(Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2021) A new study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology finds chronic (long-term) organophosphate (OP) pesticide exposure increases adverse health and cancer risk for U.S. women relative to men. Organophosphorus pesticides have a wide range of biological uses—from insecticides to flame retardants—that make these chemicals ubiquitous, significantly contributing to ecosystem contamination. Furthermore, while organophosphates have less bioaccumulation potential, residues are consistently present in human and animal blood, urine, tissues, and milk. Although research demonstrates that OPs are highly toxic, there remains an inadequate understanding of how OP exposure impacts the nonagricultural population in the U.S., especially women. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the sex-specific health effects chemical contaminants can produce to mitigate exposure among vulnerable populations. Study researchers note, “Given the higher burden of OP exposure and their significantly higher overall health risk, including cancer, reducing OP exposure in U.S. women needs to be prioritized.”

To examine the relationship between OP exposure and health risks, researchers investigated the presence of commonly detected OP metabolite concentrations in urine using participants from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Urine samples measure OP metabolite as an indicator of OP exposure like previous agriculture-related population surveys. Study participants report health issues and frequency of prescription use for treatment for asthma and other pulmonary (lung) ailments, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and more.

Study results demonstrate that non-smoking women with higher concentrations of OP metabolites are at greater risk of developing cardiovascular disease, bronchitis, asthma, and total cancer, including breast cancer. OP exposure contributes most significantly to cardiovascular disease risk in women 60 to 85 years old. Increasing prescription drug use to treat pulmonary issues among women with higher OP concentrations indicates a relationship between exposure and health issues. Although breast cancer risk is highest among women overall, female smokers have a significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer in combination with OP exposure. Lastly, OP exposure among male smokers can increase rates of prostate cancer.

Organophosphate insecticide use is widespread, while industry promotes the chemicals as having greater efficiency and lesser environmental persistence. However, OPs originate from the same compounds as World War II nerve agents, producing adverse effects on the nervous system. Chemical exposure can cause a buildup of acetylcholine (a chemical neurotransmitter responsible for brain and muscle function) can lead to acute impacts, such as uncontrolled, rapid twitching of some muscles, paralyzed breathing, convulsions, and, in extreme cases, death. The compromise of nerve impulse transmission can have broad systemic impacts on the function of multiple body systems. In addition to being highly toxic to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, human exposure to organophosphates can induce endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, fetal defects, neurotoxic damage, and kidney/liver damage. Exposure can increase vulnerability to deadly diseases, including COVID-19. Moreover, OPs are one of the leading causes of intentional poisoning globally as pesticide toxicity makes them potentially lethal substances.

Since the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, residential uses of organophosphate pesticides have been highly restricted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although most OP uses in the U.S. are now agricultural, toxicity experts recommend a ban on all OPs for agricultural use. EPA and World Health Organization (WHO) consider over 40 OPs that are moderately or highly hazardous to human health. EPA classifies some commonly used OPs like malathion, a popular mosquito control, and tetrachlorvinphos, a common flea and tick killer in pet collars and shampoos, as probable carcinogens. States, including Hawaii, California, New York, and Maryland, plan to phase out chlorpyrifos use, to different degrees, in agriculture following evidence of neurotoxic effects on children. However, other OPs remain in use despite their notorious toxicity.

This study adds to the growing body of research assessing sex-specific disparities in chemical metabolization (breakdown) and elimination in the body. OPs exhibit endocrine-disrupting properties that may alter estrogen or testosterone activity and receptors, resulting in differences in the clearance rate and toxicity of OPs. For instance, a 2018 study finds female rats manifest airway hyperactivity—a characteristic symptom of asthma—at lower OP doses than males. A 2020 study reveals that exposure to acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors like OPs can cause sex-specific differences in depression symptoms among adolescent girls through endocrine disruption. Furthermore, this study is the first to demonstrate that, among the general population, OP exposure causes an increased risk of total cancer for female non-smokers, breast cancer for female smokers, and prostate cancer for male smokers from OP exposure. Researchers suggest that the same endocrine-disrupting properties that induce sex-specific effects also play a role in promoting hormonal-related cancer development like breast and prostate. The study infers that the most likely source of OP exposure is from diet, due to the cyclic presence of metabolites in urine throughout the years. Therefore, researchers conclude, “reducing the dietary exposure to OP insecticides needs to be prioritized.”

Policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on endocrine disruption, cancer, asthma/respiratory effects, and other diseases. Learn more about how the lack of adequate pesticide use regulations, including organophosphates, can adversely affect human and environmental health; see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

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

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

Source: Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2021) Ultraviolet radiation (UV-C) applied at night can successfully kill powdery mildew in farm fields, providing a potential route to significantly reduce the use of toxic fungicides, new research published in the journal Plant Disease finds. “UV treatments applied once or twice weekly were as effective as the best available fungicides applied on similar schedules for control of strawberry powdery mildew,” study author Natalia Peres, PhD, of the University of Florida said. “It’s not a one-time fluke.” The results are encouraging, and have the potential of reducing fungal pressure through non-toxic means, but like all pest management tools should be used as part of a system the focuses first and foremost on fostering healthy soils and biodiversity. 

Powdery mildew is a fungal pathogen that can infect a range of plants, from cucurbits to grapes, apples, onions, and cannabis. For the study, the primarily Florida-based researchers focused on the state’s $300 million strawberry industry. Powdery mildew is often facilitated by high humidity, and can be exacerbated when crops are grown in tunnels or other enclosed areas due to lack of airflow and poor ventilation. The fungus presents as a white powder on the surface of plant leaves, and can spread through the production of asexual spores.

There are a range of methods currently in use to fight powdery mildew. Conventional fields are more likely to apply synthetic fungicides such as myclobutanil, quinoxyfen, or azoxystrobin. Organic growers often use softer, less hazardous products like horticultural oils and bicarbonates. All growers are generally encouraged to plant cultivars that have been bred to be more resistant to powdery mildew. Although small scale farmers and gardeners have a better opportunity to practice mechanical and cultural controls, such as removing diseased leaves and thinning out susceptible plants, these approaches can be more difficult to implement on a larger scale.

Researchers tested the efficacy of UV-C light by affixing a series of light panels to a platform that was pulled behind a tractor over rows of strawberry plants. The light applications took place a night, because powdery mildew evolved to withstand the UV rays within natural sunlight. However, it seems as though that adaptation also made the pathogen more susceptible UV light at night.

Researchers partnered with a Norwegian robotics company to produce the light machine. They indicate that despite the need for it to be custom built, the costs are lower than spray equipment, and it is only one-time – no additional costs other than labor will be required after the machine is delivered and working. A University of Florida release indicates that the machines are already being trialed in other cropping systems, such as grapes, hops, and cucumbers. “While research on these crops is still underway, UV applications seemed effective controlling powdery mildew in all cases,” said Dr. Peres.

Powdery mildew has developed resistance to a wide range of fungicides. While the timing of this discovery is fortunate and has the potential to help many growers manage disease with fewer chemicals, no tool should be used as a replacement for healthy, sustainable farming practices. Although there is no indication that powdery mildew will eventually become resistant to UV light, the pathogen’s ability to withstand ultraviolet rays during the day could indicate the need to use this new tool sparingly.

Small-scale, diversified organic farms provide the best opportunity for growers to manage pests while ensuring strong yields and profits. Research shows that higher rates of plant diversity around farms corresponds with lower pest pressures, while less diverse cropping systems lead to more intensive pesticide use. Any system, whether organic or chemical-based, that relies on tools and outside inputs to reach economies of scale must be thoroughly scrutinized for its long-term sustainability.

Beyond Pesticides continues to join with advocates to improve organic production by ensuring the integrity of the organic label is upheld. Under organic certifications, UV-C would not fall under irradiation and could be an effective means of pest management as part of a broader organic system. For information on topics before the National Organic Standards Board this spring, stay turned to the Keeping Organic Strong program page. And see the ManageSafe webpage for non-toxic methods to address common garden and household pests.

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

Source: University of Florida, Plant Disease

(Beyond Pesticides, March, 16, 2021) Occupational and environmental exposure to pesticides and other contaminants in the environment increase the risk of developing a lung condition known as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), according to a meta-analysis published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports. IPF is a chronic, degenerative disease with no certain cause or cure. It is estimated to affect roughly 13 women and 20 men in 100,000 adults worldwide annually, with onset averaging age 66. With scientific literature continuously findings new connections between pesticide use and diseases that are all too common in today’s world, advocates say it’s critical for residents and officials at all levels to embrace safer, alternative organic methods of addressing weed and pest issues.

To determine risk factors for IPF, researchers narrowed down relevant research in the available literature from thousands of studies to eight relevant for their meta-analysis. These eight studies looked at IPF risk factors for a number of different populations with different life histories. Overall, roughly 1,000 IPF patients, ranged in ages 50 to 75, were compared to a control group of approximately 2,500 non-IPF patients. The studies covered risk factors based on the environmental contaminant in question, as well as an individual’s occupation. Environmental exposures included metal dust, wood dust, stone and sand dust, textile dust, and pesticides. Occupations included the construction industry, the woodworking industry, the textile industry, and the agricultural sector.

Researchers took data from the eight studies and performed a statistical analysis to better understand associations and risk factors. Pesticide use and agricultural work were found to have the strongest association with IPF. Pesticide exposure increased risk of IPF by 107%, whereas agricultural workers recorded an 88% increased risk. Exposure to metal dust indicated an 83% increased risk, and wood dust 62%. Smoking was found to increase risk by 39%. Scientists determined that careers in woodworking, construction, and textile industry did not raise risk by statistically significant levels in the study.

There are notable limitations to consider within the results, the researchers caution. Study populations were not analyzed based upon specific areas or countries, and thus may not be representative of any one region. It also did not capture racial differences between populations. IPF’s diagnostic process and treatments have also changed since the studies evaluated within the meta-analysis were conducted, although researchers attempted to adjust for confounders in that area. Lastly, some studies included unhealthy individuals within their control group, which could have slightly altered the power of the statistical analysis.  

Although further research will need to be conducted, the results indicate cause for significant concern for the lung health of those that are working in the agricultural industry and/or applied toxic pesticides throughout their lives. A considerable body of literature links pesticide use to harmful effects on lung health. Previous reports have found that 78 agricultural pesticides are directly linked to wheezing – potentially the first step towards chronic disease. A 2017 study found pesticide exposure over one’s life to be associated with another degenerative lung disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). “[I]t is thought that long-term exposure to pesticides increases mucus secretion and muscle contraction in the lungs, causing breathlessness, cough and wheeze,” the lead researcher of that study told Reuters. A study published last July found pesticide use increased a person’s risk of lung cancer. A comprehensive literature review published last October, focused on lung pathologies in general, found strong correlations between pesticide exposure and various respiratory diseases.

In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, disease that does significant damage to the body’s pulmonary system, it is more important than ever that we halt the use of pesticides linked to respiratory illness. But while this issue reads like a crisis in the context of a respiratory pandemic, for agricultural workers this risk has been ever-present. Farmworkers are at greatest risk from pesticide-induced disease, and their average life expectancy bears this out. At 56 years, farmworkers are expected to live over 20 fewer years than the average US adult.

Organic agriculture and landscaping provides an off-ramp from our chemically dependent systems of farming and land care. Through organic, we eliminate the most toxic pesticides on the market in favor of working with, rather than against, natural systems. This shifts the focus away from toxic products that damage lungs and health, towards practices that foster greater ecological resilience. For more information on why organic is the right choice, see Beyond Pesticides organic program page. And for more information on the link between pesticides and common diseases, see Beyond Pesticides Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Pulmonary Fibrosis News, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, March 15, 2021) A staff report produced for the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has documented substantial levels of the heavy metals arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury in infant foods. The researchers examined organic as well as nonorganic brands, finding contamination of both. They found that heavy metals were present in both crop-based ingredients and additives. However, many unknowns remain regarding the precise origin of the metals.

Tell FDA and USDA to get heavy metals out of baby food!

Two U.S. Senators (Amy Klobuchar, D-MN and Tammy Duckworth, D-IL) and two U.S. Representatives (Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-IL and Tony Cardenas, D-CA) have drafted legislation to strengthen regulations for infant food safety, but meanwhile want the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use existing authority to take immediate action. The National Organic Program should also take action to ensure that parents can depend on organic baby food to be the best possible.

Heavy metals can have serious health impacts, especially on young children. As stated in the report,

Children’s exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ, diminished future economic productivity, and increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior.

Babies’ developing brains are “exceptionally sensitive to injury caused by toxic chemicals, and several developmental processes have been shown to be highly vulnerable to chemical toxicity.” The fact that babies are small, have other developing organ systems, and absorb more of the heavy metals than adults, exacerbates their risk from exposure to heavy metals.

Exposure to heavy metals at this developmental stage can lead to “untreatable and frequently permanent” brain damage, which may result in “reduced intelligence, as expressed in terms of lost IQ points, or disruption in behavior.” For example, a recent study estimates that exposure to environmental chemicals, including lead, are associated with 40,131,518 total IQ points loss in 25.5 million children (or roughly 1.57 lost IQ points per child)—more than thetotal IQ losses associated with preterm birth (34,031,025), brain tumors (37,288), and traumatic brain injury (5,827,300) combined. For every one IQ point lost, it is estimated that a child’s lifetime earning capacity will be decreased by $18,000.

Because heavy metal contamination occurs in organic as well as nonorganic baby foods and in food ingredients as well as additives such as vitamin mixtures, it is important to discover the sources from which heavy metals enter the food. Some sources are known—it is known that some vitamin mixes are contaminated. It is known that rice—especially brown rice—contains arsenic as a result of historical use of arsenic pesticides and the fact that rice concentrates arsenic. Other sources are more speculative, but there are three main possible sources—pesticide residues in agricultural products, food contact with processing machinery and containers, and food additives. Growing food organically eliminates additions to the heavy metal burden of soils but does not eliminate existing residues in the soil and environment generally. Organic processing standards must be strengthened to address problems associated with food contact contaminants and contaminated additives. While background levels and action levels set by  FDA standards are one measure, under the Organic Foods Production Act, the National Organic Standards Board must set its own standards for contaminants of added substances in organic food production and processing, taking into account background levels in the environment.

After decades of polluting practices in agricultural production under risk assessment standards that allowed contamination at “acceptable levels,” we have a legacy problem with background contamination of farmland. As a result, manufacturers of processed food may not be able to source ingredients without these unacceptable contaminants. Therefore, we need to first define the scope of the problem and then consider remediation measures that may be needed on the agricultural land used to grow crops that are ingredients in baby food and the food supply generally.

With the problem fully defined, we can launch a national clean-up program—from farmers to processors and packagers—to eliminate the contamination from the food supply. As a part of this national program, FDA must set strict regulations on heavy metal concentrations in finished products. As a goal, Consumer Reports (CR) has suggested that FDA:

Establish aggressive targets: Set a goal of having no measurable amounts of cadmium, inorganic arsenic, or lead in baby and children’s food.

Create and enforce benchmarks: To reach its goals in baby and children’s food, FDA should set incremental targets for industry to meet along the way.

Finalize existing proposed guidelines: FDA should limit inorganic arsenic in apple juice to 10 ppb and revise existing guidance for lead in fruit juice to reduce the limit from 50 to 5 ppb.

Tell FDA and USDA to get heavy metals out of baby food!

Letter to FDA Commissioner

A staff report produced for the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has documented substantial levels of the heavy metals arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury in infant foods. The researchers examined organic as well as nonorganic brands, finding contamination of both. They found that heavy metals were present in both crop-based ingredients and additives. However, many unknowns remain regarding the precise origin of the metals.

Heavy metals can have serious health impacts, especially on young children. As stated in the report,

Children’s exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ, diminished future economic productivity, and increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior.

Babies’ developing brains are “exceptionally sensitive to injury caused by toxic chemicals, and several developmental processes have been shown to be highly vulnerable to chemical toxicity.” The fact that babies are small, have other developing organ systems, and absorb more of the heavy metals than adults, exacerbates their risk from exposure to heavy metals.

Exposure to heavy metals at this developmental stage can lead to “untreatable and frequently permanent” brain damage, which may result in “reduced intelligence, as expressed in terms of lost IQ points, or disruption in behavior.” For example, a recent study estimates that exposure to environmental chemicals, including lead, are associated with 40,131,518 total IQ points loss in 25.5 million children (or roughly 1.57 lost IQ points per child)—more than the total IQ losses associated with preterm birth (34,031,025), brain tumors (37,288), and traumatic brain injury (5,827,300) combined. For every one IQ point lost, it is estimated that a child’s lifetime earning capacity will be decreased by $18,000.

Because heavy metal contamination occurs in organic as well as nonorganic baby foods and in food ingredients as well as additives such as vitamin mixtures, it is important to discover the sources from which heavy metals enter the food. Some sources are known—it is known that some vitamin mixes are contaminated. It is known that rice—especially brown rice—contains arsenic as a result of historical use of arsenic pesticides and the fact that rice concentrates arsenic. Other sources are more speculative, but there are three main possible sources—pesticide residues in agricultural products, food contact with processing machinery and containers, and food additives. Growing food organically eliminates additions to the heavy metal burden of soils but does not eliminate existing residues. Organic processing standards have not yet caught up with the problems of food contact contaminants and contaminated additives and rely to some extent on FDA standards.

It is important to motivate those involved in baby food manufacture—from farmers to processors and packagers—to eliminate known sources of contamination. This can be accomplished with strict FDA regulations on heavy metal concentrations in finished products. I urge you to take these steps to protect children from hazardous heavy metals:

Establish aggressive targets: Set a goal of having no measurable amounts of cadmium, inorganic arsenic, or lead in baby and children’s food.

Create and enforce benchmarks: To reach its goals in baby and children’s food, FDA should insist that manufacturers follow recognized best practices and set incremental targets for industry to meet along the way.

Finalize existing proposed guidelines: FDA should limit inorganic arsenic in apple juice to 10 ppb and revise existing guidance for lead in fruit juice to reduce the limit from 50 to 5 ppb.

Thank you for your consideration.

Letter to National Organic Program (NOP) Deputy Administrator and USDA Secretary:

I am writing because I am concerned about the report produced for the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives that documented substantial levels of the heavy metals arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury in infant foods, including organic products. Heavy metals can have serious health impacts, especially on young children. As stated in the report,

Children’s exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ, diminished future economic productivity, and increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior.

Babies’ developing brains are “exceptionally sensitive to injury caused by toxic chemicals, and several developmental processes have been shown to be highly vulnerable to chemical toxicity.” The fact that babies are small, have other developing organ systems, and absorb more of the heavy metals than adults, exacerbates their risk from exposure to heavy metals.

Exposure to heavy metals at this developmental stage can lead to “untreatable and frequently permanent” brain damage, which may result in “reduced intelligence, as expressed in terms of lost IQ points, or disruption in behavior.” For example, a recent study estimates that exposure to environmental chemicals, including lead, are associated with 40,131,518 total IQ points loss in 25.5 million children (or roughly 1.57 lost IQ points per child)—more than the total IQ losses associated with preterm birth (34,031,025), brain tumors (37,288), and traumatic brain injury (5,827,300) combined. For every one IQ point lost, it is estimated that a child’s lifetime earning capacity will be decreased by $18,000.

The heavy metal contamination occurs regardless of organic production and processing methods. Organic standards are based on practices rather than purity, but consumers do expect that organic foods will be free of hazardous contaminants. Therefore, regardless of actions that may be taken by Congress or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) affecting foods in general or baby foods in general, the National Organic Program (NOP) should, to the extent possible, ensure that organic food, especially infant food, is free from heavy metal contamination.

To this end, NOP must work with the National Organic Standards Board to eliminate, as much as possible heavy metal contamination arising from:

1. Organic crop and livestock production practices and the land;
2. National List ingredients;
3. Processing and handling processes; and
4. Packaging materials.

Thank you for your consideration.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2021) The American Rescue Plan, legislation that will provide nearly $2 trillion to help a broad variety of people, state and local governments, and businesses struggling with the huge and myriad impacts of the COVID pandemic, has a number of less-touted features embedded in it. One of those is that $5.2 billion of the bill’s funds will be directed to help disadvantaged farmers, 25% of whom are Black; thus, approximately $1.3 billion will directly support Black farmers. As reported by The Washington Post and other outlets, advocates are calling this “a step toward righting a wrong after a century of mistreatment of Black farmers by the government and others,” and a boon to Black farmers not seen since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The bill, passed by the U.S. Senate and House, was signed by President Biden on March 11.

The bill will provide a menu of benefits to Black farmers, including: debt relief; grants and loans to improve land acquisition and address heritable property issues, such as when a farmer dies intestate (without a will) and land assets are to be allotted to legal heirs; financial support for research, and education and training programs; and establishment of a racial equity commission to address systemic racism at the USDA.

Given the urgency of the needs to transition to organic, regenerative agriculture, and to contend with the environmental injustices imposed on communities of color, the ability for Black farmers to thrive and participate fully in these issues is critical. Beyond Pesticides wrote, early in March, “The greatest impediment to entering organic farming is access to land. Since organic farming requires a long-term commitment to avoiding prohibited substances, building soil, and conserving biodiversity, it is difficult to manage on rented land or land farmed on ‘shares.’ Black, Indigenous, and other people of color are especially disadvantaged because of institutionalized racism embodied in U.S. policies, which has either prevented access or has undermined land ownership.” The support for Black farming housed within the American Rescue Plan has the potential to be a good beginning boost to the goals of thriving Black farmland ownership and production, and contributions to a less-toxic agricultural sector.

The nature of the relationships between Black people, and the North American lands on which they have lived during the past four centuries is a study in the impacts of racism and colonialism since European arrival in North America. Black Americans’ ability to farm, especially on land that they themselves own, has been thwarted since the moment of the Emancipation Proclamation, when formerly enslaved people could consider agriculture as a relatively ready step to economic independence (given the farming knowledge and skills most had possessed or been forced to develop and use under slavery). The various kinds of discrimination deployed during the ensuing century and a half, from the post-Reconstruction backlash, to the long period of Jim Crow laws and practices, to current institutional codifications, have made it challenging for Black farmers to own land and to thrive as farmers.

Some metrics will help tell this story. In 1910, one in seven (14.3%) of U.S. farmers was Black. That proportion has dropped since 1910 to a mere 1.3%, or 45,000 of the current 3.4 million U.S. farmers. The average Black-owned farm comprises 100 acres, whereas the average white-owned farm is 440 acres. The average farm income of a full-time white farmer in 2017 was $17,190, while the average full-time Black farmer saw $2,408 in on-farm income. Farmland ownership by African-Americans peaked in the U.S. in 1910 at 16–19 million acres, or 14% of all U.S. agricultural land.

By 2010, 90% of that ownership, and the wealth it represented, was lost — dispossessed, as Beyond Pesticides wrote, “through discriminatory practices at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and various federal programs.” White farmers now own 98% of farmland acres in the country. The 12 million acres of Black-owned farmland lost between 1910 and 2010 represent a devastating erosion of the economic well-being of Black families and communities. Agricultural experts and Black farming advocates assert that this loss, much of which has occurred since the 1950s, is the result of “a combination of systemic racism, biased government policy, and social and business practices that have denied African Americans equitable access to markets.”

The historic and current damage and threats to Black farmers have garnered increasing attention in recent years. Advocates, members of the public, and some Democrats have called more vigorously for compensation of various sorts — some termed “reparations” — to African Americans for the ongoing impacts of slavery, discrimination, and segregation. This conversation has increasingly extended to the plight of Black farming and land ownership.

Beyond Pesticides recently covered two legislative initiatives that seek diversity and equity in agricultural policy: (1) Senator Cory Booker’s Justice for Black Farmers Act (co-sponsored by Senators Warren, Leahy, Warnock, Gillibrand, and Smith), which addresses the history of USDA injustice and discrimination toward Black farmers; and (2) Senator Raphael Warnock’s Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act, which would provide $5 billion to farmers of color. Across the bills, obstacles to Black farmer success are addressed through aspects of the legislation:

• issues of debt: through debt forgiveness
• technical and business skills gaps: via training programs at HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities)
• discrimination at USDA and its FSA (Farm Service Agency): via a civil rights oversight body, and funding for programs at USDA to “root out systemic racism, provide technical and legal assistance to agricultural communities of color, and fund under-resourced programs that will shape the future for farmers and communities of color”
• impacts of the pandemic: via direct relief payments
• loss of, or lack of access to, farmland: through land grants

Such initiatives hope to redress some of the historic deprivations Black farm families have endured. Reporting by The Atlantic, “The Great Land Robbery,” for example, covers the dispossession of a million black families from their Mississippi Delta farms. A large portion of acreage that used to be farmed by African Americans is now in control of large corporate entities, such as TIAA (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association). These huge tracts host industrial farming operations typical of conventional agribusiness: e.g., they use genetically engineered seeds and their accompanying herbicides, laser-guided tractors, pesticide-dusting drones, and intensive chemical fertilizer inputs. Corporate investors across the country have bought up hundreds of thousands of prime agricultural acres in the Delta. A few examples include Hancock Agricultural Investment Group, which owns and manages more than 65,000 acres; the real-estate trust Farmland Partners, owner of 30,000 acres; and AgriVest, a subsidiary of the Swiss bank UBS, which owned 22,000 acres as of 2011. “Fewer and fewer farms are still owned by actual farmers,” the magazine writes.

Among the impacts on Black majority communities in some Delta counties is that, “unlike their counterparts even two or three generations ago, Black people living and working in the Delta today have been almost completely uprooted from the soil — as property owners, if not as laborers.” African Americans in counties with 70–80% Black populations now commonly own only 6–20% of the farmland. TIAA is a minor part of the story, but The Atlantic maintains that “the company’s newfound dominance in the region is merely the topsoil covering a history of loss and legally sanctioned theft in which TIAA played no part. But TIAA’s position is instrumental in understanding both how the crimes of Jim Crow have been laundered by time and how the legacy of ill-gotten gains has become a structural part of American life.”

The Great Migration northward (from roughly 1916 through 1970) no doubt added to the attrition of Black farming in the South, especially. But more consequentially, half a million Black-owned farms across the country failed between 1950 and 1975. Civil rights and environmental justice advocates have noted that USDA owns some of the blame for the steep losses in farmland ownership by, and generational wealth in, Black families. The set-up for such massive losses happened, in part, with the creation of the FSA in the late 1930s. Established ostensibly to help small farmers, in reality, white FSA employees “often ignored or targeted poor black people — denying them loans and giving sharecropping work to white people.” In 1961, President Kennedy created the ASCS (Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service that provided farm loans; however, program funds were distributed by local elected officials during a period when suppression of Black votes was rampant.

Through these federal programs, and those such as the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), USDA “became the safety net, price-setter, chief investor, and sole regulator for most of the farm economy.” Loans made from these programs accelerated the trend of large farms becoming even larger, industrial “crop factories” — while small farms collapsed. These large concerns held undue sway over federal agricultural policy and funding, directed unsurprisingly to those entities themselves. Critically, “at every level of [agricultural] government, the leaders were white.”

The Atlantic writes, “Major audits and investigations of the USDA have found that illegal pressures levied through its loan programs created massive transfers of wealth from black to white farmers, especially in the period just after the 1950s. In 1965, the United States Commission on Civil Rights uncovered blatant and dramatic racial differences in the level of federal investment in farmers. The commission found that in a sample of counties across the South, the FmHA provided much larger loans for small and medium-size white-owned farms, relative to net worth, than it did for similarly sized black-owned farms — evidence that racial discrimination ‘has served to accelerate the displacement and impoverishment of the Negro [sic] farmer.’”

Historic Black land loss, unlike losses for white farmers, happened largely via “illegal pressures, including discrimination in federal and state programs, swindles by lawyers and speculators, unlawful denials of private loans, and even outright acts of violence or intimidation. Discriminatory loan servicing and loan denial by white-controlled FmHA and ASCS committees forced black farmers into foreclosure, after which their property could be purchased by wealthy landowners, almost all of whom were white. Discrimination by private lenders had the same result. Many black farmers who escaped foreclosure were defrauded by white tax assessors who set assessments too high, leading to unaffordable tax obligations. The inevitable result: tax sales, where, again, the land was purchased by wealthy white people. Black people’s lack of access to legal services complicated inheritances and put family claims to title in jeopardy. Lynchings, police brutality, and other forms of intimidation were sometimes used to dispossess black farmers. . . . Through a variety of means — sometimes legal, often coercive, in many cases legal and coercive, occasionally violent — farmland owned by Black people came into the hands of white people.”

The article summarizes: “Thousands of individual decisions by white people, enabled or motivated by greed, racism, existing laws, and market forces, all pushed in a single direction.” A relatively unknown feature in the history of African American farming in the U.S. — and an example of determined resourcefulness in the face of those thousands of decisions — is the brief heyday of Black farming cooperatives, from the latter 1950s through the 1970s — one of the outgrowths of the Civil Rights movement. These cooperatives helped develop the kinds of trusted local relationships on which successful rural farming enterprises depend. The Federation of Southern Cooperatives (FSC), an umbrella cooperative organization “housing,” at one point, 130 different local co-ops, provided a “comprehensive range of services for rural community development, including help for farmers to secure their ownership of land and operating independence. The scope of FSC programs [included] training, consulting, and research, as well as capital for land and business project development.”

Even now, USDA’s “Section 2501” program, Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers — the only Farm Bill program specifically addressing needs of these underserved populations in agriculture — was negatively impacted by an administrative USDA decision. Beyond Pesticides covered this earlier in 2021: USDA “redirected $2 million of this funding . . . to a separate, administratively created initiative. USDA’s new Centers for Community Prosperity initiative seeks to address economic development in persistent poverty communities, with a focus on faith-based initiatives.” Beyond Pesticides has advocated that Congress ensure that funds earmarked for this program in the late-2020 COVID-relief bill actually remain in the program.

The American Rescue Plan may signal a monumental shift in the role of government for Black farmers (and many others). Historian Heather Cox Richardson commented, on the day of the bill’s final passage in the House of Representatives: “The bill . . . is a landmark piece of legislation, reversing the trend of American government since Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Rather than funneling money upward in the belief that those at the top will invest in the economy and thus create jobs for poorer Americans, the Democrats are returning to the idea that using the government to put money into the hands of ordinary Americans will rebuild the economy from the bottom up. This was the argument for the very first expansion of the American government — during Abraham Lincoln’s administration — and it was the belief on which President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the New Deal. Unlike the previous implementations of this theory, though, Biden’s version, embodied in the American Rescue Plan, does not privilege white men (who in Lincoln and Roosevelt’s day were presumed to be family breadwinners). It moves money to low-wage earners generally, especially to women and to people of color.”

Paul Waldman, writing in The Washington Post, notes that the “American Rescue Plan . . . has gotten a large amount of press coverage, especially the $1,400 checks that will be going to most Americans. But if anything, we’ve underplayed how significant this bill is. . . . [It] would benefit ‘Black farmers in a way that some experts say no legislation has since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.’”

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack acknowledged the plight of Black and other “socially disadvantaged” farmers in a March 6 statement, in which he said, “For generations, socially disadvantaged farmers have struggled to fully succeed due to systemic discrimination and a cycle of debt.” In another statement, issued shortly after House passage of the bill, Secretary Vilsack said, “The American Rescue Plan provides historic debt relief to Black, Indigenous, Hispanic, and other farmers of color who for generations have struggled to fully succeed due to systemic discrimination and a cycle of debt. We cannot ignore the pain and suffering that this pandemic has wrought in communities of color. The American Rescue Plan answers that call to action.”

Response to the bill from Black Americans in or near the agricultural sector might be described as cautious and somewhat optimistic. Tracy Lloyd McCurty, executive director of the Black Belt Justice Center (which provides legal representation to Black farmers), has commented, “This is the most significant piece of legislation with respect to the arc of Black land ownership in this country. . . . [The bill is] reparations, but it’s more than that. It is historic. When Black farmers did acquire land through our own grit and determination, the USDA did what they could to erode those gains. Once again, Black farmers, because of their dedication to organizing, have created liberation for farmers of color. Our farmers are due a field of flowers, not a bouquet, for the sorrow they’ve carried.”

Others insist that, though a good step, the $1.3B in the American Rescue Plan hardly constitutes “reparations” because it represents, optimistically, 2% of lost wealth. Professor of public policy at Duke University and an expert on reparations, William Darity, comments: “The best estimates I have seen of the economic loss to Black farmers due to USDA policies and overall processes of land appropriation by Whites has been between $250 and $350 billion. This is approximately 10 percent of total Black wealth in the U.S., about $2.5 trillion. The notion that this approaches a program of reparations is nonsense. Reparations for Black American descendants of slavery must be designed to eliminate the gulf in Black and White wealth.”

Lloyd Wright, former director of the USDA Office of Civil Rights in the Clinton and Obama administrations, noted that this bill might be the most significant for Black farmers in more than 50 years, but also warned that how the law and funds are administered will be telling. He commented, “Hopefully the money won’t go to conducting studies — Black farmers have been studied to death. . . . [The bill] looks like plain English: We’re going to forgive the debt for people of color. But for people who don’t want to do it? They will try to figure out how not to do it. If they really forgive the debt with this bill, it’s the greatest thing ever.”

Fourth-generation Black Virginia farmer John Boyd, Jr. is president of the nonprofit National Black Farmers Association. He noted that the lack of (almost exclusively Republican) legislator support for the bill was a “sickening realization,” adding: “It shows how disconnected half the Senate is from Black farmers. I’ve been trying to get this relief for 30 years. Now we have to make sure Secretary Vilsack defines it in the same way it was intended, with outreach and technical assistance for Black farmers included. We as a group are going to have to get reintroduced to the USDA.”

Beyond Pesticides wrote, in December 2020, that Mr. Vilsack’s “record on racial justice has been criticized by the National Black Food and Justice Alliance (NBFJA), National Black Farmers Association, USDA Coalition of Minority Employees, and others.” In advocating for leadership at USDA that would advance the transition to organic agriculture, Beyond Pesticides advocated for consideration of “organic and regenerative farmers and ranchers who, because of historic discrimination, have never been offered political appointments, but have proven themselves as leaders, includ[ing] John Boyd, Karen Washington, co-founder of Black Urban Growers, and Winona LaDuke, founder of the White Earth Land Recovery Project.”

Instead, Tom Vilsack was (again) nominated and confirmed as Secretary of Agriculture; he served in the same role for the entirety of the Obama administration. Beyond Pesticides has weighed in on what the new Secretary must do at USDA to enact meaningful and foundational changes to our social, economic, and environmental norms.

Nevertheless, Beyond Pesticides celebrates the passage of the American Rescue Plan for (among other reasons) its supports directed to the Black farming community, and welcomes Secretary Vilsack’s recent comments on those features. We will, of course, continue to monitor how the law, once signed and enacted, plays out on the ground for Black farmers, environmental justice, and the advancement of the transition to organic approaches to all land management.

Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/08/reparations-black-farmers-stimulus/ and https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/this-land-was-our-land/594742/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2021) A Portland State University (PSU) study finds that pesticides from the forestry industry threaten clams, mussels, oysters (bivalves) along the Oregon state coast. Bivalves are excellent indicator species, signaling environmental contamination through their sedimentary, filter-feeding diet. However, continuous pesticide inputs—from various forestry management regimes—into watersheds along Oregon’s coastal zone endanger these species in downstream rivers and estuaries (river mouths).

Although research demonstrates many forestry practices (e.g.., road building, planting, clearcutting, thinning) have cumulative effects on the ecosystem, there is a lack of studies addressing the overall impact of multiple chemical mixtures and application on watersheds and subsequent aquatic transport. Like agriculture, conventional forest management across the U.S. depends on the use of toxic pesticides to control pest populations. However, pesticide residues from application drift, runoff, and contamination continuously jeopardize the health and fitness of various non-target species, including humans.

Marine ecosystem pollution is difficult to track and measure, and forestry pesticide regulations can invoke variations in water quality requirements through discrepancies in buffer zones and application concentrations. Therefore, studies like this can help guide future forest management practices to reduce the number of chemicals entering aquatic ecosystems. Researchers in the study note, “These findings highlight the need to address management practice effectiveness in controlling transport of potentially harmful compounds throughout the Oregon Coast Range. As scientific understanding of ecotoxicology evolves and new monitoring techniques become available, efforts to understand cross-ecosystem stressors are critical, especially to incorporate ecosystem-based management into watershed-scale or regional land management objectives that go beyond managing for single land use and individual classes of chemicals.”

The study identifies cross-ecosystem chemical threats to aquatic environments, particularly coastal ecosystems downstream from land-based forestry management practices. Researchers collected three species of bivalves from eight watersheds along the Oregon Coast—the Western pearlshell mussel (Margaritifera falcata), softshell clam (Mya arenaria), and Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas). Using a passive water sampler, researchers collected water samples from 15 different watersheds along the Oregon coast for 45 days. Scientists evaluated pesticide concentration and type in both bivalve tissue and water samples. To assess the relationship between forestry practices and downstream contamination, researchers compared pesticides present in samples to data on state-regulated pesticide use on forestland.

The study results detect 12 different chemical compounds (two herbicides, three fungicides, and seven insecticides) in both water and bivalve samples—five of which are current-use pesticides in forest management. Although pesticide concentration and type vary by season, organism, and watershed location, 38 percent of bivalve samples harbor pesticide concentrations high enough to accumulate in tissues. Indaziflam (a current-use herbicide in Oregon forestry) is present in seven percent of bivalve samples. Furthermore, water samples find current-use herbicides hexazinone and atrazine, and banned pesticides like DDT/DDE contribute to aquatic contamination downstream. The study uncovers that most contamination occurs along the Central Oregon Coast in the Siuslaw and Smith watersheds.

Pesticide contamination in waterways is historically commonplace as residues are widespread in U.S. rivers and streams. A 1998 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) analysis revealed at least one pesticide is present in all U.S. waterways and a recent USGS report detects at least five or more different pesticides in 90 percent of water samples. Moreover, research finds millions of people already consume drinking water contaminated with pesticides or pesticide compounds from groundwater sheds. Thousands of tons of pesticides enter rivers and streams around the U.S. from agricultural and nonagricultural sources that contaminate essential aquatic ecosystems, such as watersheds consisting of surface water (i.e., lakes, streams, reservoirs, and wetlands) and groundwater. As the number of pesticides in waterways increases, it has detrimental impacts on aquatic ecosystem health, and some pesticides work synergistically with others to increase the severity of the effect. In addition to adverse health effects on marine organisms, these chemicals harm terrestrial organisms relying on surface or groundwater. Many of these chemicals cause endocrine disruption, reproductive defects, neurotoxicity, and cancer in humans and animals, and most are highly toxic to aquatic species. 

Forestry management practices have long been a controversial issue for the timber industry, as environmental groups cite its contribution to non-point source pollution of surface and groundwater. Furthermore, studies find evidence of chemical contamination in nearby harvestable plants that are primarily used for medicinal uses by indigenous communities. Glyphosate use in forest management drifts to nearby wild, edible plants, contaminating them for more than a year after initial application. These plants contain glyphosate residues that exceed levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for some food products. Providentially, there is a growing consensus between the forestry industry and environmental groups. In 2020, Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D) announced the Private Forest Accord—a collaborative effort between 13 timber/forestry operations and 13 environmental organizations to establish proactive legislation and recommendations for forest management practices. Moreover, Senate Bill 1602 was passed in the Senate and House in June 2020 and signed into law in July, changing some of Oregon’s non-federal forestland protections, such as buffer zones near streams during helicopter pesticide spraying.

The study demonstrates that pesticide use in forest management does infiltrate the watershed and transport chemicals downstream to rivers and estuaries. Likewise, the study finds past pesticide applications on orchards, Christmas tree farms, and homes further contribute to aquatic ecosystem contamination downstream. Indaziflam, the most common chemical present in bivalve tissue samples, is a potential leacher. The chemical’s leaching properties can account for its bioavailability in riverine and estuarian bivalves. The presence of atrazine in water samples is not surprising as past studies demonstrate it is pervasive in all aquatic environments, being regularly detectable in groundwater, and prone to leaching. Both indaziflam and atrazine are highly toxic in freshwater/marine organisms and fish. They can cause various health issues that have implications for human well-being, including endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, cancer, kidney/liver damage, birth/developmental abnormalities, and reproductive dysfunction. Lastly, EPA classifies hexazinone as a carcinogen and dermal (skin) sensitizer/irritant with possible effects on birth/reproductive health and kidney/liver function. Although this chemical is slightly toxic to aquatic organisms, it is remarkably hazardous to micro-and macroalgae responsible for sustaining aquatic food webs.  

Although this study finds that chemical concentrations present in Oregon’s watershed and bivalve tissue samples remain under federally established guidelines, aquatic environments continuously encounter environmental pollutants and toxic compounds known to have harmful biological consequences on both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. A recent report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” finds that the combination of non-point source chemical contamination from microplastics and pesticide runoff can have an adverse synergistic effect on species’ health and ecosystem. Additionally, coastal and offshore aquaculture (farming of aquatic organisms) presents a new, looming threat to marine health. Namely, the use of antibiotics and pesticides on local marine ecosystems (e.g., insecticides to control sea lice in farmed salmon) results in coastal habitat loss and genetic and health risks to wild marine populations.

All aquatic environments are essential to human health and well-being, feeding billions, supporting millions of jobs, and supplying medicinal materials. However, marine species biodiversity is rapidly declining due to overfishing, global warming, pathogens, and pollution. This biodiversity loss may result in changes in marine and terrestrial ecosystem function and reduce ecosystem services. Therefore, this study highlights the need to identify non-point pollution sources readily contaminating aquatic ecosystems to establish regulations that mitigate adverse effects.

Study co-author Elise Granek, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Science and Management at PSU, concludes, “The levels of the particular compounds we detected are not something that federal guidelines consider harmful to human health, however, they may be harmful to animals in aquatic and marine environments. Additionally, we were just looking at a handful of compounds, yet aquatic organisms and their consumers are likely exposed to many more contaminants including microplastics and heavy metals, among others. How the exposure we detected—paired with other contaminants they may encounter in their waters—affect the animals sampled or their predators is a really interesting question and unfortunately we don’t have regulatory guidelines that consider exposure to multiple stressors.”

Chemical contamination is ubiquitous in terrestrial and marine environments. Therefore, indicator species like bivalves can act as sentinel species for chemical contamination, detecting risk to humans by exhibiting signs of environmental threat sooner than humans in the same environment. Unless more is done to address chemical pollution, humans will also continue to see similar declines in general health, fitness, and well-being.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for healthier and more environmentally friendly forestry practices to protect the environment and wildlife, particularly water resources. Unfortunately, within the Pacific Northwest, an area where the timber industry dominates, Oregon’s pesticide regulations do not provide adequate protection. Therefore, pesticide use should be phased out and ultimately eliminated to protect the nation’s and world’s waterways and reduce the number of pesticides that make their way into drinking water. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for protective, federal regulation that considers potential synergistic and additive threats, to ecosystems and organisms, from admixtures of pesticides.

Replacing pesticides with organic regenerative systems conserve water, nurture soil fertility, reduce surface runoff and erosion, reduce the need for nutrient input (i.e., fertilizers), and most critically, eliminate the use of toxic chemicals that threaten so many aspects of human and ecosystem life, including water resources. Learn more about the hazards pesticides pose to wildlife and what you can do through Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife program page.

For more information about pesticide contamination in water, see the Threatened Waters program page and Beyond Pesticides’ article Pesticides in My Drinking Water? Individual Precautionary Measures and Community Action, where Beyond Pesticides states: “This problem requires individual precautionary measures and preventive, community-based action to protect [individual and public health] and ultimately, stop ongoing pesticide use that ends up in drinking water from numerous agricultural, public land, and home and garden use. Beyond Pesticides urges a solution that keeps pesticides out of the water, rather than trying to clean them up after they enter our waterways and drinking water supply.”

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

Source: Phys.org/Portland State University (PSU), Toxics

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2021) Deer populations throughout the state of Minnesota are contaminated with neonicotinoid insecticides, according to preliminary results published earlier this month by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Although neonicotinoids are mostly known for contributing to the decline of pollinator populations, like most pesticides brought to market with approval of an inadequate U.S. regulatory review process, there are considerable uncertainties on its impacts after it is released into the environment. As scientists continue to discover novel harms from the use of these systemic insecticides, advocates say it becomes increasingly important to eliminate their use, and take preventive, precautionary measures to ensure similar patterns do not emerge in the future.

MDNR launched its testing project on the state’s deer population in Fall 2019, after a study published by researchers at South Dakota State University found harmful impacts on white-tail deer. The neonicotinoid imidacloprid was found to reduce the body weight and metabolism of white tailed deer and increase the rate of birth defects and mortality in fawns.

The state asked deer hunters to send them the spleens they harvested from wild deer. “We wanted to know if wild deer in natural settings are being exposed to neonics and if certain habitat types had a higher risk,” said Michelle Carstensen, DNR’s wildlife health program supervisor. “Minnesota is a great place to ask this question, as deer are dispersed across the forest, farmland, prairies, and urban landscapes.”  

In total, 2,000 people requested sample kits and 800 spleens were collected. Preliminary results reveal that 61% of deer spleen samples contained neonicotinoids. Although MDNR notes that these levels are below allowable levels set by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for consumption of other foods like fruit and beef, it has not yet released exact numbers, and that fact alone does not equate to safety.

Subsequent reporting from the Minneapolis Star Tribune indicates that some of the deer spleens tested contained detections well above levels found in the South Dakota study that result in fawn birth defects (.33 parts per billion). A letter written to hunters who provided MDNR spleen samples informed them that initial testing found levels as high as 6.1 parts per billion.

The detections were not simply from one particular location, but widespread throughout the state, even in remote, forested areas. “How the heck are deer everywhere getting exposed?’ It’s got to be something we’re doing,” said Michelle Carstensen, the wildlife health program supervisor at MDNR, to the Minneapolis StarTribine. Trail cams set up by state agencies had previously recorded birds, deer, and other mammals consuming neonicotinoid coated seeds spilled by chemical farmers. But there’s still uncertainty about whether coated seeds are responsible for such widespread detections.  

Reports indicate that MDNR will now send the spleens to the lab for a more detailed work up to determine the exact amount of contamination.

These data reinforce long-standing calls by scientists and conservation groups to eliminate the use of neonicotinoids due to their broad ranging impacts on ecosystems. In 2018, the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, an international group of over 240 scientists published a Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) synthesizing 1,121 published peer-reviewed studies over the last five years. The scientists found that, “[n]eonics impact all species that chew a plant, sip its sap, drink its nectar, eat its pollen or fruit and these impacts cascade through an ecosystem weakening its stability.”

Neonics harm a range of wildlife, including bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, and other pollinators, songbirds, aquatic species and mammals, including humans. Effects on one species can move up and down food chains and result in phenomena known as trophic cascades. As the WIA notes, this widespread contamination of ecosystems ultimately impacts the services that humans depend upon, including nutrient cycling, food production, biological pest control, and pollinator services.

In order to reverse the harm these chemicals are doing to the natural world, eliminating their use is only the start. Canada and the European Union have banned them completely, while a handful of U.S. states —Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—have imposed restrictions on consumer use. Although local and state efforts should continue, it is past time for the U.S .EPA to take action on this class of insecticides.

As the Biden presidency and EPA begin to draw contrasts with the previous administration by proposing cancelation of highly hazardous pesticides like pentachlorophenol, eliminating neonicotinoid use would send a strong message that the agency is no longer working at the whim of the pesticide industry. Help Beyond Pesticides continue to put pressure on EPA to restore scientific integrity by taking action today. For more information on the wide-ranging effects of pesticides on wildlife, see Beyond Pesticides Wildlife program page.

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

Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minneapolis Star Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2021) Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an interim decision to cancel of one of the most hazardous pesticides still used in the United States, pentachlorophenol (penta). Although long overdue, health advocates are hailing the agency’s action, taken due to significant risks to human health, the availability of alternatives, and the uncertain future of penta production. Many advocates hope that EPA’s announcement is the start of a pivot to science-based decision-making in the best interest of health and the environment, not the pockets of pesticide industry executives. Cancellation of this toxic chemical will bring  the U.S. into conformance with the Stockholm Convention, an international treaty to ban persistent organic pollutants (POPs) joined by over 150 countries that was never ratified by the U.S.

“This has been a long time coming,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “After decades of scientific reports, lawsuits, regulatory comments, and an international ban, we’re glad EPA finally acknowledged the intrinsic dangers posed by continuing penta’s registration. We urge the agency expedite its slow cancellation timeline so that we can finally eliminate this unnecessary pollutant.”

Produced for its ability to preserve wood through pressure treatment, penta has been used on utility poles and railroad ties since the 1930s, before U.S. pesticide law was written. In the 1950s it was registered for a range of pesticidal uses in addition to wood treatment, including as a fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, algaecide, disinfectant, and ingredient in antifouling paint. Its uses as a catch-all pesticide began to be restricted in the mid-1980s as EPA identified a range of acute and chronic risks from exposure, and significant contamination of penta products with hexachlorobenzene, furans, and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, one of the most toxic substances known to humankind.

Although most uses of penta were eliminated in the 1980s, its application as a wood preservative remained. Beyond Pesticides sued EPA in the early 2000s over its prior inaction on penta, urging cancellation of all toxic wood preservatives on the market. The case received a preliminary injunction was but ultimately struck down by a federal District Court on administrative grounds.

While some assume that wood treatments are unlikely to pose a risk to the general public, as stationary poles can simply be avoided, that is not the case. As part of a previous risk assessment, EPA calculated a 2.2 in 10,000 cancer risk to children playing around treated poles – a rate 200x above the agency’s cancer threshold. This calculation was removed from the agency’s analysis after a pressure from the Penta Council, with its revision indicating that, “play activities with or around pole structures would not normally occur.” Despite this claim, there’s no doubt many U.S. residents to recall a time they played around a utility pole or railroad tie as a child.

While children remain at risk from penta exposure, the individuals who produce penta and apply it to utility poles are subject to the greatest harm. Yet over the years, EPA consistently attempted to avert risks through changes to its risk evaluation, rather than file cancellation proceedings. In its most recent 2008 penta review, the agency attempted to reduce occupational exposure by requiring additional personal protective equipment, changes to application procedures, and engineering controls. However, in making its final determination last week, EPA indicates these risks remain. The agency identified both long-term inhalation and dermal exposure risks, and calculated that workers had an astounding 1 in 1,000 risk of developing cancer from working in a penta plant.

“In weighing the benefits of pentachlorophenol versus the risks identified in the DRA (Draft Risk Assessment), EPA cannot make the finding that the benefits of pentachlorophenol outweigh the risks,” the agency wrote in its determination.

In addition to the dangers posed by penta production, EPA also notes in its decision the availability of alternative chemistries in the wood preservative market. Some of these products, like copper chromium arsenate, pose similar concerns to penta, but non-toxic products like steel, concrete, and fiberglass are also available. “EPA believes that transitioning away from pentachlorophenol in favor of other imperfect alternatives may pose certain challenges; however,” the agency writes, “given the uncertain future of pentachlorophenol’s availability in the wood preservative market as discussed below, as well as a transition time to adapt alternative wood preservatives, the utility pole preservative industry will be able to adapt to the cancellation of pentachlorophenol.”

EPA also discussed the “uncertain future of pentachlorophenol production” as impacting its decision to cancel. This uncertainty was precipitated by a decision made at the Stockholm Convention in 2016, in opposition to the U.S. delegation, which fought against penta’s listing in that international treaty as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (despite the fact that the U.S. is not a signatory). This listing resulted in the last North American penta plant, located in Mexico (a signatory to the treaty), announcing its closure. That put pressure on the remaining U.S. plants that apply penta to utility poles; as a result, plants in both Oregon and Alabama plan to close by the end of this year. Canada also announced it would cancel penta’s registration this year in order to put the country in line with the Stockholm Convention.  

That left the U.S. as the last possible spot where a new penta plant could be sited. Gulbrandsen Chemicals, a multinational company with ties to India, made an attempt to supply the U.S. market by proposing a penta plant in the majority low income African American community Orangeburg, South Carolina, raising serious concerns over environmental racism. But a series of high-profile investigative reports, community advocacy, and political action ultimately upset the plans laid by this corporation, and Gulbrandsen Chemicals withdrew its proposal early last year.  

EPA’s proposal would phase out penta production over the next five years, a timeline advocates say should be sped up. “Given the unacceptable hazards posed by this chemical, and wide availability of alternatives on the marketplace today, there should be no reason to install another penta-poisoned pole in the United States ever again,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides. “We thank EPA for its effort to align with the Stockholm Convention, and encourage the agency to continue making science-based decisions.”

Beyond Pesticides has extensive documentation on the history of penta production and regulation. For more information see the following articles:

• Poison Poles (1997)
• Pole Pollution (1999)
• Beyond Pesticides comments to EPA on Wood Preservatives (2008)
• Beyond Poison Poles: Elected officials say no to toxic utility poles in their communities (2014)
• United Nations Committee Recommends Global Elimination of Toxic Wood Preservative (2014)
• EPA Seeks to Block a Worldwide Ban of a Highly Toxic Wood Preservative (2014)
• International Treaty Bans Pentachlorophenol, U.S. Continues Use on Utility Poles and Railroad Ties (2015)
• Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Over Dioxin Contamination from Poison Poles in Central California (2018)
• As the World Bans Highly Toxic Wood Preservative, Pentachlorophenol, a Low-Income U.S. Community May Be Home to the Last Production Plant (2020)
• Environmental Racism Strikes South Carolina Community with Siting of a Pentachlorophenol Wood Preservative Plant  (2021)

See Beyond Pesticides Wood Preservatives webpage. 

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

Source: EPA Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision

(Beyond Pesticides, March 8, 2021) In the face of 1,700 pet deaths linked to Seresto’s flea and tick collar—as reported March 2, 2021 by USA Today, based on EPA records—EPA has taken no action. This unconscionable inaction is defended by an EPA spokesperson who told the media that, despite these incidents, the agency has deemed Seresto collars “‘eligible for continued registration’ based on best available science, including incident data. . . . No pesticide is completely without harm, but EPA ensures that there are measures on the product label that reduce risk.” Seresto is developed by Bayer and sold by Elanco.

Tell EPA and Members of Congress to take responsible and immediate action to stop the death of dogs and cats by stopping the sale of Seresto flea collars.

Beyond Pesticides is calling on EPA to recognize, finally, that the label on flea collars is not adequately protective, as evidenced by the number of deaths and 75,000 incidents. “EPA has the authority to act now, and it should use its powers to protect the health and lives of pets,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “EPA should act on the deaths immediately, not wait for further study, just as it did with the herbicide Imprelis when trees were killed after the product’s use.” said Mr. Feldman. In 2011, EPA issued an order to E.I. DuPont de Nemours (DuPont) directing the company to immediately cease the distribution, sale, use or removal of Imprelis Herbicide products under its ownership, control, or custody. The agency found that, “The directions for use and/or warning or caution statements on DuPont’s Imprelis labeling are inadequate.”

USA Today reports, “A 2012 Bayer study found [flumethrin and imidacloprid] have a ‘synergistic effect,’ meaning they are more toxic together on fleas. . . “ However, a 2016 EPA bulletin concluded, “The risk of the combination of the two active ingredients, flumethrin and imidacloprid, was not assessed because the two chemicals act in completely different ways.” This failure to evaluate synergistic effects of pesticides is standard practice of EPA. As Beyond Pesticides has pointed out repeatedly, EPA does not do an adequate job of evaluating the risks and harms of exposures to multiple pesticide compounds, as well as those of so-called  “inert” or “other” pesticide ingredients.

The Seresto flea collar is meant to stay on dogs or cats for months at a time, and kill fleas and ticks. Apart from deaths, pets suffer from rashes, seizures, motor dysfunction, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, and excessive drooling. The product label on the collar specifically states that it is for external use only; but that direction does not account for the fact that dogs and cats clean themselves (by licking their fur) frequently, and can ingest the collar’s pesticides because it is designed to release and disperse them onto fur and skin steadily over the course of months.

The same concern is true for children’s exposure to the chemical residues on their pets and their direct contact with the flea collar. EPA’s 2016 bulletin includes the label warning: “DO NOT LET CHILDREN PLAY WITH THIS COLLAR OR REFLECTORS; KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.” The bulletin further states, “Flumethrin exposures to people placing collars on pets, and to adults and children interacting with pets (including incidental ingestion because of children’s hand-to-mouth activities), are below levels of concern. The assessment of imidacloprid identified no risks to humans placing the collars on pets or interacting with pets wearing the collars.” And it reiterates, “As stated in the precautions on the label, do not allow children to play with the collars. In addition, try to keep the pet away from young children for a day after putting on the collar to minimize exposure.” EPA’s use of ALL CAPS and repeated warnings about children suggests a high level of agency concern.

EPA has logged these “Seresto” incidents in its database for years, but has not seen fit to warn the public. Karen McCormack, a retired EPA scientist and communications officer, notes that these collars have garnered the greatest number of incident reports of any pesticide product in her long experience. She says, “EPA appears to be turning a blind eye to this problem, and after seven years of an increasing number of incidents, they are telling the public that they are continuing to monitor the situation. But I think this is a significant problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.”

Tell EPA and members of Congress to take responsible and immediate action to stop the death of dogs and cats by stopping the sale of Seresto flea collars.

Letter to EPA Administrator and Members of Congress

In the face of 1,700 pet deaths linked to Seresto’s flea and tick collar—as reported March 2, 2021 by USA Today, based on EPA records—EPA has taken no action. This unconscionable inaction is defended by an EPA spokesperson who told the media that, despite these incidents, the agency has deemed Seresto collars “‘eligible for continued registration’ based on best available science, including incident data. . . . No pesticide is completely without harm, but EPA ensures that there are measures on the product label that reduce risk.” Seresto is developed by Bayer and sold by Elanco.

I am calling on EPA to recognize, finally, that the label on flea collars is not adequately protective, as evidenced by the number of deaths and 75,000 incidents. EPA has the authority to act now, and it should use its powers to protect the health and lives of pets by stopping the sale of Seresto flea collars. EPA should act on the deaths immediately, not wait for further study—just as it did with the herbicide Imprelis (2011) by issuing an order to E.I. DuPont de Nemours (DuPont) directing the company to immediately cease the distribution, sale, use or removal. In that case, EPA said, “The directions for use and/or warning or caution statements on DuPont’s Imprelis labeling are inadequate [to prevent the death of trees]”.

USA Today reports, “A 2012 Bayer study found [flumethrin and imidacloprid] have a ‘synergistic effect,’ meaning they are more toxic together on fleas. . . “ However, a 2016 EPA bulletin concluded, “The risk of the combination of the two active ingredients, flumethrin and imidacloprid, was not assessed because the two chemicals act in completely different ways.” This failure to evaluate synergistic effects of pesticides is standard practice of EPA. The agency does an inadequate job of evaluating the risks and harms of exposures to multiple pesticide compounds, as well as those of so-called “inert” or “other” pesticide ingredients.

The Seresto flea collar is meant to kill fleas and ticks, while on dogs or cats for months at a time. Apart from deaths, pets suffer rashes, seizures, motor dysfunction, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, and excessive drooling. Although the product label on the collar specifically states that it is for external use only, it fails to account for grooming behavior of dogs and cats through which the pet can ingest the pesticides that the collar releases and disperses onto fur and skin steadily over the course of months.

The same concern is true for children’s exposure to the chemical residues on their pets and their direct contact with the flea collar. The collar’s label warns: “DO NOT LET CHILDREN PLAY WITH THIS COLLAR OR REFLECTORS; KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.” Although EPA acknowledges synergistic effects on fleas and ticks, the agency finds separate risks of flumethrin and imidacloprid to be below levels of concern and did not assess their combined risk.

EPA has logged “Seresto” incidents in its database for years, but has not seen fit to warn the public. Karen McCormack, a retired EPA scientist and communications officer, notes that these collars have garnered the greatest number of incident reports of any pesticide product in her long experience. She says, “EPA appears to be turning a blind eye to this problem, and after seven years of an increasing number of incidents, they are telling the public that they are continuing to monitor the situation. But I think this is a significant problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.”

Thank you for your urgent consideration.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2021) Pet owners will be alarmed to read the report, by USA Today, that a popular flea and tick collar — Seresto, developed by Bayer and sold by Elanco — has been linked to nearly 1,700 pet deaths, injuries to tens of thousands of animals, and harm to hundreds of people. At the time of publication, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which regulates pesticides, had issued no informational alert to let the public know about these risks to pets — despite many hundreds of incident reports in its Office of Pesticide Programs Incident Report database. Beyond Pesticides and other advocates have warned of the toxicity of pet pesticide treatments, not only to the animals themselves, but also, to children and other household members. There are nontoxic ways to protect pets from fleas and other pests, and to protect human family members at the same time.

Beyond Pesticides is calling on EPA to recognize, finally, that the label on flea collars is not adequately protective, as evidenced by the number of deaths and 75,000 incidents. “EPA has the authority to act now, and it should use its powers to protect the health and lives of pets,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “The deaths should trigger immediate action as EPA studies the situation—not the reverse—as it did with the herbicide Imprelis when trees where killed after the product’s use,” said Mr. Feldman. In 2011, EPA issued an order to E.I. DuPont de Nemours (DuPont) directing the company to immediately cease the distribution, sale, use or removal of Imprelis herbicide products under its ownership, control, or custody. The agency found that, “The directions for use and/or warning or caution statements on DuPont’s Imprelis labeling are inadequate.”

Last year, in covering a different pet-related issue, Beyond Pesticides wrote this: “Humans and dogs often occupy similar spaces, exposing both species to the same chemical contaminants, like pesticides. . . . Pet products containing pesticides are of concern as people encounter their pets daily. With the high degree of human contact with pets, through cuddling and hugs and kisses, those using pet products containing pesticides are at greater risk of high contaminant exposure. Numerous flea and tick prevention products (e.g., collars, topical treatments, sprays, dusts) include pesticides like tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP), propoxur, synthetic pyrethroids, and fipronil. A common trait among these pesticides is their toxicity, not just to dogs and nontarget organisms, but to humans, as well.”

The active pesticide ingredients in the Seresto pet collars are imidacloprid and flumethrin. The neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid is a commonly used pesticide associated with serious health and environmental decline. It is a neurotoxicant, an endocrine disruptor, an immunosuppressant, linked to cancer, and also has negative reproductive impacts. It is toxic to birds, bees, and aquatic organisms, and persists in aquatic environments. In 2016, EPA released an assessment of risks of its use to honey bees that showed a strong link between use of imidacloprid and severely declining bee populations. The compound is banned for outdoor use across the European Union, but allowed in pet collars. In late 2020, Beyond Pesticides wrote about another harm of pet flea treatments: contamination of waterways with imidacloprid (and other pesticide compounds), in both England and the U.S.

Flumethrin is a chemical in the pyrethroid class of synthetic neurotoxic insecticides, which have been repeatedly linked to neurological issues, such as seizures and learning disabilities in children, and to gastrointestinal distress, as well as to damage to non-target invertebrates, according to EPA’s own analysis. It is deployed on domestic pets (via collars) and on livestock for control of fleas and ticks, and is even marketed for control of varroa mites in beehives.

The Seresto collars contain both these compounds, although — according to the Rachel Carson Council — imidacloprid likely has a minor, if any, role in the dog mortality on which USA Today reports. Flumethrin and “inert” compounds, or synergies among those and the active ingredients, may be the culprits.

EPA nevertheless continues to permit use of the Seresto collars despite the demonstrated risks to children of flumethrin, in particular. In 2016, the agency issued a bulletin that asserted that the collar label includes the following language: “DO NOT LET CHILDREN PLAY WITH THIS COLLAR OR REFLECTORS; KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.” The bulletin further states, “Flumethrin exposures to people placing collars on pets, and to adults and children interacting with pets (including incidental ingestion because of children’s hand-to-mouth activities), are below levels of concern. The assessment of imidacloprid identified no risks to humans placing the collars on pets or interacting with pets wearing the collars.” And it reiterates, “As stated in the precautions on the label, do not allow children to play with the collars. In addition, try to keep the pet away from young children for a day after putting on the collar to minimize exposure.” EPA’s use of ALL CAPS and repeated warnings about children suggests a high level of agency concern.

That same EPA bulletin says, “The risk of the combination of the two active ingredients, flumethrin and imidacloprid, was not assessed because the two chemicals act in completely different ways.” This failure to evaluate synergistic effects of pesticides is typical of EPA. As Beyond Pesticides has pointed out repeatedly, EPA does not do an adequate job of evaluating the risks and harms of exposures to multiple pesticide compounds, as well as those of so-called “inert” or “other” pesticide ingredients.

USA Today writes, relatedly, “A 2012 Bayer study found [these two compounds] have a ‘synergistic effect,’ meaning they are more toxic together on fleas. . . . Additionally, eight companion animal safety studies were conducted by Bayer looking at the effect of Seresto collars on domestic cats and dogs. The EPA used these studies to approve Seresto. . . . Another issue could be a reaction of inactive ingredients, which are unknown and have caused problems in spot-on treatments [according to Nathan Donley, PhD, a senior CBD scientist and an expert on U.S. pesticide regulation]. . . . [Dr. Donley] said this ‘synergistic effect’ likely extends to pets. He said he wasn’t sure what makes the two pesticides so likely to cause harm, but it is clear something is wrong with the product. . . . ‘You don’t even see these kinds of numbers with many agricultural chemicals. For whatever reason, this combination is just really nasty.’”

These products, such as the Seresto collar, are meant to stay on dogs or cats for months at a time, and kill fleas, ticks, and other pests. The Seresto collar has caused, apart from pet deaths, rashes, seizures, motor dysfunction, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, and excessive drooling. The product label indicates the collar is for external use only; but that direction does not account for the fact that dogs and cats clean themselves (by licking their fur) frequently, and can ingest the collar’s pesticides because it is designed to release and disperse them onto fur and skin steadily over the course of months. Mammals generally tolerate pyrethroid insecticides such as flumethrin relatively well — unlike insects, for whom the toxicity is 1,000 times higher. But with chronic exposure, such as sustained skin or inhalation exposure, as the collars allow, or after direct contact with open wounds, the toxicity can be much higher, and pets can experience more-severe impacts.

Pet owners likely do not think about the flea and tick collars they use on pets as toxic. Manufacturers and EPA represent that they are safe for the pets themselves, yet federal documents secured through the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD’s) FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, and shared with the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting, chronicle the incidents of harm: at least 1,698 related deaths of pets (dogs and cats), nearly 1,000 cases of negative impacts on humans, and more than 75,000 incidents overall.

EPA has logged these “Seresto” incidents in its database for years, but has not seen fit to warn the public. Karen McCormack, a retired EPA scientist and communications officer, notes that these collars have garnered the greatest number of incident reports of any pesticide product in her long experience. She says, “EPA appears to be turning a blind eye to this problem, and after seven years of an increasing number of incidents, they are telling the public that they are continuing to monitor the situation. But I think this is a significant problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.”

An EPA spokesperson recently said that, despite these incidents, the agency has deemed Seresto collars “‘eligible for continued registration’ based on best available science, including incident data. . . . No pesticide is completely without harm, but EPA ensures that there are measures on the product label that reduce risk. The product label is the law, and applicators must follow label directions. Some pets, however, like some humans, are more sensitive than others and may experience adverse symptoms after treatment.”

The Seresto collars are sold by retailers such as Amazon, Petco, Chewy, and PetSmart. Amazon has received dozens of complaints over time about pets developing rashes and neurological issues with use of the collars. All of these retailers continue to sell these products.

The Seresto issue represents the latest of EPA’s failures to regulate pet pesticide products so as to protect animals and the humans in their households. In 2009, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the agency over its approval of tetraclorvinphos, or TCVP, an organophosphate insecticide used in pet collars as well as on livestock. In addition to typical neurotoxic organophosphate impacts (numbness, tremors, incoordination, blurred vision, respiratory depression, and brachycardia) on the animals, TCVP represented human exposures through pets, livestock, and dietary and water exposure (because of the livestock use). The NRDC case called for cancellation of TCVP’s registration by EPA.

In 2016, EPA announced its allowance of continued use of TCVP, despite the inadequacy of the labeling on TCVP products to protect children, who are uniquely vulnerable to the compound’s neurological effects. As Beyond Pesticides wrote, “Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure. They take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults in the food they eat and air they breathe. Their developing organ systems often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The probability of an effect such as cancer, which requires a period of time to develop after exposure, is enhanced if exposure occurs early in life.”

In April 2020, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave EPA a deadline for responding to the court’s previous writ of mandamus to respond to NRDC’s petition for cancellation of the registration of TCVP. EPA had already delayed response by more than a decade, about which the court wrote, “Repeatedly, the EPA has kicked the can down the road and betrayed its prior assurances of timely action, even as it has acknowledged that the pesticide poses widespread, serious risks to the neurodevelopmental health of children.” NRDC’s lawsuit is ongoing.

Pet collars containing TCVP continue to be sold under the brand name Hartz Ultraguard, Hartz InControl, and Longlife. The number of incidents related to the use of the Seresto collar, however, dwarf the number related to TCVP. (From 1992 to 2008, the EPA received roughly 4,600 incident reports related to collars containing TCVP, including 363 deaths, according to agency documents.) Reported Serestro incidents, which CBD asserts are likely undercounts, on the other hand, include:

• 907 human incidents
• 1,698 domestic animal fatalities
• 3,767 major domestic animal incidents
• 7,743 moderate domestic animal incidents
• 21,439 minor domestic animal incidents
• 40,087 classified as “moderate, minor, and unknown domestic animal incidents”

Of those 907 human incidents reported, 19 were severe, and of those, eight people experienced skin rashes or hives, and seven had neurological symptoms, including headaches and paresthesias (numbness, tingling, or burning sensations).

CBD’s Nathan Donley calls the number of reported incidents for Seresto “just the tip of the iceberg.” He says most pet owners will not, automatically or at, all make the connection between a pet’s illness or dysfunction and the flea collar. His criticism of EPA behavior on this matter is scathing: “If this [level of negative incidents] doesn’t trigger a concern, that’s a fundamental problem with the process. The fact that EPA has not done anything to alert the public that there might be an issue here . . . strikes me as bordering on criminal. The EPA has this system in place to compile information and it’s just collecting dust in some database.”

EPA did not respond to a request about how the magnitude of incidents related to the Seresto collar compares with those related to other flea and tick collars. The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting has filed a FOIA request for the incident database, but has not yet received the information.

Absent EPA notification of the public on the dangers of these pet collars, despite tens of thousands of complaints, people have taken to the Internet to learn what they can and find others with similar experiences. Pet owners whose pets have taken sick or died — and who put two and two together to identify the collars as potentially causal — have posted warnings, including a letter in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2013, a New York radio news story in 2016, and many comments on digital forums devoted to pets.

One owner who lost pets to these collars is Ron Packard of Brockton, Massachusetts, who created a Facebook page for others who have lost pets in this way; the page is packed with stories similar to his own. USA Today writes, “Packard encourages everyone to report their stor[ies] to the EPA. ‘I don’t want others to go through what we went through. Every time I read the stories, it brings me back to my dogs. But if I can save a few pets, I can deal with it.’”

Until EPA acts to protect pets by deregistering these flea and tick collars, dog and cat families can take steps to ensure their beloved pets are not negatively affected by these products (or insecticide dusts or sprays or shampoos). Certainly, veterinarians may be able to suggests alternatives. In addition, check out Beyond Pesticides’ page on Keeping Our Companions Safe, its guide to least-toxic controls for fleas, and its comprehensive guide to keeping pets safe. NRDC also offers guidance on its website: Nontoxic Ways to Protect Your Pet.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2021/03/02/seresto-dog-cat-collars-found-harm-pets-humans-epa-records-show/4574753001/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2021) A new study finds glyphosate use stimulates soil erosion responsible for releasing banned, toxic pesticide chlordecone (Kepone), which was used in banana production. For years, an unknown pollution source continuously contaminated water surrounding islands in the French West Indies (Martinique and Guadeloupe). However, researchers from the University of Savoie Mont Blanc in France have found that chlordecone—extensively used on banana farms from 1972 to 1993—is the contamination culprit.

Glyphosate is the most popular herbicide in the world, thus ubiquitous in the environment. Therefore, it is vital to understand the implication glyphosate use has on soil health and the potential re-release of soil-bound, toxic contaminants into the surrounding environment to safeguard human health. Researchers note, “[Chlordecone] fluxes drastically increased when glyphosate use began, leading to widespread ecosystem contamination. As glyphosate is used globally, ecotoxicological risk management strategies should consider how its application affects persistent pesticide storage in soils, transfer dynamics, and widespread contamination.”

Conventional pesticide use contaminates soil and their respective Critical Zone (CZ) compartments. These CZ compartments interact between the four main spheres (i.e., hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere) of the Earth to support life. Recent decades demonstrate an increase in soil erosion due to sediment changes in critical zones results in “deforestation, overgrazing, tillage, and unsuitable agricultural practices with the use of herbicides.” Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the lack of understanding around long-term changes in soil from persistent pesticides.

Researchers collected core samples containing decades worth of soil sediment on the coast of French West Indies islands, using lead and cesium radionuclides (a naturally occurring unstable atom with excessive nuclear energy) to date sediment layers. To assess the presence of chlordecone, glyphosate, and their respective degradation products (i.e., chlordecone and aminomethylphosphonic acid) in samples, researchers used ALTHAUS 30 ultraperformance liquid chromatography system. Lastly, researchers ensured that all sediment originated from the land by comparing geochemical properties to existing island soil.  

Study results demonstrate that glyphosate concentrations tripled in island soils upon a decrease in prices during 1997. In response, chlordecone concentration rose in surrounding waters. Researchers find, “…that the widespread use of a nonspecific systemic herbicide (glyphosate) since the late 1990s could be responsible for an unprecedented rise in soil erosion and downstream of a major release of remnant [chlordecone] pesticides trapped in banana field soils since their ban in the late 1990s’.”

Almost five decades of extensive glyphosate use has put animal, human, and environmental health at risk. The chemical’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, with specific alterations on microbial gut composition and trophic cascades. Anthropomorphic (human) studies find a strong association between glyphosate exposure and the development of numerous health anomalies, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and autism. Furthermore, EPA’s 2019 decision to classify glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans—despite stark evidence demonstrating carcinogenicity—perpetuates environmental injustice among farmers, especially in marginalized communities. According to the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting, a lawsuit—filed by the National Black Farmers Association against the chemical company Bayer/Monsanto—argues that Black farmers are, essentially, forced to use Roundup (glyphosate) and incur the risks of developing non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or other cancers (or health impacts) because of pesticide demands and the industry’s “grip” on U.S. agriculture. The suit maintains that Bayer/Monsanto knowingly failed, and continues to fail, to warn farmers adequately about the dangers of the pesticide.

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. Glyphosate is patented as an antibiotic by agrochemical company Bayer/Monsanto as exposure hinders enzymatic pathways in many bacteria and parasites, serving as an antimicrobial. However, studies find glyphosate exposure disrupts the microbial composition in both soil and animals—including humans—discerningly eliminating beneficial bacteria while preserving unhealthy microbes. For instance, glyphosate kills bacterial species beneficial to humans and incorporated in probiotics, such as Lactobacillus, Bifidobacteria, and Enterococcal species, yet allows harmful bacteria E.coli, Clostridium perfringens and botulinum (progressively present autistic patients), and Salmonella to persist, leading to resistance. Similarly, glyphosate-exposed soils contain a greater abundance of genes associated with antibiotic resistance, as well as a higher number of inter-species transferable genetic material. 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 contaminated waterways can promote antibiotic resistance, triggering longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, the need for more expensive or hazardous medications, and the inability to treat life-threatening illnesses.

The results of this study highlight an all too familiar issue regarding the re-release of stable, toxic, long-banned pesticides and the binding properties of pesticides to soils. Chlordecone, which has the tradename Kepone, is of specific concern due to its tumultuous history, resulting in a U.S. ban in 1976. However, following the ban, improper handling and dumping of Kepone into the James River (U.S.) led to extensive contamination, resulting in ever-present residues in sediments at the bottom of the river. Furthermore, existing aquatic organisms in the James river are still experiencing toxicity effects from the initial chlordecone disposal that caused a ban on regional fishing in the 1980s. In the case of this study, past misconceptions assuming chlordecone would bind to soil and remain immobile did not consider changes in soil property from external sources, including pesticides. Resembling the re-emergence of DDT from soil, the continuous use of glyphosate leaves soil bare and more susceptible to erosion from lack of organic material, altering the storage compartments of soil sediments from pesticide sinks to sources.

Although France banned chlordecone in 1990 over links to increased prostate cancer risk and premature births, Caribbean islands in the French West Indies continued to heavily use the toxic product—under government exemption—until 1993. Consequently, Indies Agricultural workers have been seeking justice for the French government’s failure to protect human health and limit chlordecone pollution on the islands. Considering researchers estimate chlordecone and other hazardous chemicals may persist in soil for several decades to centuries, it is essential to assess how continuous use of nutrient-stripping pesticides may contribute to the re-emergence of soil-bound chemicals in accumulated concentrations.

Researchers conclude, “Future studies of the environmental fate of pesticides in [critical zone] should take into account these potential pesticide–environment interactions from a long-term perspective. In terms of management options, reducing soil erosion on cropland by limiting herbicide treatments would lead to the growth of understory vegetation and ultimately result in the slower leaching of the pesticides stored in soils.”

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, especially regarding the re-release of soil-bound chemicals. Considering glyphosate levels in the human body reduce by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and resulting adverse health effects.

Health and environmental advocates suggest the Biden administration halt the allowance of toxic agrochemicals to truly embrace a precautionary approach to pesticide use. Join Beyond Pesticides’ campaign for the good of all people and ecosystems. Tell Congress and the Biden Administration to clean up EPA and other federal agencies and end this era of corporate deception by restoring integrity to the scientific process. Consider becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides to help fight against chemical industry influence in our regulatory process.  

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

Source: Chemical & Engineering News, Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2021) Earlier this week, pesticide regulators in the commonwealth of Massachusetts voted to restrict outdoor consumer uses of neonicotinoid insecticides. The move is the result of sustained advocacy from broad coalition of individuals and organizations focused on protecting pollinators and ecosystem health. While advocates are pleased that the Pesticide Board Subcommittee made Massachusetts the first state in the country to restrict neonicotinoids through a regulatory process, they note this is only the first step in eliminating these hazardous insecticides.

“This marks an incremental victory which took us 6 years to land, and it only happened because of immense, ongoing grassroots action and legislative allies who are willing to hold state regulators accountable,” said Martin Dagoberto, Policy Director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association, Mass. Chapter in a press release. “We still have a monumental endeavor ahead if we are to reduce toxins and rein in the toxic influence of the chemical lobby,” Mr. Dagoberto added.

Advocates had been pushing the legislature to pass An Act to protect Massachusetts Pollinators, sponsored by pollinator champion Representative Carolyn Dykema, since 2014. Following several failures by state lawmakers to bring the bill over the finish line, efforts in 2019 resulted in a literature review on the impacts of neonicotinoids on pollinators. The literature review found the vast majority of studies showing neonicotinoids contributing to pollinator declines. It noted that the only studies minimizing pollinator impacts are those conducted by the pesticide industry, and that “the author’s analyses relied heavily on unpublished reports published by these manufacturers, which limits third-party review of the underlying studies.”

Despite years of advocacy and education, and a legislature-commissioned literature review showing clear danger from neonicotinoid use, Massachusetts lawmakers again failed to pass Representative Dykema’s bill during the 2020 session. As a result, efforts turned towards the Massachusetts Pesticide Board Subcommittee, the regulatory body within the commonwealth tasked with registering or restricting pesticide use.

A hearing late last year saw over 100 supporters show up to provide testimony over zoom. Fifty-five agricultural, environmental, climate and pollinator advocacy organizations delivered a letter to state regulators, and 80 Massachusetts lawmakers called on the subcommittee to act to restrict neonicotinoids. In a blistering critique on their work to date, the lawmakers noted, “Despite concerns about neonicotinoids being brought to the Department’s attention repeatedly by the Attorney General’s office, legislators and others since 2014,the Subcommittee failed to initiate an independent review or take any consequential action until 2019, when legislatively required to do so. This inability or unwillingness to respond to concerns that clearly fall within its purview raises concerns about whether the Subcommittee is able to fulfill its charge under the law to regulate pesticides.”

At the next meeting of the Subcommittee, the following motion was introduced:

That the Pesticide Board Subcommittee has determined that current uses of neonicotinoid pesticides used in outdoor non-structural uses or outdoor non-agricultural uses, may pose unreasonable adverse effects to the environment as well as pollinators, when taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of their use in the Commonwealth. Therefore, the Subcommittee modifies the registration classification of pesticide products containing neonicotinoids that have outdoor non-structural uses or outdoor non-agricultural uses on the label from general use to state restricted use. These include but are not limited to, uses on lawn and turf, trees and shrubs, ornamentals, and vegetable and flower gardens. The reclassification shall begin on July 1, 2022.

This motion, finalized and passed earlier this week, makes all neonicotinoid pesticides labeled for outdoor, non-structural (e.g., termites), nonagricultural uses restricted use in Massachusetts and only available to licensed pesticide applicators. Homeowners and other consumers in Massachusetts without a pesticide license will not be able to purchase or apply these pesticides to their outdoor properties under these restrictions.

Advocates note that this action is weaker than Rep. Dykema’s Act to Protect Massachusetts Pollinators, as it lacks a requirement to provide consumers information on the dangers of neonicotinoids that could lead them to opting out of any neonicotinoid application to their property. The previous Act also called on regulators to update educational information about the risks neonicotinoids pose to pollinator populations.

Massachusetts now joins Maryland, Connecticut, and Vermont in restricting consumer uses of these hazardous insecticides. But it is evident that these victories must only be the first step toward broader protections for pollinator populations.

While regulators in both Canada and the European Union have eliminated nearly all uses of neonicotinoids, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done little but shuffle around language on a pesticide label. In one of its oddest proposals yet, the agency suggests reregistering the sort of consumer use products targeted by the state proposals, but require, “language on the label that advises homeowners not to use neonicotinoid product.” Thus, EPA knows the science agrees with the restrictions states have been imposing, but is unwilling to take the regulatory actions needed to protect all pollinators across the country.

Neonicotinoids and other systemic bee-toxic pesticides pose unacceptable hazards to pollinators that necessitate complete elimination of their use. Not only are these chemicals ultimately ineffective at managing pests, organic and sustainable farming practices show these products can be replaced with organic practices that foster greater resiliency to pest pressure. Read more about the harms bee-toxic pesticides pose to pollinators and actions you can take in your state and community on Beyond Pesticides Bee Protective webpage.

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

Source: MassPIRG, NOFA-MA

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2021) Populations of solitary ground nesting bees decline after exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides, according to a study published in Scientific Reports late last month. In addition to ground-nesting bees, neonicotinoids have been shown to harm butterflies, hummingbirds, songbirds, aquatic species and mammals, including humans. As independent science continues to look beyond the effects of these systemic chemicals on honey and bumblebees, advocates maintain that it has become increasingly clear that the high hazards presented by neonicotinoids necessitate their complete elimination.

“Farmers need to protect their crops from pests, but they also absolutely need to protect pollinators from the unintended effects of pesticides,” said study coauthor Susan Willis Chan, PhD. “The data on this particular [neonicotinoid] product are so clear that there’s really no question about what has to happen. We have to find something else.”

Researchers focused their effort investigating how various systemic pesticides effect the hoary squash bee (Eucera pruinosa), a ground nesting bee found throughout North America that feeds entirely on pollen from cucurbits (including squash, cucumber, pumpkin, gourds, etc). The hoary squash bee provides essential pollinator services for these crops throughout the U.S. and Canada. Neonicotinoids and other systemic insecticides are often applied in an attempt to manage cucumber beetles, which consume these crops and can spread disease to susceptible plants.

Systemic insecticides are generally applied one of three ways – either on the seed itself, as a soil drench during seeding, or as a foliar spray. Researchers established twelve hoop houses, planted them with squash, and applied a pesticide in one of the three ways described (with three hoop houses per group). Squash seeds were treated with the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, the neonicotinoid imidacloprid was applied as a soil drench, and chlorantraniliprole was sprayed on plant foliage. A fourth group of hoop houses did not have a pesticide applied in order to act as a control.

Female squash bees were introduced to the hoop houses after mating, as soon as the squash crop was blooming. Researchers watched the bees’ progress through three key life stages: digging out and establishing a nest, foraging nectar and pollen for the nest, and laying eggs in the nest.

Results show that the soil drench presents significant hazards to ground nesting bees. Hoary squash bees in this group initiated 85% fewer nests, harvested 5 times less pollen, and produced 89% fewer offspring than the untreated control group. Although no measurable impacts were seen on the groups where thiamethoxam treated seeds or chlorantraniliprole foliar spray were used, scientists indicate this may be due the fact that pollinators were not active during time of application. 

A journal article published in 2019 also found imidacloprid to be highly toxic to solitary ground nesting bees, and may provide clues to effects seen in the current study. In that study, researchers found that varying amounts of pesticide exposure had differing effects on the size and speed of development. Observed changes were likely the result of a hormetic response, a phenomena that results from exposure to pesticides where changes in development occur in order to compensate for energy the bee diverts into physical and biological protections from pesticide exposure.

Thus, it is possible that reductions in nest development, pollen collection, and brood rearing are a result of a hormetic response prioritizing other activities. However, it could also be that these effects are a manifestation of disruptions at the cellular level – whereby neonicotinoids damage the nervous system, leading insects to become blind.

Whatever the etiology of the deleterious effects observed, study authors are certain that their data points to unacceptable hazards from the use of imidacloprid. “Farmers and regulators need to look at alternatives to applying imidacloprid to soil for controlling pests on squash and pumpkins,” she said. “My recommendation to pumpkin and squash farmers is to stay away from imidacloprid applied to soil to keep their squash bees healthy.”

Researchers note that regulatory assessments are focused too closely on honey bees, and fail to consider risks associated with pesticide residue in soil. “Our results highlight why this should be changed to better characterize risk for the many bee species that spend a large proportion of their life in soil.”

While the European Union and Canada have followed the science and eliminated most uses of neonicotinoids, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues to permit widespread use of these chemicals not only in cucurbits production, but in pollinator habitat throughout the country. Help institute a better framework for protecting pollinators by supporting the the Saving America’s Pollinator Act, which would eliminate the use of bee-toxic pesticides in the United States. Become active in your community and state by gathering together with like minded friends and neighbors, and reach out to your elected officials about this issue. Get familiar with the science through Beyond Pesticides past daily news posts as well as the Bee Protective webpage.

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

Source: Scientific Reports, University of Guelph (press release)

(Beyond Pesticides, March 1, 2021) The greatest impediment to entering organic farming is access to land. Since organic farming requires a long-term commitment to avoiding prohibited substances, building soil, and conserving biodiversity, it is difficult to manage on rented land or land farmed on “shares.” Black, Indigenous, and other people of color are especially disadvantaged because of institutionalized racism embodied in U.S. policies, which has either prevented access or has undermined land ownership. With deep reflection into the injustice associated with past policies, from pioneers to slaveholders, members of Congress are elevating the national discussion of policy changes and reparations to address a past of racial injustice. This discussion has taken on greater general public understanding since the killing of George Floyd, as there is more national awareness of systemic racial injustice and the deep adverse impact that it has on all aspects of life. One of those institutional effects to Indigenous, Black, and other people of color is the taking away or denying access to land ownership.

Tell your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative to support for increased equity for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color in farming.

Holistic systemic change is needed to restore relationships between members of society and with the Earth. The greatest source of wisdom about living sustainably (with decisions based on their impacts on seven generations to come) on this continent—Turtle Island (as named by some Native Americans and First Nations People)—has been all but eradicated through past policies of land theft and genocide. From the birth of our country to today, the United States government seized 1.5 billion acres of native land. The loss of tribal lands and mixed ownership patterns within reservation boundaries pose serious challenges to the sovereignty and self-determination of Native American nations. The three pieces of legislation in this action relate to disenfranchisement of African Americans and other people of color as the struggle continues for Native American and tribal rights to land taken from them by the U.S. government. There are several bills in Congress, which are not included in this action, to put certain lands into trust or transfer land for the benefit of various Native American tribes.

The undermining of land ownership in the Black community has not been widely recognized by the general public. In 1910, one in seven farmers were African Americans, who held titles to approximately 16 to 19 million acres of farmland. Over the next century, 98% of Black farmers were dispossessed through discriminatory practices at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and various federal programs.

The current existential threats arise from continued policies of colonization, including “resource extraction,” “economic development,” and agriculture. But large-scale logging, mining, petroleum extraction, and dispersal of poisons is opposed by efforts to restore lands and waters to Indigenous guardianship and/or Indigenous stewardship—to begin the process of reparations, healing, and recovery. As the Anishinaabe activist and author Winona LaDuke says, “The only compensation for land is land.” Land-care practices based on specific land-based cultural practices are as diverse as the more than 500 tribal nations of Turtle Island.

Two bills have been introduced in the Senate (but do not have numbers as of this writing) aimed at boosting the growing push for equity and diversity within food and agriculture policy and politics. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced the Justice for Black Farmers Act to address a history of USDA discrimination and injustice to Black farmers. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) introduced the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act that would provide $5 billion to farmers of color. Sen. Warnock said he is urging that the bill be included in the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package moving through Congress.

The Justice for Black Farmers Act will fund agriculture programs at historically Black colleges and universities and create new training programs for new farmers of color. It will also create a civil rights oversight board at USDA to investigate reports of discrimination both within the department and its Farm Service Agency county committees. Most notably, the bill includes a provision that would provide up to 160 acres to existing and aspiring Black farmers and provides debt forgiveness for those who filed claims under the landmark 1999 Pigford v. Glickman class action discrimination suit that Black farmers filed against USDA.

Sen. Warnock’s bill provides $5 billion to Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and other farmers of color, including $4 billion in direct relief payments to help farmers of color pay outstanding USDA farm loan debts and related taxes, and help them respond to the economic impacts of the pandemic; and $1 billion to support activities at USDA to “root out systemic racism, provide technical and legal assistance to agricultural communities of color and fund under-resourced programs that will shape the future for farmers and communities of color.”

Missing from this package is a provision to return land to Indigenous nations. The authors of these bills should include provisions that return ownership of public and trust lands to the tribes from whom they were taken. As the Anishinaabe activist and author Winona LaDuke says, “The only compensation for land is land.”

And, on the issue of reparations, H.R.40, Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act, was introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and 116 co-sponsors. The legislation, which the ACLU has called “restorative justice,” had been introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) for three decades. According to Rep. Jackson Lee, “Though many thought it a lost cause, he believed that a day would come when our nation would need to account for the brutal mistreatment of African Americans during chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and the enduring structural racism endemic to our society.” The bill is H.R. 40 for a reason: “The designation of this legislation as H.R. 40 is intended to memorialize the promise made by Gen. William T. Sherman, in his 1865 Special Field Order No. 15, to redistribute 400,000 acres of formerly Confederate-owned coastal land in South Carolina and Florida, subdivided into 40-acre plots.” With broad support in Congress and the private sector, Rep. Jackson Lee said, “By passing H.R. 40, Congress can start a movement toward the national reckoning we need to bridge racial divides. Reparations are ultimately about respect and reconciliation — and the hope that one day, all Americans can walk together toward a more just future. The bill establishes a Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans to research the issues involved and make reparation recommendations.

Tell your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative to support for increased equity for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color in farming.

Letter to U.S. Senators

I am writing to ask your support for increased equity for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color in farming. To that end, I ask you to co-sponsor two bills (which have been introduced but do not have numbers as of this writing) in the Senate aimed at boosting the growing push for equity and diversity within food and agriculture policy and politics. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced the Justice for Black Farmers Act to address a history of USDA discrimination and injustice to Black farmers. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) introduced the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act that would provide $5 billion to farmers of color. Sen. Warnock said he is urging that the bill be included in the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package moving through Congress.

The greatest impediment to entering organic farming is access to land. Since organic farming requires a long-term commitment to avoiding prohibited substances, building soil, and conserving biodiversity, it is difficult to manage on rented land or land farmed on “shares.” Black, Indigenous and other people of color are especially disadvantaged because of institutionalized racism embodied in U.S. policies, which has either prevented access or has undermined land ownership. With deep reflection into the injustice associated with past policies, from pioneers to slaveholders, members of Congress are elevating the national discussion of policy changes and reparations to address a past of racial injustice. One of those institutional effects to Indigenous, Black, and other people of color is the taking away or denying access to land ownership.

Two pieces of legislation relate to disenfranchisement of African Americans as the struggle continues for Native American and tribal rights to land taken from them by the U.S. government. There are several additional bills in Congress to put certain lands into trust or transfer land for the benefit of various Native American tribes.

The undermining of land ownership in the Black community has not be widely recognized by the general public. In 1910, one in seven farmers were African Americans, and African Americans held titles to approximately 16 to 19 million acres of farmland. Over the next century, 98% of Black farmers were dispossessed through discriminatory practices at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and various federal programs.

Missing from this package is a provision to return land to Indigenous nations. The authors of these bills should include provisions that return ownership of public and trust lands to the tribes from whom they were taken. Holistic systemic change is needed to restore relationships between members of society and with the Earth. The greatest source of wisdom about living sustainably (with decisions based on their impacts on seven generations to come) on this continent—Turtle Island (as named by some Native Americans and First Nations People)—has been all but eradicated through past policies of land theft and genocide. From the birth of our country to today, the United States government seized 1.5 billion acres of native land. The loss of tribal lands and mixed ownership patterns within reservation boundaries pose serious challenges to the sovereignty and self-determination of Native American nations. As the Anishinaabe activist and author Winona LaDuke says, “The only compensation for land is land.”

Thank you for your support.

Letter to U.S. Representative

I am writing to ask your support for increased equity for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color in farming. The greatest impediment to entering organic farming is access to land. Since organic farming requires a long-term commitment to avoiding prohibited substances, building soil, and conserving biodiversity, it is difficult to manage on rented land or land farmed on “shares.” Black, Indigenous, and other people of color are especially disadvantaged because of institutionalized racism embodied in U.S. policies, which has either prevented access or has undermined land ownership. With deep reflection into the injustice associated with past policies, from pioneers to slaveholders, members of Congress are elevating the national discussion of policy changes and reparations to address a past of racial injustice. One of those institutional effects to Indigenous, Black, and other people of color is the taking away or denying access to land ownership.

H.R.40, Commission to Study 5 and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act, was introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and 116 co-sponsors. The legislation, which the ACLU has called “restorative justice,” had been introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) for three decades. According to Rep. Jackson Lee, “Though many thought it a lost cause, he believed that a day would come when our nation would need to account for the brutal mistreatment of African Americans during chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and the enduring structural racism endemic to our society.” The bill is H.R. 40 for a reason: “The designation of this legislation as H.R. 40 is intended to memorialize the promise made by Gen. William T. Sherman, in his 1865 Special Field Order No. 15, to redistribute 400,000 acres of formerly Confederate-owned coastal land in South Carolina and Florida, subdivided into 40-acre plots.” With broad support in Congress and the private sector, Rep. Jackson Lee said, “By passing H.R. 40, Congress can start a movement toward the national reckoning we need to bridge racial divides. Reparations are ultimately about respect and reconciliation — and the hope that one day, all Americans can walk together toward a more just future. The bill establishes a Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans to research the issues involved and make reparation recommendations.

Missing from this bill is a provision to return land to Indigenous nations. We also need provisions that return ownership of public and trust lands to the tribes from whom they were taken. Holistic systemic change is needed to restore relationships between members of society and with the Earth. The greatest source of wisdom about living sustainably (with decisions based on their impacts on seven generations to come) on this continent—Turtle Island (as named by some Native Americans and First Nations People)—has been all but eradicated through past policies of land theft and genocide. From the birth of our country to today, the United States government seized 1.5 billion acres of native land. The loss of tribal lands and mixed ownership patterns within reservation boundaries pose serious challenges to the sovereignty and self-determination of Native American nations. As the Anishinaabe activist and author Winona LaDuke says, “The only compensation for land is land.”

Thank you for your support.

Thank you for Sens. Booker and Warnock

I am writing to thank you for your support for increased equity for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color in farming. To that end, I support your leadership on two bills aimed at boosting the growing push for equity and diversity within food and agriculture policy and politics—Black Farmers Act to address a history of USDA discrimination and injustice to Black farmers, and the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act that would provide $5 billion to farmers of color.

The greatest impediment to entering organic farming is access to land. Since organic farming requires a long-term commitment to avoiding prohibited substances, building soil, and conserving biodiversity, it is difficult to manage on rented land or land farmed on “shares.” People of color are especially disadvantaged because of institutionalized racism embodied in U.S. policies, which has either prevented access or has undermined land ownership. With deep reflection into the injustice associated with past policies, from pioneers to slaveholders, members of Congress are elevating the national discussion of policy changes and reparations to address a past of racial injustice. One of those institutional effects to Indigenous, Black, and other people of color is the taking away or denying access to land ownership.

I appreciate that these two pieces of legislation relate to disenfranchisement of African Americans as the struggle continues for Native American and tribal rights to land taken from them by the U.S. government. There are several additional bills in Congress to put certain lands into trust or transfer land for the benefit of various Native American tribes.

The undermining of land ownership in the Black community has been subtle and hidden from the general public. In 1910, one in seven farmers were African Americans, and African Americans held titles to approximately 16 to 19 million acres of farmland. Over the next century, 98% of Black farmers were dispossessed through discriminatory practices at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and various federal programs.

Missing from this package is a provision to return land to Indigenous nations. I urge that these bills include provisions that return ownership of public and trust lands to the tribes from whom they were taken. Holistic systemic change is needed to restore relationships between members of society and with the Earth. The greatest source of wisdom about living sustainably (with decisions based on their impacts on seven generations to come) on this continent—Turtle Island (as named by some Native Americans and First Nations People)—has been all but eradicated through past policies of land theft and genocide. From the birth of our country to today, the United States government seized 1.5 billion acres of native land. The loss of tribal lands and mixed ownership patterns within reservation boundaries pose serious challenges to the sovereignty and self-determination of Native American nations. As the Anishinaabe activist and author Winona LaDuke says, “The only compensation for land is land.”

Thank you for your leadership.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2021) The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the environment arm of the highest-profile international organization (the UN), has issued a draft report whose top finding is this: “The global goal to minimize adverse impacts of chemicals and waste by 2020 has not been achieved for pesticides and fertilizers.” Increased use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers — driven by rising demand for food, feed, fiber, fuel, and feedstock crops — is cited as causal, at least in part. Those factors no doubt contributed to the failure, but Beyond Pesticides asserts that such increased uses are symptomatic of the larger issue: in the U.S. and globally, chemical agriculture is a dangerous dead-end for public and environmental health. According to Beyond Pesticides: With this dominant system in place, “reductions” in use and impact are laudable but wholly insufficient. The whole system of petrochemical farming needs to be transitioned to organic, regenerative practices in agriculture, and in all land management. Such systems do not cause health and environmental harms, but are beneficent, viable, and profitable. The report warns that, going forward, “Business-as-usual is not an option.”

The UNEP draft report was produced just ahead of the fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5), which met virtually on February 22 and 23. The International Institute for Sustainable Development, or IISD, writes that the UNEP report “aims to improve the understanding of current practices and drivers of pesticide and fertilizer use, as well as identify knowledge gaps regarding environmental and health risks. The report addresses current management practices, legislation, and policies. It also identifies opportunities for transformative actions and enabling policies to minimize adverse environmental and health impacts.”

Background on this report includes multiple conferences, documents, and commitments that fall under the broad Agenda 21 umbrella. Pointedly, the 2012 Rio+20 conference produced an outcome document, The Future We Want, through which member states “reaffirmed their commitment to achieve, by 2020, the sound management of chemicals throughout their life cycle and of hazardous waste in ways that lead to minimization of significant adverse effects to human health and the environment.” In 2015, via Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, members “re-confirmed to ‘reduce the negative impacts of urban activities and of chemicals which are hazardous for human health and the environment, including through the environmentally sound management and safe use of chemicals.’”

The UNEP report notes the global failure to live up to these goals, given that in 2020, production and use of pesticides and fertilizers continued to increase, with combined sales growing at about 4.1% per year and projected to reach $309 billion by 2025. It also acknowledges the ubiquity of pesticides and their degradates in the global environment: “Pesticides are omnipresent in the environment, including in soils and surface and groundwater, and are frequently detected at levels that exceed legal or environmental standards.” And it nods to the myriad health harms they cause: “acute and long-term health impacts, with an estimated 385 million cases of non-fatal unintentional pesticide poisonings every year and approximately 11,000 deaths. Pesticide exposure is associated with cancers and neurological, immunological, and reproductive effects, among other health impacts.”

In addition, the UNEP notes the adverse impacts of pesticides on nontarget species, which exacerbate the biodiversity crisis — the subject of a UN 2019 report, the IPBES Global Assessment Summary for Policymakers; and the climbing rates of resistance to pesticides in organisms and weeds (as the UN has done previously), as well as fertilizers’ degradation of ecosystems, pollution of water systems from runoff, and contributions to climate change. Beyond Pesticides has reported, additionally, on the UN’s identification of pesticide use as a human rights violation.

The report recommends a series of actions, including:

• minimizing adverse environmental and health impacts generally by: incentivizing sustainable consumer purchasing and consumption; changing crop management systems to ecosystem-based ones; using economic instruments to level the playing field for sustainably manufactured products and “greener” processes; using direct financing to encourage sustainable framing; strengthening standards; and adopting policies for sustainable corporate supply chain management
• strengthening pesticide management by: strengthening regulation of pesticide distribution and use; enforcing legislation; prioritizing development of “low-risk” pesticides; cracking down on pesticide “black markets” (trading in substandard, illegal, and/or counterfeit compounds); and supporting extended product responsibility laws governing pesticide manufacturers and sellers
• beefing up management strategies for fertilizers: enacting national policies for quality fertilizer control; strengthening global policies on sustainable and safe fertilizer use; scaling up training of all relevant stakeholders in fertilizer and nutrient management; and ensuring accessibility of suitable and affordable fertilizers

The UN Environmental Assembly’s Nature for Food project asserts that humanity is at a crossroads of “human, animal, economic, and environmental health. On land and at sea our food and freshwater systems depend on natural resources, but population growth, dietary changes due to growing wealth, and agriculture-related pollution are degrading natural resources faster than they can reproduce.” With world population likely to swell to 10 billion by 2050, food demand and pressure on these resources will increase.

Thus, the draft UNEP reports asserts that, given the projected growth of markets for pesticides and fertilizers, as well as prevailing deficiencies in current management systems, adverse impacts of the use of these products will continue to increase unless “a fundamental change in the course of action takes place.” It summarizes its recommendations with this: “To achieve a chemical-safe future with minimal adverse impacts from pesticides and fertilizers, both incremental and transformative actions are required that tackle root causes and shift market demand, coupled with supportive and enabling measures. While stakeholders in the value chain and agri-food system are contributing to minimize adverse effects of pesticides and fertilizers, there is further need to scale up their commitment through targets and road maps.”

The UNEP reports cheers: “Together we can achieve a world without adverse impacts from pesticides and fertilizers by taking ambitious and urgent action. But it goes on to acknowledge reality: “Despite a suite of international agreements and management schemes, and national policies and legislation, put in place to minimize the adverse impacts of pesticides and fertilizers, their effective implementation is lacking, particularly in low and middle income countries where there are prevailing capacity gaps. The benefits of pesticides and fertilizers come at the cost of a range of adverse impacts on the environment and health throughout their life cycles. In light of these impacts, current and projected patterns of global pesticide and fertilizer use are not sustainable.”   

The recommendations of the report all sound encouraging, and may lead to some more incremental changes over the next few years, perhaps followed by more reports of failures to meet standards or, in a rosier picture, some moderate successes. Yet while forwarding concerning warnings — “the adoption of risk reduction strategies has been slow,” “ambitious collaborative action by all stakeholders is needed,” and “business as usual is not an option” — the report nevertheless appears to collude (via its legion of stakeholder recommendations that would take many years to enact fully in the best scenario) in the plodding tactics of “reducing” and “minimizing” uses of toxic chemicals in pesticides and fertilizers.

The report says the quiet part out loud when it writes, “Despite the risk assessment and management procedures in place . . . adverse environmental and health impacts occur even in the case of authorized uses [of pesticides].” The superseding realities are these: (1) pesticides are toxic and dangerous now; (2) in the world of governments, the wheels of change tend to grind very slowly; and (3) “mitigation” of harms of pesticides is a doomed-to-failure strategy.

Advocates say that there is an urgent need to stop “digging the hole” of pesticide use. They say, the notion of reducing associated risks and harms of more than 17,000 pesticide products on the market in any gradient way is an illusion — particularly because the agrochemical industry is “all in” on developing new compounds, chasing the next “fix” for what no longer works in the field.

The changes that are needed to protect human and environmental health from the endemic threats of pesticide use (and secondarily, use of synthetic, petrochemical fertilizers) must be far bolder than the mitigating (and relatively anodyne) measures the report recommends. Beyond Pesticides has written about the folly, in the U.S., of “attempts to ‘mitigate’ risks of pesticide exposure through small and piecemeal rules. Given the many thousands of chemical pesticides on the market [and] the complexity of trying to ensure “relative” safety from them . . . there is one conclusion. ‘Mitigation’ of pesticide risks is a nibble around the edges of a pervasive poison problem.” The conclusion is even more valid when the problem is considered at a global scale.

Reduction of harm is always desirable. But the solution to the gradual and inadequate “minimization of risks and harms” strategy is a wholesale transition away from the chemical “addiction” in agriculture (of which most farmers are victims more than perpetrators). In addition to being genuinely protective of human health, organic management systems support biodiversity, improve soil health, sequester carbon (which helps mitigate the climate crisis), and safeguard surface- and groundwater quality.

UNEP has elsewhere endorsed the efficacy of organic agriculture as a remedy to the variety of harms of the petrochemical-based approaches that dominate globally; see Envisioning a Chemical-Safe World, Section 3, page 39. A year ago, Beyond Pesticides covered a global survey report indicating that the growth of organically managed farmland, across 180 countries, demonstrated some headway on the necessary transition. The UN would do well to heed its own warnings, recognize the shortcomings of approaches that may reduce some harm but do nothing to supplant the problematic system, and recommend that across the globe, governments work to achieve the organic transition.

Sources: https://sdg.iisd.org/news/unep-report-identifies-top-actions-to-minimize-adverse-impacts-of-pesticides-fertilizers/ and https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34463/JSUNEPPF.pdf?sequence=3

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2021) A University of Michigan study finds a link between elevated rates of breast cancer incidents and chemical exposure from pesticides among African American women. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, causing the second most cancer-related deaths in the United States. However, breast cancer outcomes differ significantly among women of various races/ethnicities, with African American women being 40 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than women of any other race. Furthermore, incidences of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC)—an aggressive breast cancer subtype lacking remediation—is approximately three-fold higher in non-Hispanic Black women (NHBW) compared to non-Hispanic White women (NHWW). Although past studies suggest genetic and environmental factors interact to produce these differences in breast cancer outcomes, genetic factors only play a minor role while disparities (differences) in external factors (i.e., chemical exposure) may play a more notable role.

This study highlights the significance of understanding how chemical exposure drives disease outcomes and increases disease risk, especially for more virulent diseases that disproportionately (unequally) impact specific communities. Prior research infers differences in chemical exposure may explain racial disparities for several illnesses, and growing evidence suggests common chemical exposure patterns influence the risk of breast cancer. Therefore, advocates points to the need for national policies to assess exposure hazards’ involvement in disease development and diagnosis. The researchers in the study note, “[…]African American women are disproportionately exposed to chemicals with breast cancer-associated biological activity at doses relevant to human exposure. Future studies should aim to analyze pathways and genes identified as active at biologically relevant concentrations as more (EPA) ToxCast assay data becomes available. […]These experiments will help to inform whether [the] integration of exposure data from NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) with biological activity data from Toxcast is a relevant methodology to identify hazardous chemicals that may be involved in the development and prognosis of breast cancer.”

The study identifies 44 chemicals with considerable exposure inequalities, by race, that have biological activity concerning breast cancer. Aggressive cancer subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer and others—all of which African American women are more likely to die—have stem-cell-like properties that allow pesticides to dysregulate hormonal pathways. The very chemicals this study finds racial disparities in biomarker concentrations also target specific stem cell-related genes, including AHR, SOX1, GLI1, and HIF-1A, responsible for normal bodily regulation and function.

Furthermore, this research highlights the faults of environmental pesticide monitoring as it fails to account for unequal exposure and specific disease outcomes in communities of color. The study authors conclude, “Advancing methods to screen candidate chemicals for associations with specific disease outcomes is critical for prioritizing chemicals for further experimental and epidemiological investigation, as well as to design interventions in highly exposed populations.”

People of color and low-income populations are at higher exposure risk of environmental contaminants (i.e., pesticides) exposure that can catalyze adverse health and birth effects, especially in urban areas. Although Black women endure higher disease burdens than other U.S. populations, there remains a lack of research surrounding how chemical exposure may perpetuate these patterns of racial disparities in disease outcomes.

To identify chemical exposures which may cause racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes, researchers assessed chemical biomonitoring data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), an ongoing population-based health study. The data included toxicological reports of chemicals present in U.S. Non-Hispanic Black women at higher biomarker (indicators of exposure to a chemical) concentrations. Using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ToxCast assay (test), researchers measured active concentrations of these chemicals and assessed efficacy and potency effects. Lastly, researchers conducted a literature search to identify genes responsible for breast cancer development. They analyzed the biological activity (high, moderate, low) of the selected chemicals on genes at human-relevant exposure doses. 

The results of the study find 44 chemicals at considerably higher biomarker concentrations in NHBW: the fungicide thiram, pesticide metabolites (2,5-dichlorophenol, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, p,p’ DDE), chemicals in personal care products (methylparaben, propylparaben, monoethyl phthalate), and heavy metals (mercury and lead). The assay finds that active concentrations of these chemicals are comparable to biomarker concentrations in Black women. In addition to disproportionate chemical exposure among Black women, human-exposure relevant doses of all 44 chemicals have high to moderate breast cancer-associated biological activity.

The connection between pesticides and associated cancer risks is nothing new. Several studies link pesticide use and residue to various cancers, from more prevalent forms like breast cancer to rare like kidney cancer nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor). Although the link between agricultural practices and pesticide-related illnesses is stark, over 63 percent of commonly used lawn pesticides and 70 percent commonly used school pesticides have links to cancer. Past research demonstrates the mechanism by which cancer can develop after pesticides enter the bloodstream. In 2013, an experimental study showed that exposure to pesticides produces reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are highly unstable and cause potential DNA and cell damage that propagates cancer development. Additionally, pesticides can increase cancer risk through alternate mechanisms, including genotoxicity (gene damage), epigenetics (gene expression), immunotoxicity, tumors, and endocrine disruption. For breast cancer, one and ten women will receive a diagnosis, and genetics can only account for five to ten percent of cases. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmental pollution from pesticides—can drive breast cancer development. 

The connection between cancer and pesticides is of specific concern to communities of color, as etiological studies often attribute cancer to genetics or environmental contamination without considering the disproportionate risk of exposure to contaminants. Many people of color communities or members of low-socioeconomic backgrounds experience unequal amounts of chemical exposure from various sources. Placement of toxic waste plants, garbage dumps, industrial factories, farms, and other hazardous pollution sources lowers the quality of life for minority populations. Such high levels of chemical exposure can cause these communities to suffer from health outcomes that affect their ability at work and in schools. Women of color are especially vulnerable to chemical exposure as a 2020 study comparing women of different ethnicities in the U.S. finds these women have higher levels of pesticides and their metabolites, including toxic DDE and 2,4-D. The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for women’s health. Studies suggest women are more susceptible than men to certain types of cancers (i.e., breast cancer) as several pesticides produce endocrine-disrupting effects. Endocrine disruption promotes the development of hormone-related cancers that affect women more than men. 

Current pesticide laws lack adequate policies that protect workers and minority communities from pesticide exposure. Risk assessments that calculate “acceptable” risks across population groups fail to disclose the disproportionate effects pesticide use has on people of color communities. Although EPA’s Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) establishes safety standards that use a “health-based” standard for pesticide regulation, there is an inherent assumption that if a pesticide meets a highly questionable “acceptable” risk threshold, it has value or benefit. However, this flawed assumption allows the use of unnecessary toxic pesticide products without regard for either the health effects of chemical interactions or the availability of safer, non-toxic practices and products. These standards ignore the disproportionate risk, for example, to African American children whose asthmatic conditions are caused or triggered by the exact pesticide products that meet health-based standards. Furthermore, federal pesticide laws that aim to categorize disproportionate harm allows elevated risk to workers, particularly farmer and landscapers who are predominantly people of color, who experience aggregate effects of pesticide exposure from multiple sources.

EPA’s failure to address the long-standing effects of chemical exposure differences among various communities is only the tip of the iceberg. As has been previously stated: “[Beyond Pesticides] has long been critical of EPA’s risk assessment process, which fails to look at chemical mixtures—including inert ingredients—and synergistic effects in common pesticide products. Additionally, lack of awareness on specific health endpoints (such as endocrine disruption), disproportionate effects to vulnerable population groups, and regular non-compliance with product label directions hinder accurate risk assessments. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real-world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.”

The evidence, associating disproportionate chemical exposure to pesticides and cancer, in this study and others like it, highlights the need for better long-term risk assessment of pesticide use on human health, as current evaluations fail to capture chronic (long-term) risks fully.

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Much pesticide use and exposure are associated with cancer effects. Studies concerning pesticides and cancer help future epidemiological research understand the underlying mechanisms that cause cancer.

Global leaders must have a full understanding of the cause of pesticide-induced diseases before the chemicals enter the environment. Policy reform and the adoption of practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use can end the uncertainty surround harm. 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, particularly minority and underserved. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a great 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 the multiple harms pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on breast cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases.

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

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

Source: University of Michigan

(Beyond Pesticides, February 24, 2021) Soil sprayed with weedkillers glyphosate, glufosinate, or dicamba are likely to contain higher amounts of antibiotic resistant bacteria, according to research published earlier this month in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution. Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people develop an antibiotic resistant infection, and over 23,000 die. Authors of the study say widespread herbicide use is likely playing a role. “Our results suggest that the use of herbicides could indirectly drive antibiotic resistance evolution in agricultural soil microbiomes, which are repeatedly exposed to herbicides during weed control,” said Ville Friman, PhD of the University of York in the United Kingdom.

Scientists began their investigation by looking at changes to soil communities in soil microcosms over the course of a roughly two months. Microcosms were grouped by the herbicide applied, while a control microcosm remained unexposed. Each microcosm had a single herbicide applied at a rate reaching 10 parts per million (ppm) in soil. The researchers replicated each treatment 12 times.

Contrary to the pesticide industry’s claim that these chemicals break down quickly and become inert by binding to soil particles, large proportions of the herbicides remained in the soil at the end of the 60-day experiment, stemming back from the first application. For glyphosate 18% remained, glufosinate 21%, and dicamba 34%.

Although no significant changes to bacterial diversity, abundance, or richness were observed, researchers found that herbicide-exposed soils contained a greater abundance of genes associated with antibiotic resistance, as well as a higher number of mobile genetic elements. Mobile genetic elements are genetic material which can move within genomes or be transferred from one species to another.

Delving deeper to discover the mechanistic process selecting for antibiotic resistance, scientists determined that herbicide exposure triggers evolutionary pressures on bacteria similar to those exposed to antibiotics. Previous research published in mBio in 2015 found similar results. Salmonella and E.coli exposed to the herbicides glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D, triggered a non-specific defense mechanism which, while building resistance to the toxic effects of the herbicides, also resulted in resistance to commonly used antibiotics.

Looking further into the process, scientists in the present study found that bacteria in herbicide-exposed soils were likely to have damaged cell membranes and increased cell membrane permeability. This finding corresponds with a higher propensity for horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistant genes.

“Interestingly, antibiotic resistance genes were favoured at herbicide concentrations that were not lethal to bacteria,” said Dr. Friman. “This shows that already very low levels of herbicides could significantly change the genetic composition of soil bacterial populations. Such effects are currently missed by ecotoxicological risk assessments, which do not consider evolutionary consequences of prolonged chemical application at the level of microbial communities.”

After the initial application, the prevalence of antibiotic resistant genes increased steadily over the 60-day experiment. While each herbicide was found to act on different bacteria, glyphosate was found to have the largest contribution towards the development of antibiotic resistant strains.

While it is one thing to observe these changes in a laboratory setting, real world observations can help drive home the importance of these findings. Researchers thus sampled 21 sites across 11 Chinese provinces where either no herbicides had been used for 5 years, or glyphosate had been applied constantly for the last ten years. Samples matched up closely to the results of the microcosm experiment: high abundances of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements were observed and correlated positively with each other in herbicide exposed soils.

It is past time for herbicides and other agricultural pesticides to be part of the conversation around antibiotic resistance. “While antibiotic resistance genes are not harmful per se, they will reduce the efficiency of antibiotics during clinical treatments,” said Dr. Friman. “Keeping the frequency of resistance genes low will hence prolong the long-efficiency of antibiotics. As resistance genes can easily move between environments, agricultural fields could be globally important source for resistance genes”

Beyond Pesticides is challenging the registration of chemicals like glyphosate in court due to their impacts on soil, air, water, our own health and the ecosystems we depend upon. While legal battles press on, work to support an agricultural system to has eliminated the use of toxic synthetic herbicides and the myriad of problems they cause. Buy food which never allows the use of glyphosate, glufosinate, or dicamba by purchasing organic whenever possible.

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

Source: University of York, Molecular Biology and Evolution

(Beyond Pesticides, February 23, 2021) The same pesticides implicated in the worldwide decline of insect pollinators also present significant risks to their avian counterparts, hummingbirds. Well known for their nectar-fueled hovering flight powered by wings beating over 50 times per second, hummingbirds display unique reactions to toxic pesticides. Research by scientists at the University of Toronto finds that hummingbirds exposed to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides for even a short period of time can disrupt the high-powered metabolism of this important and charismatic animal.

Scientists began their experiment by trapping 23 wild ruby-throated hummingbirds and housing them in an animal care facility. One group of birds acted as a control and received no pesticide exposure, while the rest were assigned either low, middle, or high exposure (1 part per million [ppm], 2ppm, and 2.5ppm, respectively) to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. Scientists determined these amounts based upon probable nectar contamination in the real world. The pesticide was incorporated into the sugar solution provided to the birds over the course of three days.

Within two hours of exposure to the pesticides, hummingbird metabolism dropped significantly. While the control group increased energy expenditure between 1% to 7%, the low exposed group displayed a 6% average decline, the medium a 10% decline, and the high exposure group showed 25% reduced energy expenditure.

“We don’t know exactly why it goes down – whether the chemical is disrupting the metabolic processes or because they simply feel sick as a result of exposure – but they definitely show a reduced metabolic rate during the first few hours after ingesting it,” said study author Ken Welch, PhD in a press release.

Although researchers did not observe impacts to flying or feeding behavior, or other signs of neurotoxicity, hummingbird exposure to these insecticides could still have wide-ranging effects.  “We only looked at the first few hours after exposure, but theoretically there could be a long-term impact on the central nervous system,” said Dr. Welch.

Neonicotinoids act on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects. By bindings to that site, they work to essentially paralyze a target insect, impeding movement and breathing. The pesticide industry has long claimed that this mode of action is only harmful for invertebrates. However, Dr. Welch notes, “We could assume that those potential risks also exist for hummingbirds through long-term exposure. At the moment, we just don’t know. It would require more research.”

Given their high energy demands and with such razor thin margins for error, neonicotinoids may significantly damage hummingbird’s fitness in the wild. “If hummingbirds are skipping their normal foraging behaviour because of a dip in their metabolic rate, it could put them in an energy bottleneck,” Dr. Welch says. “If they’re already low on energy, and then they are exposed to this pesticide, that hummingbird may very well find itself in an energetic crisis not too long after.” 

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

While some credit is due to regulators in Canada and the European Union for following the science, tracking impacts after approval, and eventually banning most neonicotinoid use, nothing similar can be said about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency is merely proposing modest label changes that will do little to stop or reverse the damage these chemicals are causing to the natural world.

Eliminating neonicotinoid insecticides and moving toward safer, organic practices will that protect pollinators and the entire web of life on which human society depends. Learn more about the dangers pesticides pose to wildlife on Beyond Pesticides’ Wildlife webpage. Take action and tell the Biden administration and Congress to halt all new pesticide registrations until science is restored to its rightful place in EPA decision-making.

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

Source: University of Toronto, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, February 22, 2021) Congressional Rep. Joe Neguse, Rep. Alan Lowenthal and Chair of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife Rep. Jared Huffman have reintroduced their resolution (H.Res. 69: Expressing the need for the Federal Government to establish a national biodiversity strategy for protecting biodiversity for current and future) to create a national biodiversity strategy. Everywhere we turn, we see signs of ecological collapse—wildfires, the insect apocalypse, crashing populations of marine organisms, more and more species at risk, rising global temperatures, unusual weather patterns, horrific storms, and pandemics. Never was a holistic strategy on biodiversity more urgent.

Tell your U.S. Representative to cosponsor Rep. Neguse’s National Biodiversity Strategy Resolution, H.Res. 69.

The resolution calls for a natio. 69.nal commitment to addressing the biodiversity crisis by establishing a strategy to be developed through an interagency process announced by the president in an Executive Order. The strategy process will encourage agencies to identify and pursue a full range of actions within existing laws and policies and encourage consideration of new ones. It would also promote accountability and progress in addressing the biodiversity crisis through a new quadrennial assessment.

“The decline of biodiversity presents a direct threat to the security, health and well-being of our communities and our planet. Human-caused activity has led to the damage of ecosystems, the exploitation of wildlife, increased pollution and the acceleration of climate change,” said Representative Joe Neguse. “It is our hope that the Biden Administration would use our resolution as a roadmap for establishing a robust, whole-of-government approach to protect our ecosystems, our wildlife and tackle the biodiversity crisis. The United States ought to be playing a global leadership role on these issues.”

The resolution lays out a holistic national biodiversity strategy, including: 

• Setting a national goal of protecting at least 30% of United States lands and water to conserve biodiversity and address climate change by 2030; 
• Affirming the need to protect threatened, endangered, and at-risk species from further extinction; 
• Developing climate adaptation and mitigation strategies for biodiversity; 
• Joining and leading international agreements to combat climate change, such as the Paris Agreement; 
• Establishing climate corridors for conservation of species affected by climate change; 
• Rapidly building renewable energy; 
• Reviewing existing laws and programs that are relevant to addressing threats of biodiversity; 
• Advancing conservation in coordination with State and Tribal governments; 
• Incorporating indigenous knowledge; 
• Providing means to ensure equitable access to nature; and 
• Establishing regular monitoring, reporting, research and development and adequate funding for conservation efforts. 

Tell your U.S. Representative to cosponsor Rep. Neguse’s National Biodiversity Strategy Resolution, H.Res. 69.

Letter to U.S. Representative:

I am writing to urge your support for H.Res. 69: Expressing the need for the Federal Government to establish a national biodiversity strategy for protecting biodiversity for current and future, reintroduced by Rep. Joe Neguse, Rep. Alan Lowenthal and Chair of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife Jared Huffman. Everywhere we turn, we see signs of ecological collapse—wildfires, the insect apocalypse, crashing populations of marine organisms, more and more species at risk, rising global temperatures, unusual weather patterns, horrific storms, and pandemics. Never was a holistic strategy on biodiversity more urgent.

The resolution calls for a national commitment to addressing the biodiversity crisis by establishing a strategy to be developed through an interagency process announced by the president in an Executive Order. The strategy process will encourage agencies to identify and pursue a full range of actions within existing laws and policies and encourage consideration of new ones. It would also promote accountability and progress in addressing the biodiversity crisis through a new quadrennial assessment.

“The decline of biodiversity presents a direct threat to the security, health and well-being of our communities and our planet. Human-caused activity has led to the damage of ecosystems, the exploitation of wildlife, increased pollution and the acceleration of climate change,” said Congressman Joe Neguse. “It is our hope that the Biden Administration would use our resolution as a roadmap for establishing a robust, whole-of-government approach to protect our ecosystems, our wildlife and tackle the biodiversity crisis. The United States ought to be playing a global leadership role on these issues.”

The resolution lays out a holistic national biodiversity strategy, including: 

*Setting a national goal of protecting at least 30% of United States lands and water to conserve biodiversity and address climate change by 2030; 

*Affirming the need to protect threatened, endangered, and at-risk species from further extinction; 

*Developing climate adaptation and mitigation strategies for biodiversity; 

*Joining and leading international agreements to combat climate change, such as the Paris Agreement; 

*Establishing climate corridors for conservation of species affected by climate change; 

*Rapidly building renewable energy capacity; 

*Reviewing existing laws and programs that are relevant to addressing threats of biodiversity; 

*Advancing conservation in coordination with State and Tribal governments; 

*Incorporating indigenous knowledge; 

*Providing means to ensure equitable access to nature; and 

*Establishing regular monitoring, reporting, research and development and adequate funding for conservation efforts.

Please cosponsor H.Res. 69, Rep. Neguse’s national biodiversity strategy resolution.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 19, 2021) Governments and policy makers are feeling a lot of pressure to mount effective responses to the climate crisis and to extraordinary levels of pollution in our environment. Tackling any one problem without precautionary attention to potential consequences of a solution — before it is enacted — is the opposite of the holistic understandings and strategies needed to solve environmental crises. Piecemeal approaches often generate unintended consequences. To wit: Vermont Public Radio (VPR) reports on revelations from a retired state scientist, Nat Shambaugh, who finds that farmers’ efforts to reduce agricultural runoff from fields into waterbodies, by planting cover crops, has resulted in significant increases in the use of herbicides to kill off those crops. So as one kind of pollution is reduced, another has become intensified.

In Vermont and elsewhere, there has been much attention paid to nutrient pollution of waterbodies and waterways from agricultural runoff, largely because phosphorous and nitrates from fertilizers lead to contaminated drinking water, as well as to blooms of algae (some of which have their own toxic byproducts) and hypoxic dead zones in water bodies. The most notorious of these dead zones in North America are at the mouth of the Mississippi River as it empties into the Gulf of Mexico, and in Lake Okeechobee in Florida.

Beyond Pesticides has written extensively about water quality issues as they relate to pesticides, agriculture, and other land management. But less attention has been given generally to the problem of pesticide residues and metabolites in agricultural runoff, which also threaten drinking water sources, ecosystem health, and biodiversity. The report from VPR indicates that the increases in herbicide use may well be contaminating the state’s watery gem, Lake Champlain, and questions whether the state’s Agency of Agriculture is acting sufficiently on its policy to reduce pesticide use.

The Vermont official in charge of pesticide regulation has explained the idea behind this shift to chemical “no till” (cover cropping plus herbicide kill-off of that crop). As dairy farmers instituted cover cropping to reduce nutrient runoff from their silage corn fields, they would adopt genetically engineered (GE) corn seed plus the herbicide Roundup, with which the GE seed must be paired, as a “trade” of one kind of nasty chemical (atrazine) for another (glyphosate/Roundup). (Cover crops create a “canopy” of foliage that reduces the impact of rain on the surface of soil, reducing erosion and runoff, and assisting with rain’s infiltration into the soil.)

So Vermont farmers have upped their use of toxic herbicides, particularly the glyphosate-based Roundup, which has been promoted as relatively “benign” compared with the previous favorite, atrazine (a recognized carcinogen). Glyphosate is applied to the corn crop as it grows, adding the compound not only to the soil (from where it can migrate to ground or surface waters), but also, because glyphosate is a systemic herbicide, to the whole of the plant that livestock will ultimately eat. Then, farmers are using the herbicide on the same fields again to kill off cover crops once those have grown and served their purposes.

Thus, the “solutions” for reducing runoff have resulted in heightened threats to waterways and ecosystems. Glyphosate use rose from roughly 13,000 pounds annually in 2009 to nearly 30,000 in 2016; and atrazine use increased from 50,000 pounds in 2007 to nearly 80,000 in 2018. In addition, despite industry claims, glyphosate is hardly benign, and data show that atrazine is still being used widely in the state, according to data collected between 2007 and 2018.

Mr. Shambaugh used to work on water monitoring and pesticide regulation for the state Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets. He thinks that the inattention to pesticide runoff is problematic both for Vermont’s waterways and for how the state deals with pesticide use. He maintains that the state needs a monitoring system to track herbicide use, and believes the state has failed to follow its own policy of limiting overall pesticide use, pointing to the increases his report reveals. Mr. Shambaugh also cites as problematic the state agency’s permitting of corn seed coated with neonicotinoid pesticides, which are notorious for their harmful and indisriminate impacts on pollinators and other insects.

Director of the Lake Champlain Citizens Advisory Committee, Lori Fisher, said Mr. Shambaugh’s report showing increased pesticide use raises serious concerns for Lake Champlain. “Certainly those [herbicide metrics] were shocking numbers. And it was really disconcerting to see that we’re seeing an increase in pesticide [and] herbicide use.” Mr. Shambaugh points to one study of a stream in Franklin Count that drains corn fields and flows into Lake Champlain. The research showed atrazine and other pesticides — including neonicotinoids — at concentrations high enough to kill insects and plant life. “So if we’re having a potential effect on the bottom of the food chain, the insects and the plants in the water,” he said, “who knows what it’s doing to everything else?”

The Vermont farmers, wittingly or otherwise, were adopting two of the tenets of regenerative approaches to agriculture — use of cover crops, and low or no tillage. The goals of regenerative agriculture — as opposed to conventional, chemical-intensive farming, which is called “degenerative” by regenerative advocates — are to restore and enrich soils, increase biodiversity, and enhance ecosystem health. Out of those goals have arisen strategies commonly understood to be hallmarks of regenerative farming: minimal soil disturbance, use of cover crops (to avoid bare soils), crop rotation, silvopasture (integration of livestock and trees into the farmscape), use of compost and compost tea, perennial crops, and a halt to application of chemical inputs (pesticides and synthetic fertilizers). “Real” regenerative practices would not involve toxic chemicals as a means of felling cover crops, for example.

The nonprofit organization Kiss the Ground offers this primer on the basis of the regenerative approach: “The system that makes nature regenerative on land is the symbiotic relationship between photosynthesizing plants and soil microorganisms. Together they create soil and biomass. This ‘technology’ is the reason why life on Earth can restore itself when harmed or why ecosystems can regenerate. It is this process that pulls carbon from the CO₂ in the atmosphere and converts it into the building blocks of everything alive, making life, as we know it, possible.”

The concept of “regenerative agriculture” is increasingly being pointed to, among policy makers, as an important widget in the climate toolkit, which it certainly can be. But effective responses to the climate crisis will wind down, and ultimately eliminate, use of fossil fuels, either as fuels or as components of toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. As Beyond Pesticides recently wrote, “Proposals now in Congress and the administration require close attention and scrutiny” to ensure that progress on climate does not come at the cost of other fossil fuel pollution. Recent proposed policy fixes — including the Growing Climate Solutions Act in Congress, and President Biden’s Climate 21 Project — talk about the capacity of soils to sequester carbon and a variety of strategies to encourage increased carbon storage in agriculture.

But, according to the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog of February 16, neither initiative “adequately and comprehensively responds to the current and looming interconnected threats to public health and the environment. The focus on carbon to the exclusion of a holistic approach that addresses complex, life-supporting, biological communities allows the continuation of disproportionate hazards to people of color and communities living adjacent to toxic sites. The mechanisms of carbon trading or the purchasing of carbon offsets under consideration do not establish an end date for admittedly unacceptable materials and practices, nor do they ensure a transition to life-sustaining practices.”

Such proposals fail, to date, to employ an integrated, holistic, and precautionary framework for addressing the climate crisis. They do not contend with the soil health and ecosystem impacts of synthetic, high-nitrogen fertilizers (which exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions); the damage to ecosystem and soil health caused by pesticides; the toxic harms of chemical no-till practices (which rely on Roundup and other herbicides); and the fact that pesticides and fertilizers use petrochemicals that come from fossil fuels.

Absent such a framework, the rush to climate solutions that include soil as a carbon sink may well encourage chemical-intensive, no-till agriculture that uses genetically engineered crops and huge amounts of herbicides, such as glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D. This could happen despite the availability of organic farming and land management practices that eliminate these toxic compounds and exposures, and are a viable, profitable, and protective approach to food production and healthy landscapes.

Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman has said, “Strategies that allow continued use of toxic substances undermine the soil biology and biodiversity that [are] critical to healthy plants. It’s past time to talk elimination of toxic pesticides and nothing short of that.” The Rodale Institute’s chief executive officer, Jeff Moyer, addresses the “regenerative without organic” issue pithily: “We believe that in order to be regenerative, you have to start by being organic. It’s a little disingenuous to say you can regenerate soil health and sequester carbon and still use nitrogen fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. What you’re really saying is equivalent to saying, ‘I want to be healthy as a person, but I still want to smoke cigarettes.’”

Organic, regenerative agriculture can be a powerful, healthful, and profitable climate solution. But without adequate definition of “regenerative agriculture” — which would include proscription against chemical inputs — a level of “greenwashing” may be afoot as decision makers scramble to add soil’s (and crops’) carbon-holding capacity to climate mitigation approaches. Adoption of some regenerative practices, without the features of organic agriculture that are so critical to genuine soil and ecosystem health, leaves the door wide open for the kind of herbicide intensification Vermont is now experiencing. Organic agricultural practices must be part and parcel of the implementation of any regenerative approaches to farming that aim to mitigate the climate crisis.

Source: https://www.vpr.org/post/farmers-plant-cover-crops-reduce-runoff-report-says-they-also-use-more-herbicides#stream/0

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 18, 2021) New research published in the journal Toxicological Sciences finds extended inhalation of the common herbicide paraquat causes male mice to lose some sense of smell, even at low doses. This study highlights the significance of understanding how specific chemical exposure routes can influence disease development. Olfactory (relating to the sense of smell) impairment is a precursory feature of Parkinson’s disease (PD), and studies connect paraquat poisoning to PD risk. Hence, future pesticide management policies should assess specific disease risks with bodily chemical concentration from low-dose, chronic neurotoxic chemical exposure. The study’s researchers note, “These data support the importance of route of exposure in the determination of safety estimates for neurotoxic pesticides, such as [paraquat]. Accurate estimation of the relationship between exposure and internal dose is critical for risk assessment and public health protection.” Despite evidence demonstrating that olfactory  nerve cells transport toxic airborne particles and solutes to the brain upon inhalation, the possibility of olfactory impairment (damage) from paraquat inhalation lacks adequate assessment.

To assess the impact paraquat has on olfactory function, researchers exposed a cohort of adult female and male mice to paraquat aerosols in an inhalation chamber for four hours a day, five days a week, for four weeks. Researchers investigated paraquat concentrations in several brain regions (olfactory bulb, striatum, midbrain, and cerebellum), lung, and kidney—during and after exposure—using mass spectrometry. Lastly, researchers examined olfaction (sense of smell) by employing the olfactory discrimination paradigm.

The study results find paraquat inhalation causes a significant burden to all regions in the brain, with the olfactory bulb harboring the highest impact. Although paraquat concentrations are detectable in the lung (highest) and kidney (lowest) tissue, concentration levels subside to the control range within four weeks after exposure. However, olfactory impairments persist for months following the last exposure. Furthermore, paraquat inhalation induces male-specific differences in olfaction, not observable in females.

Many studies find an association between pesticide exposure and an alteration in the senses when pesticides enter the body. Research links pesticide exposure to blurred vision (vision loss), change in taste receptors (taste loss), loss of sensory reception (touch), loss of olfactory function (smell), and loss of auditory function (hearing). Although pesticides can enter the body via various exposure routes (i.e., dermal [skin]/contact absorption, inhalation of particles, ingestion of contaminants), inhalation is most daunting, offering a direct pathway to the brain. Upon inhaling a pesticide, the particles enter the nose and travel to the brain via the olfactory neurons (nerve cells) responsible for smelling. Moreover, the mouth/throat, ear, and nose connect. Therefore, pesticide particles have the potential to permeate the entire body and bloodstream and accumulate in fatty tissues, causing disease-inducing issues like oxidative stress and endocrine disruption. The lack of research on pesticide exposure through inhalation has implications for human health, especially since past studies indicate different exposure routes still result in similar disease outcomes. 

One of the most notorious pesticides associated with PD development is paraquat, indicative of PD pathology. Scientific literature comprehensively documents the neurotoxicant properties of paraquat as laboratory experiments reproduce features of Parkinson’s in the brain of animals. A preceding study finds a 2.5-fold increase in PD risk among users of paraquat in comparison to non-users. Paraquat exposure can increase the production of specific proteins in the brain that damage cells producing dopamine, causing motor problems and muscle tremors. Although many countries, including Europe and Canada, ban the use of both chemicals due to concerns about links to Parkinson’s, the U.S. merely restricts use. 

In the U.S., the agency restricts paraquat application to certified applicators, allowing chemical-use to rise over the decade, with 2018 seeing a 100 percent increase in paraquat use in wildlife refuges. Even more concerning is that some personal protection equipment (PPE) may not adequately protect certified pesticide applicators from chemical exposure during application. Moreover, paraquat drift from refuges and other pesticide-treated areas presents a risk for PD development to nearby residents. A Louisiana State University study finds that residents living adjacent to a pesticide-treated (2,4-D, paraquat, and chlorpyrifos) pasture and forest from the agriculture and timber industry have higher PD incident rates. Pesticide residues present additional residential pesticide exposure, increasing the risk for PD via ingestion of contaminated water or food. Nevertheless, both direct occupational and indirect nonoccupational exposure to pesticides, especially paraquat, can increase the risk of PD. 

This study’s results demonstrate that extensive, low-level exposure to paraquat through the nasal cavity is consistent with olfactory bulb stress that may have implications for PD risk. Furthermore, the study reveals paraquat inhalation outcomes, including a sex-specific change in the sense of smell, are consistent with the onset symptoms of PD. Prior studies indicate that a pathological (disease-causing) agent, like pesticides, may infiltrate the nervous system via the olfactory bulb, gut, or both and circulate throughout the nervous system to increase PD risk. 

Research demonstrates that numerous pesticides belonging to various pesticide classes and differing in modes of action present a risk of developing PD. Advocates say that government officials must evaluate all health effects related to chemical exposure equally regardless of chemical composition. Only a small percentage of PD incidences are genetic, and PD is quickly becoming “the world’s fastest-growing brain disease.” Therefore, research like this is vital for examining how various pesticides and their exposure routes present potential risk factors for developing diseases like Parkinson’s. Authors of the study conclude, “Inhalation of nonvolatile pesticides is understudied because people think the likelihood of inhaling them is low. However, pesticides can become airborne when sprayed, creating the opportunity for inhalation. […]From a broader perspective, we need to recognize that numerous studies have documented the presence of various pesticides in ambient air, and it is important to consider what health consequences might arise from those exposures.”

Human senses are integral to everyday human activities, and it is vital to understand how chronic pesticide exposure can limit the body’s ability to function normally. 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 nonoccupational pesticide exposure, especially in agriculture. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticides, see PIDD pages on the brain and nervous system disorders, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Furthermore, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parkinson’s Disease article from the Spring 2008 issue of Pesticides and You.

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

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

Source: National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS), Toxicological Sciences

(Beyond Pesticides, February 17, 2021) New details are emerging around the pressure campaign Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his administration withstood as the country moved towards banning Bayer/Monsanto’s glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide. According to documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request and published in the Guardian, U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) worked in coordination with Bayer/Monsanto and the agrichemical industry umbrella group Croplife America to stop the Mexican government from embracing a precautionary approach to pesticide regulation. While the Trump administration and its collaborators were successful in a similar campaign against Thailand, there are no indications that Mexico will rescind its final decision to ban glyphosate, made at the end of last year. Health and environmental advocates want the Biden administration to not only halt the regular use of the United States’ immense global power on embarrassing flacking for the agrichemical industry, but reverse course, and embrace a truly precautionary approach.

Croplife and the rest of the agrichemical industry are terrified of that outcome. In a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative, copying the heads of USDA and EPA, Croplife President Chris Novak wrote of Mexico’s decision, “These actions would establish a beachhead for the Precautionary Principle in the Western Hemisphere…”

An international gathering of scientists in 1998 produced the most often-cited definition of the Precautionary Principle:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”

Most individuals reading that statement would view it as common sense. However, the agrichemical industry, with it’s numerous activities that threaten harm to human health and the environment, sees this statement as “a policy that has wreaked havoc in Europe and global trading systems,” according to Croplife President Novak. In other words, a policy that does a good job at protecting the health and ecosystems at the expense of corporate profit.

Mexican President Obrador’s administration intends to transform the country’s food system for the better. Víctor M. Toledo, the country’s Minister of the Environment, said at the time that the decision to phase out glyphosate over the next four years was to produce food that is “safer, healthier and more respectful of the environment (más seguro, más sano y respetuoso con el medio ambiente).” In addition to exploring glyphosate alternatives, the Mexican administration indicates it will also look towards management practices employed successfully by indigenous farmers for thousands of years. To ensure a successful transition, an outreach campaign will educate the population at large about the dangers of glyphosate products.

Rather than attempt to build bridges, the agrichemical industry and its Trump administration allies worked to apply maximum pressure to Mexican officials. Glyphosate was brought up as a sticking point during negotiations over the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a major trade deal that went into effect last year. EPA Assistant Administrator Alexandra Dunn of the agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, wrote in an email to EPA staffers asking for time to “discuss if and how we could use USMCA to work through these issues,” referring to Croplife’s glyphosate letter to agencies.

A letter from the former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to the Mexican Minister of Economy fulfilled industry’s wish, and included a threat that the country’s actions around glyphosate and genetically modified crops “raise concerns with respect to Mexico’s ability to comply with its USMCA obligations…”

It is likely that Croplife sees the move towards precaution in Mexico as a broader threat to the agrichemical industry, the Guardian notes. “If Mexico extends the precautionary principle” to also include pesticide residue levels in food, “$20bn in US annual agricultural exports to Mexico will be jeopardized,” said the Croplife President.

It’s evident that what is most concerning to those overseeing the poisoning of our world is that it could end. The Mexican government’s embrace of a European-style precautionary approach could force major changes in how its North American trading partners grow food.

Although it would come with some disruptions, which would certainly be magnified by industry-funded public relations campaigns aimed at invoking fear (of events like high prices, and empty shelves — that will never come true), a transition to safer, natural and organic methods of growing food is exactly what is needed.

Join Beyond Pesticides’ campaign for the good of all people and ecosystems. Help us tell Congress and the new Biden Administration to clean up EPA and other federal agencies, and end this era of corporate deception by restoring integrity to the scientific process.

Over the last four years, in many respects the United States acted as the primary base of power for the agrichemical industry. Thus our job is exceedingly difficult, and will need extensive support and actions to achieve. Consider becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides to help fight against chemical industry influence in our regulatory process.  

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

Source: The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, February 16, 2021) The climate crisis, with unprecedented temperature shifts, storms, and wildfires, and the devastating decline in biodiversity are escalating as a result of uncontrolled and unnecessary reliance on toxic chemicals. These existential crises that threaten life, to be successfully thwarted, require a meaningful holistic strategy that commits our nation to ending our fossil fuel-based economy and use of petroleum-based materials that release harmful levels of carbon and noxious gases (including greenhouse gases/GHG) into the environment. The proposals now in Congress and the administration require close attention and scrutiny if we are to meet the urgency of the moment.

The carbon market approach embodied in the Growing Climate Solutions Act and President Biden’s Climate 21 Project does not adequately and comprehensively respond to the current and looming interconnected threats to public health and the environment. The focus on carbon to the exclusion of a holistic approach that addresses complex life-supporting biological communities allows the continuation of disproportionate hazards to people of color and communities living adjacent to toxic sites. The mechanisms of carbon trading or the purchasing of carbon offsets under consideration do not establish an end date for admittedly unacceptable materials and practices, nor do they ensure a transition to life-sustaining practices. Just as there are proposals to end production of the combustion engine and move to electric vehicles, we must demand that agriculture—across the board and on an expedited five-year schedule—shift to organic practices, whose standards are already codified in federal law. Organic production and handling practices have a proven, commercially viable, track record and both sequester carbon and eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. And, importantly, the data shows that this sector of agriculture is now operating without sacrificing productivity or profitability. The only problem: the vested economic interests in the petroleum and chemical industry are holding on to the status-quo. The good news: there are good jobs and money to be made in a green economy.

Tell your Congressional Representatives and Senators to support a holistic approach to the existential threats of the climate crisis and biodiversity collapse.

Carbon trading schemes won’t work because:

• By focusing sharply on carbon, they ignore the impact of more potent GHGs, including the nitrous oxide emitted by chemical fertilizer, which is about 300 times as potent in trapping heat as carbon dioxide.
• Carbon markets have not worked—they allow big polluters to continue business as usual by purchasing carbon credits.
• They can incentivize practices, like chemical no-till, that rely on inputs based on petroleum and that release more potent GHGs.

In addition,

• Carbon trading schemes do not address the need to protect natural land, which is even more effective in sequestering carbon.
• Carbon trading has negative impacts on communities on the frontlines of fossil fuel destruction, including indigenous communities and other people of color on the fencelines of the fossil fuel industry.

Why we need a national plan to shift to 100% organic farming. Organic land management is more effective at reducing emissions and increasing carbon sequestration. Organic farming practices have been shown to sequester carbon in the soil. There is in place a national program for certifying farms that meet organic standards. In addition, organic operations are required to “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.” 

Why undefined “regenerative” agriculture falls short. The so-called “regenerative agriculture” promoted by proposals like the Growing Climate Solutions Act and President Biden’s Climate 21 Project ignores the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health and ecosystem services caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, the adverse impact of chemical no-till practices that rely on glyphosate (Roundup) and other equally hazardous herbicides, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients and also for the heat and energy-driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception. As aptly stated by Jeff Moyer of the Rodale Institute, “We believe that in order to be regenerative, you have to start by being organic. It’s a little disingenuous to say you can regenerate soil health and sequester carbon and still use nitrogen fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. What you’re really saying is equivalent to saying, ‘I want to be healthy as a person, but I still want to smoke cigarettes.’”

Beyond farming, we need a land management plan as a part of a national plan. Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, which also reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides. Natural forests are more effective than tree plantations in sequestering carbon. Biodiversity in forest ecosystems adds to their effectiveness in sequestering carbon. In addition, biodiversity buffers against damage from climate change—for example, by protecting shorelines from storm damage. Protecting forests, mangroves, peatlands, and other natural habitats helps to store more carbon in soil and vegetation.
Preserving natural lands and transitioning farms to organic production should be the cornerstones to combating climate change. Instead of promoting carbon trading, Congress and the Biden Administration must incorporate into a holistic approach, at the very least, the provisions included in the following:

• Climate Stewardship Act of 2019, introduced in the House by then-Representative Haaland and in the Senate by Senator Booker.
• The Agriculture Resilience Act, introduced in 2020 by Representative Pingree.
• Former Senator Udall’s pledge to conserve at least 30% of U.S. land and ocean by 2030 and 50% by 2050.
• Representative Neguse’s Resolution on a National Biodiversity Strategy.
• A $30 billion fund dedicated solely to fund the transition to organic agriculture, with a goal of achieving 100% organic farms by 2026.

Tell your Congressional Representatives and Senators to support a holistic approach to the existential threats of the climate crisis and biodiversity collapse.

Letter to Congress

I am concerned that the carbon market approach embodied in the Growing Climate Solutions Act and President Biden’s Climate 21 Project does not adequately and comprehensively respond to interconnected threats to public health and the environment. The climate crisis and the devastating decline in biodiversity are escalating as a result of uncontrolled and unnecessary reliance on toxic chemicals. These threats to life require a meaningful holistic strategy to end our fossil fuel dependence and use of materials that release harmful levels of noxious gases (including greenhouse gases/GHG). The current carbon market proposals fall short.

The focus on carbon outside of a holistic approach allows continued disproportionate hazards to people of color and communities living near toxic sites. Carbon trading/offsets under consideration do not establish an end date for admittedly unacceptable practices or ensure a transition to life-sustaining practices. Alongside proposals to replace the combustion engine with electric vehicles, agriculture must—across the board and on an expedited five-year schedule—shift to organic practices. Organic practices both sequester carbon and eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Importantly, the data show that organic agriculture now operates without sacrificing productivity or profitability. While the vested economic interests in the petroleum and chemical industry cling to the status quo, there are good jobs and money to be made in a green economy.

Carbon trading schemes are flawed because they:

• Ignore the impact of more potent GHGs, including the 300 times as potent nitrous oxide emitted by chemical fertilizer.
• Allow big polluters to continue business as usual by purchasing carbon credits.
• Can incentivize practices, like chemical no-till, that rely on inputs based on petroleum, poison soil, and release more potent GHGs.
• Do not protect natural land, which is even more effective in sequestering carbon.
• Has negative impacts on communities on the frontlines of fossil fuel destruction, including indigenous communities and other people of color on the fencelines of the fossil fuel industry.

We need a national plan to shift to 100% organic farming. Organic land management is more effective at reducing emissions and sequesters carbon in the soil. There is already a national program for certifying farms that meet organic standards. Organic operations must “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.”

Undefined “regenerative” agriculture falls short by ignoring the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health and ecosystem services caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels. It is important to see through this deception.

We need a national land management plan.  Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, reducing dependence on petroleum-based pesticides, and is more effective in sequestering carbon. Biodiversity buffers against damage from climate change—for example, by protecting shorelines from storm damage.

Preserving natural lands and transitioning farms to organic production should be the cornerstones to combating climate change. Instead of promoting carbon trading, Congress and the Administration must incorporate into a holistic approach, at the very least, the provisions included in the:

• Climate Stewardship Act of 2019.
• The Agriculture Resilience Act of 2020.
• A pledge to conserve at least 30% of U.S. land and ocean by 2030 and 50% by 2050.
• The Resolution on a National Biodiversity Strategy.
• A $30 billion fund dedicated solely to fund the transition to organic agriculture, with a goal of achieving 100% organic farms by 2026.

Thank you.