doing, EPA applies margins of safety that are meaningless, or simply ignores mechanisms like synergism, the effect of mixtures, or a lack of information on health outcomes (like endocrine disruption, for which the agency has not established review protocol). To make matters worse, the reasonable certainty of no harm standard only applies to pesticides that have agricultural uses, while those pesticides with only non-agricultural uses are subject to an “unreasonable adverse effects” standard. In this case, EPA does not evaluate the necessity of pesticides in light of the availability of less or nontoxic alternative practices or products. When safer alternatives exist, is it reasonable to allow exposure to a hazardous pesticide with known adverse effects and the large uncertainties that are inherent to risk assessments?

Local governments are intervening to stop toxic pesticide use on their public lands and, in cases where they are not preempted by state law, on private property. The nationwide momentum is leading the nation from the grassroots in proving that toxic pesticides and fertilizers are not necessary in land management.

The history of chlorpyrifos is a shining example of the failure of pesticide law and policy, which has set a course for the nation that is inherently destructive of life. The good news is that we have the tools to course correct at a time when pesticides, like chlorpyrifos, not only have direct adverse health effects but are contributing to the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and disproportionate levels of illness in people of color communities.

Let’s collectively congratulate all who worked on exposing the societal failure of pesticide law, policy, and use in fighting agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos. We can and must use this occasion as an example of the abject failure of the current system and advance systemic change that rejects toxic pesticides and moves society to the adoption of organic practices. This will take a concerted effort that rejects the chemical-by-chemical approach to reform, which at the current pace will not meet the urgency of the existential crises that we face as a nation and globe. The solution is within our grasp. We know how to manage agricultural production, land spaces, and buildings without toxic chemicals. Reform legislation in Congress must meet the urgent need to make this a transformational moment. This is our charge.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2021) Multinational chemical company Bayer filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court this week, seeking a reversal of a lower court verdict that established Bayer liable for damages from the use of its weed killer Roundup. After purchasing Roundup-maker Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has been mired in a deluge of court battles from injured customers throughout the country who assert that their use of the glyphosate-based herbicide resulted in their cancer diagnosis. Bayer, for its part, has consistently lost these court cases. The company’s Supreme Court petition is now regarded as its best and last chance to avert responsibility for the ongoing harm to public health caused by its carcinogenic herbicide.

Bayer’s Supreme Court challenge pertains to the Hardeman v. Monsanto case. In that suit, a California court found unanimously in favor of the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman. Mr. Hardeman told the jury he had used Roundup since the 1980s to spray poison oak and weeds around his property, resulting in his diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2014. He was awarded $5.27 million, while his punitive damages were ultimately reduced from $75 to $20 million.

Bayer is bringing two main arguments to the Supreme court. First, the company is making a preemption argument, saying that U.S. federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), preempts state-level “failure-to-warn” claims that act as the basis for the Hardeman suit. To prevail under California’s failure-to-warn law, plaintiffs must prove that the product had knowable risks, the risks presented were substantial if used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, consumers would not have recognized those risks, defendants failed to warn consumers, and consumers were thus injured as a result.

On this issue, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that state failure-to-warn claims were “equivalent to” and “fully consistent with” FIFRA, and that because the company had the ability to comply with both FIFRA and California law, FIFRA did not preempt plaintiff claims. Bayer’s argument to the Supreme Court rests upon the cover that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided the company over the years. Bayer argues that because EPA did not approve labels with a cancer warning, and the agency has repeatedly said that such a label was not appropriate, failure-to-warn claims should not apply.

Bayer’s second argument centers around the Ninth Circuit’s admission of expert testimony, which the company says violates court precedent and federal rules. The Ninth Circuit held that a district court applied the correct standards in admitting expert testimony in the Hardeman case. This issue centers significantly around causation experts use of epidemiological evidence, a strong and growing body of literature linking glyphosate to cancer which EPA and pesticide manufacturers have regularly discounted.  

In apparent attempts to calm the market, the company has gamed out scenarios where it does and doesn’t win at the Supreme Court. Prior to the filing the petition, Bayer announced that it would end sales of Roundup to residential consumers, as part of a “five-point” planned aimed solely at averting litigation risk – not in order to protect U.S. residents from its hazardous product.

Mr. Hardeman’s lawyers told U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) they were prepared for this fight. “While paying out billions of dollars to settle claims, Monsanto continues to refuse to pay Mr. Hardeman’s verdict. That doesn’t seem fair to Mr. Hardeman. Even so, this is Monsanto’s last chance Hail Mary,” attorney Aimee Wagstaff told USRTK. “We are eager and ready to beat Monsanto at the Supreme Court and put this baseless preemption defense behind us once and for all.”

Bayers purchase of Monsanto has been characterized as “One of the Worst Corporate Deals” in recent times by the Wall Street Journal. Its first major loss centered around California school groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, who won an initial $289 million jury verdict against Monsanto in 2018 for his development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) after exposure to Roundup. The first $39 million was awarded for compensation, while $250 million in punitive damages came after a finding that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression” by suppressing the link between its product and cancer. That amount was later amended by a judge to $78 million. In addition to the Hardeman case now up for Supreme Court consideration, earlier this month Bayer lost its third appeal in its third major glyphosate trial, involving the Pilliods, a California couple that had used Roundup for more than 30 years to kill weeds on properties they owned. The couple was originally awarded a staggering $2.055 billion by a jury in 2019, which was ultimately reduced to $86 million. A California appeals court ruling on August 10 upheld the award amount.

While the company has been able to cut back large jury awards to victims, it has been ineffective at stopping the claims from winning on the merits. This is because, despite claims from captured regulatory agencies like EPA, there is a strong body of evidence linking glyphosate and its formulated products to cancer. And significant evidence that the company worked to keep that information under wraps. Over the last four years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture have worked to provide cover for Bayer/Monsanto by reregistering Roundup and other glyphosate-based products, intervening in court cases, and coordinating with the company to stop glyphosate bans in other countries.

Bayer, as of June, had settled 125,000 claims for $9.6 billion with people who link their non-Hodgkin lymphoma to use of Roundup. There are still 30,000 cases that have not been resolved. Advocates are hoping that the Supreme Court will reject the company’s petition so that the full repercussions of the harm caused by Bayer and Monsanto can be realized.

Looming large over the entire saga around Roundup in the courts is the fact that a court case should never have been necessary. EPA is responsible for protecting the public from unnecessary and unreasonable harm caused by toxic pesticide exposure. But the agency’s corruption spans administrations and is independent of any one political party.  It’s time for the agency to stop allowing the pesticide industry free rein to regulate itself, and place economic concerns over the health and wellbeing of people and the environment. Tell EPA today to stand up to corporate influence and start truly protecting the environment.

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

               Source: USRTK, Reuters, Supreme Court petition