(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2021) During Pollinator Week 2021 in June, U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Jim McGovern (D-MA) reintroduced the Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA) to reverse ongoing declines in wild and managed pollinators. New data released in June for 2020-21 documents the second highest honey bee losses in 15 years. SAPA uses the latest scientific research and perspectives to ensure that pollinators are protected. The bill suspends the use of neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides and other pesticides harmful to bees and other pollinators until an independent board of experts determines that they are safe to use, based on a strong scientific assessment.

Ask your elected representative in Congress to support pollinators by cosponsoring Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA). If they are already a cosponsor, use this occasion to thank them for their leadership on this critical issue.

“Without our world’s pollinators, the world would be a very different place. These bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, and other creatures are essential elements of our food system. Losing them means we risk losing the very food we put on our table,” said Rep. Blumenauer. “We must use every tool at our disposal to provide pollinators with much-needed relief from bee-toxic pesticides and monitor their populations to ensure their health and survival.”

Neonicotinoids are systemic pesticides; once applied to a seed or sprayed on a plant they make their way into the pollen, nectar and dew droplets that plants produce and pollinators feed upon. Exposure impairs pollinator navigation, foraging, and learning behavior, and also suppresses their immune system, making them more susceptible to disease and pathogens like the varroa mite.

American beekeepers have lost over 30% of their hives annually over the past decade, while wild pollinators are threatened with extinction. The iconic American Bumblebee has lost 89% of its population over the last 20 years. Populations of eastern monarchs have declined by 80% since the 1990s. This past year, citizens scientists participating in the western monarch count found a scant 2,000 butterflies—down from 1.2 million in the 1990s, 300,000 in 2016, and 30,000 in 2019. Peer-reviewed scientific studies show all of these impacts to be associated with the use of toxic pesticides.

The harmful effects of neonicotinoids and other pollinator-toxic pesticides are not siloed in the environment, however. Declines in pollinator populations work their way up and down food chains and across food webs, from the plants depending upon pollination, to the people who rely on the healthful, nutrient-dense food that pollination provides. Pollination services are valued at $125 billion globally, and pollinators are responsible for one in three bites of food, including nuts, fruits, and vegetables. Past research has found that the loss of pollination services would have a devastating impact on global nutritional health, with women and children most affected. Already in the U.S., many communities lack access to healthy fruits and vegetables –allowing the pollinator crisis to continue unabated is likely to exacerbate these problems by increasing prices on important staples.

The Saving America’s Pollinators Act will not only save America’s pollinators. SAPA will help people who depend on pollination services for healthy food. SAPA will help underserved communities by eliminating unnecessary exposure to pesticides in public green spaces. SAPA will stop the poisoning of farmworkers who work on the farms that grow the plants that bees and insects pollinate. SAPA will also protect the broader web of life that is being devastated by the use of systemic insecticides. According to the Task Force on Systemic Insecticides, consisting of 242 scientists from across the world, “The balance of evidence strongly suggests that these chemicals [neonicotinoids] are harming beneficial insects and contributing to the current massive loss of global biodiversity.”

Neonicotinoids also harm people directly when used to manage grub problems on turf, despite the availability of alternative methods.  The latest research links neonicotinoids to nervous system toxicity, reproductive damage, and birth defects. In particular, reviews have found links to birth defects of the heart and brain, and the development of finger tremors. Neonicotinoids appear to disproportionately affect the male reproductive system, and animal studies have found cause for concern – from decreased testosterone levels to abnormal and low sperm count (see NRDC for more on the harms of neonics to human health). As reported by the Black Institute, pesticides like glyphosate are disproportionately sprayed in black and brown communities, where public parks are often the only green space available for family picnics and outings.

Beneficial soil dwelling insects, benthic aquatic insects, and grain-eating vertebrates like songbirds are in danger from neonicotinoid use. Neonicotinoid concentrations detected in aquatic environments present hazards to aquatic invertebrates and the ecosystems they support. Neonics adversely affects shrimp and oyster health, decreasing their nutritional value.

There is also evidence of adverse effects harming bird populations. A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid is toxic enough to kill a songbird. Studies conducted in the wild find songbirds that feed on neonicotinoid-contaminated seeds during their migration route display reduced weigh delayed travel, and low rates of survival. The author of ”Common insecticide threatens survival of wild, migrating birds,” ecotoxicologist Chrissy Morrisey, PhD, told Environmental Health News, “Our study shows that this is bigger than the bees — birds can also be harmed by modern neonicotinoid pesticides which should worry us all.” Data from the Netherlands has shown that the most severe bird population declines occurred in those areas where neonicotinoid pollution was highest. These data are alarming in the context of reports finding three billion birds (30% total) lost since 1970 in part due to pesticide use.

SAPA will reorient pesticide regulation towards the protection of pollinators and ecosystem health–an approach that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has long failed to adequately consider.

Specifically, the Saving America’s Pollinators Act:

• Establishes a Pollinator Protection Board (PPB), consisting of scientists, beekeepers, farmers, and conservationists that have no direct or indirect ties to pesticide companies, in order to evaluate pesticides for their toxicity to pollinators and pollinator habitat;
• Cracks down on insecticides that are toxic to pollinators by canceling the registration of neonicotinoid pesticides or pesticides containing imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, acetamiprid, sulfoxaflor, flupyradifurone, or fipronil until they are properly reviewed by the Pollinator Protection Board; and
• Implements a state-of-the-art monitoring network for native bees, ensuring that experts and the general public have up-to-date information on the status of native bee populations.

The newest bill language also updates the standard to which the PPB regulates toxic pesticides, making determinations on whether the pesticide presents an unacceptable hazard, based upon the potential to cause harm, including injury, illness, or damage to honey bees, and other pollinators, or pollinator habitat. This language would set pesticide regulation more in line with the precautionary approach taken by the European Union and other international bodies.

Ask your elected representative in Congress to support pollinators by cosponsoring Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA). If they are already a cosponsor, use this occasion to thank them for their leadership on this critical issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2021) The investigative online publication The Intercept has turned its attention to the current and historical role of industry in distorting, undermining, and outright suppressing the protective function of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with regard to pesticide exposures. The subsequent reporting — “The Department of Yes: How Pesticide Companies Corrupted the EPA and Poisoned America” — is a devastating chronicle of the theme and particulars that Beyond Pesticides has covered for years. That is, that EPA has repeatedly disregarded its charge to protect human and environmental health in favor of enabling industry to continue its chemical experimentation on the populace and on the nation’s multiple natural resources. This pattern must change if the agency is to enact its mission and the public is to be protected.

The Intercept interviewed more than 24 people with expertise on the regulation of pesticides, including 14 who have worked in EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). The chief takeaway from those interviews, as written by reporter Sharon Lerner, is that EPA “is often unable to stand up to the intense pressures from powerful agrochemical companies, which spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying each year and employ many former EPA scientists once they leave the agency. The enormous corporate influence has weakened and, in some cases, shut down the meaningful regulation of pesticides in the U.S. and left the country’s residents exposed to levels of dangerous chemicals not tolerated in many other nations.”

The Intercept cites several top-level examples of EPA’s failures to protect, unearthed during the research for the article:

• waiver, at industry request, of the vast majority of toxicity tests that could yield useful information on pesticide impacts
• squelching of an internal report warning of the link between glyphosate and cancer
• refusal to investigate evidence of carcinogenicity for another ingredient in Monsanto’s glyphosate-based product, Roundup
• failure to review evidence of brain-damaging impacts of a neonicotinoid pesticide
• dismissal of scientific research demonstrating that malathion causes cancer

An especially egregious example of EPA’s abdication of its protective mission is its record on the organophosphate insecticide, chlorpyrifos. The compound acts on pests by inhibiting the function of acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme essential to normal nerve pulse transmission, by binding irreversibly to receptor sites for that enzyme. In that action, it inactivates the enzyme, damages the central and peripheral nervous systems, and disrupts neurological activity. Chlorpyrifos is associated with harmful reproductive, renal, hepatic, and endocrine disrupting effects, and most notably, with neurodevelopmental impacts, especially in children. It is a neurological toxicant that damages their brains and leads to compromised cognitive function, attention deficit disorder, developmental delays, lowered IQs, and a host of other developmental and learning anomalies.

Ms. Lerner interviewed Lianne Sheppard, PhD, a professor and biostatistician at the University of Washington who led 2020 research that investigated a 1972 study that ultimately became foundational to EPA’s approach to the notorious organophosphate. That 1972 research — by Frederick Coulston, a professor at Albany Medical College — was commissioned by Dow Chemical, the manufacturer of chlorpyrifos in the late 1960s. Dr. Sheppard attempted to reproduce the results represented by the study data, but could not.

Further investigation showed that the paper on that research — which was actually written by Dow statisticians — had left out of the data analysis critical information that caused resultant EPA safe exposure limits (“no observed adverse effect levels,” or NOELs) to be, as Beyond Pesticides wrote, “flat out wrong.” In their 2020 peer-reviewed paper, Dr. Sheppard and her co-authors concluded that “the omission of valid data without justification was a form of data falsification.” By 2020, however, massive on-the-ground damage had been done because of EPA’s adoption of the NOELs “justified” by the erroneous data in that paper. And at EPA, presumably, either no one noticed, or no one cared to do anything about it.

The Intercept article summarizes: “On one level, the story of the Coultson paper is simple: Decades ago, a seemingly small omission happened to slip past regulators. And yet the consequences of that one statistical sleight of hand, and the government’s failure to notice it, are immense. Between 1992 and 2017, chlorpyrifos was one of the most heavily used pesticides in the U.S., with some 450 million pounds of it sprayed on crops. Countless children and pregnant people were exposed to what we now know were unsafe levels. And those exposures have since been found to increase the risk of a wide range of neurodevelopmental problems in children, including ADHD and other attention disorders, autism, tremors, and intelligence deficits, as well as memory and motor problems. Although the true toll of that brain damage is incalculable, pediatrician and environmental health researcher Leonardo Trasande estimates that exposure to organophosphate pesticides, the class to which chlorpyrifos belongs, caused children born in the U.S. in a single year — 2010 — to collectively lose 1.8 million IQ points, costing the country $44.7 billion in productivity, education, and health costs.”

The Intercept article excavates the details of EPA history of dysfunction related to other dangerous pesticides, as well: glyphosate, pelargonic acid, malathion, and the neonicotinoid class of insecticides. It also calls out industry practice (and EPA’s assent) to the ongoing “substitution” of a newer pesticide or a combined protocol (using two pesticides together, mixed either in formulation or on site) to replace a problematic one.

The scientists with whom Ms. Lerner talked reported “immense pressure from within the agency to overlook the risks they found. And several said they faced retribution for calling attention to the dangers of pesticides. ‘If you bring something up that’s an inconvenient truth, you get circumvented for any kind of committee work that you would need to have to get a promotion,’ one toxicologist who used to work for the agency’s pesticide office told The Intercept. ‘It is the unwritten rule that to get promotions, all pesticides need to pass.’”

Interviewees also noted that such pressure sometimes comes from members of Congress, who contact the agency on behalf of pesticide companies whose products are in review; staff have called such cases “yes packages” — those that “must” be approved, regardless of the science that is supposed to underlie all regulatory decisions. The article cites an example of a “yes package” for a pesticide to treat a papaya virus (which was destroying the crop in Hawaii). No studies of its safety had been conducted, yet EPA managers insisted that agency scientists sign off on its approval. Said one EPA scientist interviewed, “The rest of us are sitting around thinking, ‘OK, you hire the scientists to do the work, and now you’re telling us as regulatory people to make it fit? We’re flat out telling you that’s not OK.’” The company never did submit any data, and that pesticide was approved for use.

Ms. Lerner points out that EPA showed a “promising start” after its 1970 launch. She notes, “In its first decade, the EPA canceled the registration of 12 pesticides, including DDT, aldrin, and dieldrin, which [Rachel] Carson had written about at length. In those early years, the regulatory agency had the power to inspire fear in chemical companies.” But subsequently, in the 1980s, the pace of removal of toxic pesticides from use slowed considerably, with a mere eight being canceled during that decade. From 2000 to 2010, four have been removed, and from 2010–2020, exactly one has been deregistered for use.

Since 1970, EPA has canceled only 37 of the many thousands of pesticides on the market; EPA maintains that it has cancelled 40 “pesticide products.” Those paltry numbers stack up against the 16,800 pesticide products and 1,200 active ingredients overseen by EPA. Once a leader in environmental protections, the U.S. now trails other countries with significant agricultural economies in its protections against toxic pesticides.

A 2019 study by Dr. Nathan Donley of the Center for Biological Diversity noted that, in 2016, the U.S. used more than 300 million pounds of pesticides banned by other countries — largely for environmental and health reasons. Dr. Donley told Ms. Lerner that “at least 85 pesticides banned in China, Brazil, or the European Union were still used in the U.S. in 2016, a number that has almost certainly increased since then.” EPA’s regulatory activity took a dramatic dive during the Trump administration.

The role of the pesticide industry in such EPA failings is not to be underestimated; indeed, industry was courted at EPA from 2017 through 2020. From the 1960s’ attacks on Rachel Carson for her book, Silent Spring, which called out the industry for its devastation of the natural world through its products, the agrochemical industry has engaged in aggressive and unethical behaviors to pursue its one goal, profit, at the expense of human health, ecological, and biodiversity devastation.

Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) has gussied up that goal as the “freedom to operate.” A spokesperson for Bayer responded to an inquiry from Ms. Lerner with this: “Like many companies and organizations operating in highly regulated industries, we provide information and contribute to science-based policymaking and regulatory processes. Our engagements with all those in the public sector are routine, professional, and consistent with all laws and regulations.”

But the record shows otherwise. In the past two decades, in particular, pesticide companies have exerted unrelenting pushback against almost any proposed regulatory actions, and have used a raft of unsavory tactics to do so. Among them, as the article notes, are “ghostwriting purportedly independent scientific papers, cozying up to regulators, and attempting to discredit journalists who exposed the dangers of Monsanto’s products.” Beyond Pesticides has written about these tactics in its Daily News Blog in 2017 and 2020, and in its journal, Pesticides and You, in 2018.

Monsanto/Bayer has hardly been alone in such campaigns; Dow, Corteva, Syngenta, and others participate, as well. As Charles Benbrook, PhD, a long-time agricultural economist who has investigated the pesticide industry’s “legislative/regulatory pressure activities,” notes: “The regulatory affairs staff of all of these major chemical companies have a very clear job: to propose and gain approval of registrations that expand the ways and places and times that the company’s products can be used and to keep all existing registrations fully in place and resist any changes in labels . . . that might cost them a percent or two in market share. . . . [They] constantly regurgitate their own spin on the science. And they refer to papers that they get into the journals that have been either commissioned or partially or wholly ghostwritten.”

The companies (and/or their trade associations) also court regulators directly by taking them on junkets so they can “get to know” the farms and farmers that use pesticides. One EPA scientist quoted in the article said, “It felt kind of brain-washy. By the end, I thought, ‘You really do need these chemicals, otherwise you’ll have crop failure.’” Pesticide company representatives are also apparently in the actual EPA headquarters in DC all the time, according to Ms. Lerner’s reporting.

“The representatives of the companies are usually, though not always, friendly and eager to help, according to several scientists who have worked at the agency’s pesticide office. ‘When you come into the lobby, many times there’s a chemical or ag lobbyist there. They just bop in,’ said Karen McCormack, a scientist who retired from the EPA in 2017 after working on pesticides for 40 years. ‘They want to be your friend. They always compliment you. But if you don’t do what they want, they’ll go to your boss or above your boss and say, “We can’t work with you anymore.” And you’ll be taken off the project and put on something that’s meaningless.’”

Achieving waivers of toxicity testing is another front in industry’s efforts. The article reports, “The EPA’s pesticide office granted 972 industry requests to waive toxicity tests between December 2011 and May 2018, 89 percent of all requests made. Among the tests on pesticides that were never performed were 90 percent of tests looking for developmental neurotoxicity, 92 percent of chronic cancer studies, and 97 percent of studies looking at how pesticides harm the immune system.” Allowing pesticides to come onto market without testing them for toxicities is a gross violation of EPA’s charge. But industry is all about it, and they appear to have had managers in the agency who shared their enthusiasm. Below is a 2018 email invitation to other EPA OPP managers “to celebrate what many people concerned about exposure to pesticides would consider a grim landmark: having waived 1,000 toxicity tests.”

Ms. Lerner also reports on internal agency retaliation against employees who raise concerns about EPA’s ignoring of pesticide risks, waiving testing, etc. This happens in the forms of removal from committees (or not being appointed to them despite the individual’s relevance and expertise); being passed over for promotion; being “written up” for imagined infractions, or being moved (e.g., demoted) to other positions, among others. Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Tim Whitehouse indicates that the organization has recently received multiple inquiries and reports from employees in OPP. He commented, “Current and former employees have been reaching out to us in increasing numbers and expressing concerns about the office culture at OPP and the fact that if scientists speak out about their concerns, they will not last long in that division. Morale has been bad, and it’s getting steadily worse over the years.”

Another problem in the EPA–industry landscape is the “revolving door” of personnel moving from EPA to industry and its trade groups, and vice versa, an issue that Beyond Pesticides has called out. “Since 1974, all seven of the [OPP’s] directors who continued to work after leaving the agency went on to make money from the pesticide companies they used to regulate,” reports The Intercept. Many other officials from EPA have joined the ranks in the agrochemical industry over the decades. “The problem with this continuous flow of experts from the government to pesticide companies — and sometimes back again — isn’t just that it can enable dangerous chemicals to evade regulatory scrutiny but that it also shapes the culture within the agency. ‘Management officials graduate and move to direct hires with the registrants,’” according to Bill Hirzy, a 27-year veteran of EPA. “‘So these management officials are loath to take any action that is likely to limit their post-EPA employment opportunities.’”

The article suggests that the long-standing, and unofficial but real, enmeshment between the agency and industry helps explain the persistence of poor regulatory performance across multiple federal administrations and the agendas that come with them, including the Biden administration, which has pledged to address the scientific integrity issues at EPA. Lori Ann Burd of the Center or Biological Diversity notes that she has clocked only minor differences to date in EPA’s approach to pesticides under President Joe Biden’s administration. “They’re taking a slightly different tone. But in our litigation, it’s the same brass knuckles, fight to the death over everything.”

The sheer volume of data and information with which EPA has to contend is another hurdle identified by The Intercept. Corporations are, Ms. Lerner notes, far more powerful and better resourced than the federal agency responsible for regulating them, and can easily generate and submit volumes of information that EPA does not have enough funding, and therefore, staff hours, to evaluate effectively. Ms. McCormack (the retired EPA scientist mentioned previously) commented, “There aren’t enough resources to go through all the studies. And there isn’t enough time. What happens then is that people at EPA look at what the [hired external] contractors said and decide whether to accept it or not. For the most part, they just [do].”

A further hitch in EPA functioning is the 1947 federal law, FIFRA, itself; it is the authorizing legislation for the oversight and regulation of pesticides. FIFRA (The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) was not written with health or environmental protection as its goals. It was written, according to Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, “to protect farmers and encourage pesticide companies to bring new products to the market. . . . FIFRA is encoded to approve pesticides.”

FIFRA says that EPA can refuse to register a pesticide only if the adverse effects it causes (on human health, wildlife, or the environment) outweigh the benefits its use confers (measured in terms of crop yield and quality). Ms. Lerner writes, “So even if a pesticide presents a clear danger, the agency often finds that the danger is outweighed by whatever economic advantages it offers.” EarthJustice attorney Patti Goldman said that EPA looks for ways to “balance out” risks it identifies so as to avoid having to take pesticides off the market. She says, “If EPA finds risk, it will look at benefits to growers. You get to the end, and EPA says the company is willing to use a little less, or use it a little less often, or they’ll put a little bit of a buffer around schools, or require some protective clothing, and then they’ll just say we find the risk is less than the benefits. It’s unprincipled.”

Beyond Pesticides asserts that EPA must, in evaluating the “reasonableness” of identified risks of pesticides, balance them against the risks presented by other systems. For example, it is obvious that organic farmers raise any and all of the crops in question without toxic pesticides, and therefore, this approach carries none of the identified risks of pesticide use. The serious adverse effects of a given pesticide are necessarily, then, unreasonable — unless EPA can demonstrate that the pesticide can be deployed in a way that eliminates those risks.

The chickens (of decades of toxic, poorly regulated pesticide use) have begun to come home to roost — in the form of increasing numbers and varieties of lawsuits against manufacturers from people who have been harmed. (See, for example, Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of the legion of litigation on glyphosate and dicamba.)

These serious harms have occurred through no fault of the sufferers, but via the combined effects of shameless industry practices and an EPA that is not sufficiently and appropriately resourced — culturally, managerially, statutorily, or funds-wise — to achieve its mission.

Dr. Benbrook asserts that the “inescapable problem is the financial mismatch between the underfunded government agency and the immense corporations that continue to outfox, outmaneuver, and vastly outspend it. How can EPA fight these major chemical companies when they are willing to spend an amount of money that is roughly equivalent to the entire Office of Pesticide Programs annual budget to defend just one chemical?”

One solution is for EPA to recalibrate itself in alignment with a precautionary approach, and to move aggressively and authoritatively on its protective mission. Others are: Congressional funding of the agency at levels required to perform well; amendment of FIFRA; and EPA Office of the Inspector General and Congressional crackdowns on the ability of industry to interact with the agency, and on the ability of the revolving door to continue to operate. The public can pressure elected officials to take up such measures; find your Senator and Representatives here.

Source: https://theintercept.com/2021/06/30/epa-pesticides-exposure-opp/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 08, 2021) A Portland State University (PSU) study finds oysters of varying distances from wastewater discharge pipes along the Oregon and Washington state coast contain low levels of chemical contaminants. Although wastewater treatment facilities clean water draining from sinks and toilets, the process does not adequately remove all contaminants. The process can leave behind pharmaceutical drugs and personal care products (e. g., shampoos, make-up, deodorant) residues in treated water. PSU has already found that pesticides from the forestry industry threaten clams, mussels, oysters (bivalves) along the Oregon coast. Marine ecosystem pollution is difficult to track and measure, and pesticide regulations can invoke variations in water quality requirements through discrepancies in buffer zones and application concentrations. The combined presence of pesticides, medicine, and personal care products in aquatic environments has direct implications for species and ecosystem health and indirect consequences for human well-being. Therefore, studies like this can help government and health officials develop strategies to reduce the number of chemicals entering aquatic ecosystems, with researchers noting officials can “better understand whether contaminant exposure affects oyster condition.”

Researchers wanted to evaluate how proximity to wastewater facilities affects variations in aquatic pollution. Thus, scientists transplanted one-week-old Pacific oysters along the Oregon and Washington coastline, placing oysters near wastewater facilities (unapproved for oyster growing) and oyster aquaculture sites (approved for growing oysters). The researchers collected and analyzed contaminant uptake and oyster condition nine- and 12-months following transplantation.

Spring-time oyster samples, nearest wastewater sites, contain two pharmaceuticals: miconazole (a common antifungal medication) and virginiamycin (a common-use veterinary antibiotic medication). Additionally, researchers find four alkylphenols compounds (industrial chemicals used to make detergents, cleaner, and pesticide products) present in summertime oyster samples at both aquaculture and wastewater sites: 4-nonylphenol (NP), 4-tert-octylphenol (OP), and 4-nonylphenol mono- (NP1EO) and diethoxylates (NP2EO). Although chemical detection frequency is highest in oysters near wastewater facilities, contaminant concentration remains the same across all sample sites. Even in areas where shellfish populations are scarce, oysters still experience chemical exposure from wastewater contaminant uptake. Proximity to wastewater sites determines overall oyster health/condition, as oysters near aquaculture sites have better health conditions.

Chemical contamination is widespread in U.S. rivers and streams, with at least five or more different pesticides present 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 and other chemicals enter rivers and streams from agricultural (i.e., crop care, livestock) and nonagricultural sources (i.e., wastewater discharge, landfills). These chemicals contaminate essential aquatic ecosystems, such as watersheds consisting of surface water (e.g., lakes, streams, reservoirs, and wetlands) and groundwater. Although communities around the nation are required to treat their wastewater under the Clean Water Act, the wastewater treatment process does not remove all chemical contaminants, even during high-level treatment processes. The ubiquity of certain compounds makes it difficult to extract all pollutants from the water, which can persist in the water for long periods. Often, wastewater facilities will discharge this “clean” wastewater into nearby water sources. However, the combined impact of contaminated wastewater and chemicals already in waterways has detrimental impacts on aquatic ecosystem health. Moreover, some compounds work synergistically (together) 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, while being highly toxic to aquatic species. 

Wastewater has long been a source of exposure to pesticides, industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and household chemicals. Attempts to reduce wastewater discharge include recycling water for agricultural irrigation. However, similar to discharged wastewater, recycled wastewater presents a risk to human health and the environment from contaminants. Many states use treated wastewater from human sources (e.g., toilets, sinks, baths) or industrial activity (e.g., fracking) to irrigate organic and non-organic crops, compensating for excessive water use. Even if treated produced water bypasses agriculture use, oil and gas companies dispose of produced water in waterways or ground pits (wastewater disposal wells).

Although this study finds that chemical concentrations present in oysters remain under federally established guidelines, aquatic environments continuously encounter environmental pollutants and toxic compounds. These contaminants are known to have harmful biological consequences on both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. The report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” finds that the combination of nonpoint 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. Bivalves like oysters are excellent indicator species, signaling environmental contamination through their sedimentary, filter-feeding diet. However, continuous pesticide inputs into waterways along Oregon and Washington’s coastal zone endanger these species in downstream rivers and estuaries (river mouths). The use of pharmaceuticals, like antibiotics and antifungals treatments, and pesticides in local marine ecosystems (e.g., insecticides to control sea lice in farmed salmon) results in coastal habitat loss and genetic health risks like pest resistance among wild marine organisms. The four alkylphenols compounds within the study, for example, are present in items of everyday use: detergents, cosmetics, soaps, and cleaners, as well as forestry pesticides, which already pose a threat to coastal shellfish health. Furthermore, chemical bioaccumulation can increase exposure levels as some contaminant compounds have a higher tendency to accumulate in plants. These residues can impact vulnerable populations like pregnant women or developing children. 

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 results in changes in marine and terrestrial ecosystem function and reduces ecosystem services. The study determines that oyster condition—although better—has the most variation at non-wastewater sites. The difference in oyster conditions indicates the need to understand the role that the ecosystem plays in the irregular distribution of chemical pollutant exposure. Therefore, this study highlights the need to identify nonpoint pollution sources readily contaminating aquatic ecosystems to establish regulations that mitigate adverse effects. The study researchers conclude, “We recommend that future studies expanding on this work use oysters as bioindicators but increase replication at the site level, measure additional environmental covariates to characterize the role of environmental variability in PPCP [pharmaceutical and personal care products] occurrence and oyster health, include measurements at multiple biological levels, and analyze multiple matrices (tissue, water, sediment) for more analytes.”

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. 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.”

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for healthier and more environmentally friendly pest management practices to protect the environment and wildlife, particularly water resources. 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 federal regulation that considers potential synergistic and additive threats to ecosystems and organisms from admixtures of pesticides.

Replacing pesticides with organic regenerative systems conserves water, nurtures soil fertility, reduces surface runoff and erosion, and reduces the need for nutrient input (i.e., fertilizers). Most critically, organic systems 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.

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

Source: Science Daily/PSU, Marine Pollution Bulletin

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2021) Organic food consumption among children is associated with higher scores on tests measuring fluid intelligence and working memory, research published in the journal Environmental Pollution finds. The study, conducted by Spanish researchers based at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, took an exposome approach to environmental exposures, looking at a totality of all environmental hazards that children encounter, rather than investigating individual lifestyle factors one by one. As study co-author Jordi Júlvez, PhD, notes, “healthy diets, including organic diets, are richer than fast food diets in nutrients necessary for the brain, such as fatty acids, vitamins and antioxidants, which together may enhance cognitive function in childhood.”

Researchers began their study by selecting mother-child pairs enrolled in the Human Early-Life Exposome (HELIX) Project, a pan-European study with projects in multiple European countries. Nearly 1,300 healthy children aged 6-11 were included in the study, as researchers already had pregnancy data and urine samples stored on the participants. To determine other environmental exposures, home addresses were evaluated for their level of pollution and proximity to natural spaces, and children and their mothers were given tests that included a questionnaire on lifestyle factors, including parents smoking and alcohol use, the indoor environment, the child’s diet, physical activity, and other habits. Both computer and clinical tests were conducted to determine fluid intelligence, attention function, and working memory, scored together as cognition. 

Researchers found that children who ate organic food displayed higher scores measuring fluid intelligence and working memory. Lower scores on fluid intelligence tests were associated with children’s fast food intake, house crowding, and exposure to tobacco smoke. Lower scores on working memory tests were associated with exposure to poor indoor air quality.

These results, while interesting, will require further research to clear up other confounding findings from the study. Researchers unexpectedly found that higher exposure to mercury during pregnancy, maternal alcohol exposure, and exposure to a PFAS substance corresponded with better cognitive performance. While increased exposure to green spaces during pregnancy was associated with lower cognitive performance. Scientists indicate these are “unexpected associations” that could be “due to confounding and reverse causality.”

Study authors also note that broader, socio-economic factors may play into the results. In regards to house crowding, Dr. Júlvez explains that “the number of people living together in a home is often an indicator of the family’s economic status, and that contexts of poverty favour less healthy lifestyles, which in turn may affect children’s cognitive test scores.” Likewise, the result associating organic food consumption with higher rates of cognition could be indicative of socio-economic status as opposed to specific food consumption. Organic foods are becoming increasingly affordable, but many families in Europe and the United States are often torn between providing healthy organic foods for their children and paying for other necessities.

Prior research, however, helps fill in research gaps from the present study. Multiple studies have found that eating a conventional diet will increase the presence of pesticides and their metabolites in an individual’s urine, including higher pesticide body burden from eating conventional foods. In fact, because of their smaller size, children carry higher levels of glyphosate and other toxic pesticides in their body. Coupled with this research are multiple studies showing that many common pesticides result in developmental problems in children. Most recently, a 2019 Danish study found that higher concentrations of pyrethroid insecticides corresponded to higher rates of ADHD in children. There is also strong evidence that organophosphate insecticides, still widely used on fruits and vegetables in the United States, are dropping children’s IQs on a national and global scale, costing billions to the economy in the form of lost brain power.

Switching from a conventional to organic diet will drastically reduce the levels of pesticide in one’s body, with one week on organic food showing a 70% reduction in glyphosate in the body, according to one study. Socio-economic factors play a large role in access to heathy organic foods, and the ability to provide the sort of environment that allows a child’s brain to flourish. Pitting access and cost against the long-term success of a child’s development puts many parents in an untenable position. While a single study’s results can be interpreted in many ways, the preponderance of evidence points to organic food providing the nutrition needed to give young minds the start they need in life. But eating organic should not be a choice to make – all food should be grown with high quality standards that reject the use of brain-damaging pesticides and protect the wider environment. Join Beyond Pesticides as the organization continues to push for that reality.

For more information on determining when to eat organic vs chemically grown food, see Beyond Pesticides article on The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food.

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

Source: Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Environmental Pollution  

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2021) ACT NOW: Public Comment Period Ends July 12, 11:59pm (eastern). A new proposed rule on the “origin of livestock” is intended to undo nearly two decades of regulatory failure by the USDA. Organic dairy producers have suffered economic harm and many organic milk consumers have been drinking substandard milk, while the National Organic Program (NOP) failed to promulgate a Final Rule on the issue of transitioning non-organically certified dairy bovine animals to organic production. The public comment period on this rule closes on July 12, 2021 at 11:59pm (eastern).

We all have a stake in growing the organic marketplace by supporting the transition from conventional chemical-intensive practices to clearly defined sustainable and regenerative practices that support family farmers and a production system that confronts the climate crisis, biodiversity decline, and rising public health threats. We do this by supporting transition and then continually improving standards to ensure a robust and healthful organic sector. The issues challenging organic dairy production are a part of the continuous efforts of Beyond Pesticides to ensure organic integrity, while growing the organic market.

Tell NOP to adopt an origin of livestock rule that protects dairy farmers and consumers. 

When the organic rules were first issued, there were no organic animals, so there had to be a way for organic dairies to get started. The National Organic Program (NOP) made an allowance for farmers to convert, over a year with organic management, a distinct conventional herd to organic milk production. This enables farmers to get started in organic dairy by converting from their existing herds. However, over the years some operations, principally large dairies, have used a lack of specificity in the rule to continually bring transitioned conventional animals onto their farms as replacement animals or for expansion. This undercuts dairy farmers who operate with integrity, raising their baby calves from birth organically, and threatens consumers who depend on the wholesomeness of organic milk. 

For nearly two decades, organic dairy producers have suffered economic harm and the NOP organic seal has had its integrity questioned by certifiers, consumers, and Inspectors General as the agency has failed to adopt a Final Rule on the issue of transitioning non-organically certified dairy bovine animals to organic production. As the organic dairy industry has grown, the inconsistency of implementing this exception has increased, and compromise solutions to passing a Final Rule with the support of the organic community have found greater acceptance. There is only one way to close all the loopholes—by prohibiting organic certification of conventional livestock.

We need a Final Rule on the origin of livestock and we need it now. At the beginning of the organic dairy movement, one of the big drivers was economic justice for farmers. We have lost thousands of farmers since then. Organic production was a viable alternative for family-scale producers and it has worked. However, much of the growth in the industry has been usurped by industrial scale operations gaming the system. If it wasn’t for the factory farms there could have been thousands of additional dairies saved and converted to organic. After so many years of failing to adopt this “origin of livestock” rule, NOP needs to hear from all of us who want the best organic milk possible. In doing this, we support small and medium-sized organic dairies, which are most affected by the current state of affairs.

How to Submit Comments

Please feel free to use (copy and paste) Beyond Pesticides’ suggested comments to USDA, asking that the agency adopt a Final Rule on the origin of livestock that modernizes the organic dairy industry to protect small and medium sized dairies and consumers. You may copy and paste the following suggested comments or utilize our more detailed comments to USDA.   

Suggested comments to USDA on origin of organic livestock: (copy and paste)

We need a Final Rule on the origin of organic livestock and we need it now. At the beginning of the organic dairy movement, one of the big drivers was economic justice for farmers. We have lost thousands of farmers since then. Organic production was intended as an alternative for family-scale producers and it has worked. However, much of the growth in the industry has been usurped by industrial scale operations gaming the system. If it wasn’t for the factory farms there could have been thousands of additional dairies saved and converted to organic. The resulting psychological damage to families in rural communities is almost incalculable.

In order to protect the integrity of USDA organic certification and establish a level playing field for a thriving organic dairy market, the Final Rule must:

• Prohibit organic dairy operations from acquiring transitioned animals to expand or replace animals in the organic dairy herd. USDA should prohibit the sales of transitioned animals as certified organic.
• Limit the movement of transitioned animals has economic benefits. Start-up operations should buy organically certified cows. Increased demand for animals raised as organic will create a thriving market for organic replacement animals. This will allow small-to-mid-size organic dairy operations to diversify into breeding replacements whose price will reflect the true cost of organic dairy at their scale of production. 
• Clarify that a “responsibly connected” person who transitions a herd is bound by the same limit as the operation they are connected to. The intent of the rule can be most effectively accomplished by tying the transition to the responsibly connected person(s).
• Be implemented as soon as it is finalized with transitions already in process completed within 12 months. All requirements of the rule should be implemented immediately upon publication of the Final Rule, with the only exception being those dairies that have already started their transition and were already approved by a certifying agent.
• Allow one 12-month transition, and one transition only, per responsibly connected person, with no exceptions. This will prevent the rule from being abused.

Thank you for your consideration.

How to Submit a Comment to USDA Via Regulations.gov

Commenting on this proposed rule requires submitting comments through Regulations.gov. Although it takes more than a single click, submitting comments is easy by following these easy steps.

1. Follow this link to the comment page at Regulations.gov. Click the button “Submit a Formal Comment.” 
2. In the comment section, insert your comments—write your own or you can copy and paste the suggested comments above.
3. Fill in your email address. It will not be posted online.
4. You may want to add a comment about why organic milk and fairness in organic dairy is important to you.
5. Sign your name if you want.
6. Check the box confirming that you know you are submitting comments to a public docket.
7. Press the “Submit Comment” button.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2021) The second highest bee loss in 15 years has reported by the Bee Informed Partnership (BIP) in its 2020–2021 National Colony Loss and Management Survey, released on June 30. For the “winter” period of October 1, 2020 through April 1, 2021, approximately 32% of managed bee colonies in the U.S. were lost. This represents an increase of 9.6% over the prior year’s winter loss and is roughly 4% higher than the previous 14-year average rate of loss. For all of the past year (April 1, 2020 to April 1, 2021) the colony loss was 45.5%. Beyond Pesticides has covered the related issues of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the ongoing and devastating impacts of pesticides on bees and other pollinators, and the larger context of what some have called the “insect apocalypse.” These recent BIP data appear to indicate that “we,” writ large, are failing to remedy these problems.

Three out of four food crops globally depend on pollinators, at least in part. Commercially kept bees account for a significant portion of pollination of some U.S. crops; almonds are the leading crop, followed by apples and melons. The commercial bee business is huge — a $691 million dollar industry operating across nearly 12,000 managed crop pollination businesses. Farm Progress writes, “Crops that need pollination in the U.S. are valued at about $81.5 billion. . . . Honey bee pollination contributes 23 percent of that value.”

The BIP research methodology divides the honey bee industry (which does not include wild bees) into three types: backyard beekeepers (with fewer than 50 colonies), “sideliners” (with 51–500 colonies), and commercial (with more than 500 colonies). The report indicates that backyard and sideliner beekeeping enterprises suffer lower losses during the summer period than during the succeeding winter term, whereas commercial keepers’ losses are similar year-round. Whereas backyard beekeepers’ data were logged in the one state in which they are located, the data for sideliner and commercial keepers’ loss rates were integrated into that of each state to which they moved their hives.

It turns out that winter loss rates vary considerably across states. For winter 2020–2021, those rates varied from a low of 21.7% in New Mexico to 58.5% in Michigan. Seventeen states had loss rates above 40%. The number of beekeepers included from each state varied widely, as well, from a mere seven in Louisiana and Mississippi to 570 in Pennsylvania. The actual number of colonies registered in the study ranged from 100 in New Mexico to 169,011 in California.

Many scientists think that such intensive losses as the BIP survey and report document may be due to multiple factors, including pesticide use, pathogens such as the varroa mite and others, reduced foraging habitat because of human infrastructure development, and (for managed hives) stress related to repeated relocations for crop pollination. As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explains, Colony Collapse Disorder — which began to be recognized in the early 2000s and was named in 2006 — typically manifests as the death and/or disappearance of most of the workers bees from a hive, leaving behind “a queen, plenty of food, and a few nurse bees to care [inadequately] for the remaining immature bees and the queen.” Because the worker bees are responsible for providing the requisite nectar to the queen bee (to nurse baby bees), ultimately the entire colony collapses.

In contrast to the agrochemical industry’s emphasis on pathogens as the chief cause, Beyond Pesticides has reported on research that counters such claims. In 2019, it wrote about Canadian research that found that “real life” exposures to neonicotinoid insecticides (neonics) impair honey bees’ ability to groom harmful mites from their bodies, thus allowing mite populations to thrive. In addition, Beyond Pesticides has discussed the coincidence, during the early 2000s, of the emergence of CCD and severe colony losses with the spike in use of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly delivered as seed coatings. In 2014, a study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health showed that two neonics — imidacloprid and clothianidin — significantly harm honey bee colonies during winters. In addition to exposures to agricultural pesticides through their foraging activities, bees are also exposed to miticides used by beekeepers in attempts to control mite populations in hives.

The continuing losses the BIP report chronicles happen in a wider context of plummeting insect populations, which bodes poorly for biodiversity, ecosystems, and food chains. Wild and managed bee populations, as well as other types of pollinators, are threatened by profligate pesticide use, as Beyond Pesticides reported in 2020. Research has shown that impacts include limited crop yields, adding economic impacts to the list of downsides.

The Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective webpage, “What the Science Shows,” notes: “Multiple studies have confirmed that the levels of neonicotinoid pesticides that bees encounter in the environment are toxic enough to impair foraging, navigational, and learning behaviors, as well as [to] suppress immune responses. These individual impacts are compounded at the level of social colonies, weakening collective resistance to common parasites, pathogens other pesticides, and thus leading to colony losses and mass population declines.”

The science accumulated over the last decade and a half demonstrates that neonics, and the multitude of pollinator-toxic pesticides, are critical factors in the cause of pollinator declines. Yet pesticide use represents one of the most straightforward and addressable of the causes of colony losses, as compared with the multiple other and daunting contributory problems, such as habitat fracturing and destruction, and climate change. However, EPA has moved glacially in any regulatory response to pesticides’ role in the extreme pollinator loss of the past decade-plus.

In 2016 and 2017, EPA issued reports on inadequate risk assessments it conducted on four bee-toxic neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, and clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, respectively). Despite identifying significant risks to bees from agricultural applications (foliar, soil, and seed) of these compounds (including from drift), the resulting proposed regulation of neonics was anemic, at best. Rather than genuinely protective proscriptions, EPA focused on reducing impacts of the regulations on growers and enabling their continued use of these toxic pesticides by providing numerous exceptions to compliance.

U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon has repeatedly filed a bill to protect pollinators — dubbed the “Saving America’s Pollinators Act.” In the last (116^th) session of Congress, HR 1337 was never brought to a vote. He refiled it in the (current) 117^th Congressional Session on June 23; until it acquires a shorter name, it is titled “HR 4079: To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to take certain actions related to pesticides that may affect pollinators, and for other purposes.” Beyond Pesticides encourages members of the public to contact their elected U.S. Representatives to voice strong support for this bill.

Individuals can take other action to mitigate bee and pollinator losses, including: (1) never using pesticides, (2) providing, in their yards and gardens, native plants that can increase food sources available to pollinators, and (3) buying and eating organic (and as locally as possible). For more on these and other actions, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on protecting honey bees and wild pollinators.

Source: https://beeinformed.org/2021/06/21/united-states-honey-bee-colony-losses-2020-2021-preliminary-results/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2021) Yellow fever mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti) are evolving resistance to the pyrethroid insecticide permethrin, according to a study published by Colorado State University, highlighting the need to adopt ecologically-based mosquito management. Widespread, intensive use of the pesticide in mosquito control has allowed genetic mutations to persist among these mosquito populations, causing subsequent resistance to permethrin. Pyrethroids are one of the few remaining classes of insecticides available to control yellow fever mosquitos, and resistance threatens the ability to prevent disease outbreaks with chemical-intensive methods. Yellow fever mosquitoes are a vector for numerous untreatable diseases in humans, including dengue, chikungunya fever, and Zika viruses. Hence, this study highlights the significance of addressing pest resistance to pesticide control, particularly to mitigate disease exposure and effects. The researchers note, “This knowledge can help scientists understand how mosquitoes have evolved resistance and when a population can no longer be controlled with permethrin. This understanding will be necessary to develop tools to support future insecticide management strategies.”

Researchers sequenced the genome of resistant and knockdown (either recovered or dead) mosquitoes after permethrin exposure using a bottle bioassay. The aim was to identify genomic variants/biomarkers associated with specific resistance mechanisms. Two common pyrethroid resistance mechanisms occur among yellow fever mosquitoes: knockdown resistance involving “amino acid substitutions at the pyrethroid target site—the voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC); [and] enhanced metabolism by detoxification enzymes.” Whether a mosquito displays a resistance or knockdown response to insecticide exposure depends on pyrethroid concentration and genetic background.

The results identify a significant association between pyrethroid resistance and thousands of different single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) mutations in VGSC. SNPs are variations in genetic sequences (a point mutation) responsible for producing different alleles or gene variants. SNPs in the VGCC and GABA receptor genes have associations with mosquito recovery after knockdown exposure. Furthermore, the study finds a moderate association between resistance and recovery among mosquitoes with mutations in detoxification and cuticle protein genes.

Insecticide resistance has been an issue since the introduction of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) in the 1940s. In 1972, the U.S. banned the compound as it is highly persistent and harmful to the environment and natural resources. Furthermore, the chemical compound is known to accumulate in fatty human and animal tissue. Exposure to DDT and its breakdown products has links to reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. Although DDT is no longer manufactured or used in much of the world, its use continues in 19 countries (including China—the primary manufacturer), mainly for mosquito control. In West Africa, DDT resistance was widespread in 53 percent of the territory during 2005 and expanded to 97 percent of the area by 2017. In 2018, Beyond Pesticides reported that “Rampant overuse [of DDT], both to control disease vectors and in agriculture, resulted in the development of significant resistance to the compound. Today, DDT resistance is widespread in Anopheles mosquitoes.” In 2017, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) noted, “Of the 73 countries that provided monitoring data to WHO [the United Nations World Health Organization] from 2010 onward, 60 countries reported insect resistance to at least one insecticide and 50 reported resistance to 2 or more insecticides. This highlights the problem of relying on insecticide-based strategies for vector control. […] Ultimately, disease vectors and parasites develop resistance to the insecticide, and it becomes almost ineffective in the long run.”

With a DDT ban in most countries, the compound is not the only chemical pesticide promoting resistance as several current-use insecticides pose the same threat. Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to synthetic pyrethroids, in addition to other classes of insecticides, such as carbamates and organophosphates. For example, in 2005, mean mortality to deltamethrin was below the WHO (World Health Organization) threshold for confirmed resistance across 15 percent of West Africa; by 2017, that figure rose to 98 percent. East Africa has seen a real, though somewhat less dramatic, increase in resistance to pyrethroids, with an analogous rise in the spread during the same period from 9% to 45% of the region. Therefore, the development of mosquito resistance to these insecticides means that existing mosquito control programs are becoming far less effective.

Development of resistance is an entirely normal, adaptive phenomenon: organisms evolve, “exploiting” beneficial genetic mutations that give them a survival advantage. However, resistance is growing in all sectors of pest control, including critically needed agriculture and medicine. For nearly a century, the human response to resistance is the development of a compound that kills the resistant organism (whether pest or weed or bacterium or fungus), which works for a while. However, the dependence on chemical solutions is increasingly failing. Whether it is antibiotics for bacterial infections, herbicides for weeds/pests, or insecticides to mitigate vector-borne diseases, organisms are becoming resistant to usually toxic compounds. Once an organism inevitably becomes resistant to a particular chemical control, people — the chemical industry, researchers, applicators, farmers, public health workers, clinicians, et al. — will have typically moved on to the subsequent chemical “solution.” PANNA notes, “The World Health Organization underscored the problem in their 2012 guidance on policymaking for Integrated Vector Management (IVM): ‘Resistance to insecticides is an increasing problem in vector control because of the reliance on chemical control and expanding operations…Furthermore, the chemical insecticides used can have adverse effects on health and the environment.’”

Beyond Pesticides has written extensively on the issue of resistance, particularly the relationship to the use of agricultural and other land-management pesticides, with the central message: resistance is a symptom of the ineffectiveness of chemical-intensive agriculture and leads to increased use of more and more toxic pesticides. In addition, resistance in one of the “sectors” mentioned above can “crossover” to become problematic in another. Agricultural and veterinary uses of antibiotics significantly contribute to the resistance of certain bacteria or fungi to antibiotics that have historically knocked down such infections in humans. Examples include familiar drug names: penicillin, vancomycin, azithromycin, and fluconazole — all of which have become less and less effective as pathogens have developed resistance to them. Furthermore, health officials warn that continuous use of agroindustry-dominant glyphosate will perpetuate antibiotic resistance. Bayer/Monsanto patents glyphosate as an antibiotic since exposure hinders enzymatic pathways in many bacteria and parasites, serving as an antimicrobial. However, glyphosate kills bacterial species beneficial to humans and incorporated in probiotics yet allows harmful bacteria to persist, leading to resistance. This increase in resistance is evident among crops genetically engineered (GE) to be herbicide-tolerant, including glyphosate-tolerant GE seeds. Although one purpose of GE crops is to reduce pesticide use, an increase in resistance can result in additional pesticide use to compensate. 

Overall, the results demonstrate genetic changes result in the development of two types of pyrethroid resistance: VGSC and detoxification metabolism. Researchers suggest mosquitos that recovery from the initial insecticide knockdown contribute to resistance in the field. Sublethal exposure may be responsible for the mosquito’s ability to recover. Rather than dying from dehydration and predation, recovery mechanisms allow mosquitoes to develop resistance over time. This study enables researchers to fully understand the genetic differences among mosquitos who exhibit resistance and those who recover or die. Knowing the role genes play in pesticide metabolism can help researchers fully understand how resistance evolves under field-realistic conditions.

Growing pesticide resistance often leads to an increase in chemical inputs to control pests. Exposure to permethrin already has implications for human health, including cancer, endocrine (hormone) disruption, reproductive dysfunction, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage. Mosquito resistance can augment the use of chemical control methods, including the addition of toxic synergists like piperonyl butoxide (PBO), known to cause and exacerbate adverse health effects from exposure. Therefore, researchers need to understand the mechanisms prompting pesticide resistance among mosquito populations to safeguard human health from disease lacking effective treatment and vaccines.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for alternatives to chemical approaches. The most successful mosquito control programs combine various strategies with community education and require government commitment and political will. For example, Vietnam reduced malaria deaths by 97% and malaria cases by 59% when it switched in 1991 from malaria eradication attempts using DDT to a DDT-free malaria control program. Additionally, a program in central Kenya involves using livestock as bait, introducing biological controls, and distributing mosquito nets in affected areas. Beyond Pesticides maintains that management strategies to combat insect-borne diseases cannot be successful if they are chemical-intensive. These strategies ignore the underlying conditions that exacerbate the spread of the disease. 

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, has noted, “We should be advocating for a just world where we no longer treat poverty and development with poisonous band-aids but join together to address the root causes of insect-borne disease because the chemical-dependent alternatives are ultimately deadly for everyone.” He also said, “We should focus on the deplorable living conditions and inequitable distribution of wealth and resources worldwide that give rise to squalor, inhumane living conditions, and the poor state of development that, together, breed insect-borne diseases like malaria.”

Even if yellow fever, dengue, and chikungunya, are not a local concern, there remains general concern surrounding the diseases mosquitoes can transmit, including West Nile virus and Zika. Beyond Pesticides provides valuable information on mosquito management and insect-borne diseases on the Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases section devoted to these issues. Furthermore, keep up on pesticide-related science and news, including mosquitos and pesticide resistance on Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News blog.

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

Source: Science Daily, PLOS Genetics

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2021) Vineyard farmers who spend more money on pesticide use are more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, according to research published by French scientists in the journal Environmental Research. With Parkinson’s disease on the rise around the world, and emerging evidence growing for a Parkinson’s pandemic, it is critically important to suss out the factors at play. And as pesticides continue to appear as a driving force for this deadly chronic disease, it is increasingly necessary to pressure regulators to restrict use of these hazardous substances in chemical farming operations.

Researchers used a French National Health Insurance Database to identify incidents of Parkinson’s disease in farmers from 2010-2015. These data were then matched with pesticide expenditures recorded from over 3,500 French farming regions, taken around the year 2000. Models were adjusted for a range of health factors, including smoking, age, and sex.

Results show that accounts of Parkinson’s disease increase as pesticide expenditures increase for farmers working in vineyards. For the highest amounts paid for pesticides, Parkinson’s disease incidence is 16% higher. No connections were found for other cropping systems.

“This result suggests that agricultural practices and pesticides used in these vineyards may play a role in PD and that farmers in these farms should benefit from preventive measures aimed at reducing exposure,” the study reads. The strong link to vineyard production may be due to the sheer amount of pesticides being used in this farming system. Although vineyards account for only 3% of French land, 20% of pesticides purchased are for vineyards. Among the pesticides used, 80% are fungicides.

Researchers found an interesting divide between vineyards that produce wine with a “designation of origin” and those that do not, with those who spend considerably more money on pesticides. “Fighting against pests is a quality guarantee for vineyards with designation of origin, which leads them to increase the number of applications,” the authors write.

Fungicides have long been linked to the development of Parkinson’s disease. A 2008 study by scientists at UCLA found that chronic exposure to dithiocarbamate fungicides like ziram contributed to the development of Parkinson’s. A 2013 meta-analysis found that the fungicides maneb and mancozeb increased Parkinson’s risk by two times. This was found to be in line with the incidence associated with paraquat herbicide exposure, which is currently the subject of an increasing number of lawsuits due to that weed killer’s strong connection to the disease.

Beyond Pesticides Pesticide Induced Disease Database provides references to dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles connecting the use of pesticides to Parkinson’s disease. The studies provide ample evidence that current regulations governing the use of pesticides are inadequate for the protection of public health. Although pesticide regulators can adequately capture the lethal dose of a pesticide, and often have a good understanding of its acute toxicity, chronic health impacts are woefully unaccounted for.

As a result of inaction by regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address chronic diseases like cancer and Parkinson’s, those harmed by pesticide exposure have had to bring their case to the U.S. court system. Lawsuits against Syngenta’s Parkinson’s-inducing paraquat and Bayer/Monsanto’s carcinogenic glyphosate are a testament to the importance  of litigation in holding companies responsible for the harm they inflict, but also an indictment of EPA’s weak regulatory process. Advocates argue that these lawsuits should not be necessary because the individuals adversely affected by these chemicals should never have been exposed to them in the first place.

It is critically important that we begin to unwind chemical farming operations in favor of organic practices, which are safer for farmers, workers, and consumers, as well as the wildlife and pest predators surrounding farm fields. Forward thinking laws and regulations are needed.  Help us tell EPA to consider cutting edge science in risk assessments, so that we can prevent the next pandemic of chronic disease.

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

Source: Environmental Research

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2021) Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) last week vetoed legislation prohibiting the aerial use of glyphosate and other dangerous herbicides in forestry practices. LD125, An Act To Prohibit the Aerial Spraying of Glyphosate and Other Synthetic Herbicides for the Purpose of Silviculture, was supported by a wide range of health and conservation groups, and aimed to bring the state in line with best practices for public health and the environment. With Maine recently passing one of the strongest consumer bans on pollinator-toxic neonicotinoids, advocates are dismayed by the setback from the Governor’s office.

In a statement to Maine Public Radio, Senate President Troy Jackson said that Governor Mills should stop referring to herself as an environmentalist. “The science across the country, across the world, says that this stuff kills people, kills wildlife,” Mr. Jackson says. “And all that it is, is a giveaway to the large landowners so they can maximize their profits off the lives of the people in Maine and the wildlife in Maine.”

Senator Jackson’s words are stern yet factual. Glyphosate has been identified by the World Health Organization as a probable human carcinogen. Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, has been the subject of high profile lawsuits that have been so successful, the company has set aside $10 billion to resolve existing claims. In addition to cancer, the chemical has been linked to changes in DNA function, adverse birth outcomes, and antibiotic resistance.

Forestry applications also put the environment at risk. Runoff pollutes groundwater, which can run into local rivers, lakes, and streams. Erosion caused by glyphosate use can release legacy pesticides back into the environment, quickly multiplying problems from chemical mixtures. Glyphosate has been found to harm keystone wildlife species that comprise the bottom of the food chain. Likewise, certain glyphosate formulations have been found to harm pollinators directly, but the entire range of herbicides used in forestry will eliminate the floral diversity on which pollinators rely. Just last week a Canadian study found that the use of glyphosate in forestry practices prompted morphological changes that may make them less attractive to pollinators.

While glyphosate is likely the most frequently used pesticide in forestry applications, a range of toxic synthetic pesticides could be used in its place. Like all pesticides registered by EPA’s criticized regulatory process, these chemicals are not reviewed in formulation—and ‘tank mixes,’ with multiple pesticides mixed together—are a popular application technique in forestry operations. Under current EPA regulations, pesticides are not restricted for their ability to cause endocrine (hormone disruption), numerous health endpoints are often left unaddressed, children and other sensitive populations are often not provided protective safety factors, and the manufacturer of the chemical to be registered conducts all the health and safety studies submitted to the agency.

In a statement released after the veto, Governor Mills wrote, “Banning aerial application would force landowners to conduct ground application, which is manually intensive, has a potential greater site disturbance…and may require multiple applications with higher and more dangerous concentration levels to achieve the same level of effectiveness.”

Reports indicate that the Governor came under pressure from large landowners and the forestry industry, powerful forces at the state level in the Pine Tree State. But the reasoning for the veto rings hollow when alternative means of managing valuable timber crops can be successful without the use of toxic herbicides. In the nearby state of Vermont, there has been a ban on aerial pesticide use in forestry since the late 1990s.

Governor Mills indicates that she will work with state agencies to impose further restrictions on the aerial use of pesticides. Senate President Jackson will fight to override the Governor’s veto, although the chance of success is  viewed as slim. If unsuccessful, Senator Jackson indicates that a citizen referendum may be on the horizon.

Maine residents are encouraged to find their Maine state legislators and urge them to override the Governor’s veto. For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to waterways, wildlife and their habitat, see Beyond Pesticides program pages on biodiversity and water contamination.

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

Source: Maine Public Radio

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2021) The endocrine disrupting herbicide propazine (in the triazine family of frog-deforming endocrine disruptors) is set for cancellation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The move would eliminate use of the hazardous herbicide by the end of 2022. However, all pesticides in the triazine class, including atrazine and simazine, have similar properties and should be eliminated from use.

Tell EPA to finish the job by banning all triazines.

In November 2020, Beyond Pesticides and allied environmental groups launched a lawsuit against EPA for its intent to reregister the triazine family of chemicals. The agency’s interim approval of the herbicides, conducted under the Trump administration, eliminates important safeguards for children’s health and a monitoring programs intended to protect groundwater from contamination. As is typical with EPA, the agency merely proposed minor label changes in attempts to mitigate risks identified in its registration review. According to a release from EPA, it made the decision not out of concerns relating to human health and environmental protection, but in order to provide “regulatory certainty” for farmers and local officials.

In March 2021, the Biden administration requested a stay on the atrazine lawsuit brought by environmental groups, as it indicated it would review the Trump administration’s actions on the chemicals. “It is possible that, in response to this review, EPA may undertake actions that could resolve some or all of the issues in this case,” EPA said in its motion to stay, Progressive Farmer reports.

If propazine’s cancellation is the extent of the Biden administration’s corrective actions after the Trump administration’s complete abdication of responsibility to human health and environmental protection, then it is not enough. With greenhouse uses already in the process of cancellation, propazine’s remaining use is on sorghum. Although a hefty 200,000 lbs. of propazine are used each year, mainly in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, this amount pales in comparison to the over 70 million lbs. of atrazine used throughout the United States.

Under an Endangered Species Act review, initiated by EPA only after a lawsuit from health and environmental groups, the triazine chemicals were found to adversely affect a range of species. Propazine was found to harm 64 endangered species, while simazine and atrazine were both likely to harm over 50% of all endangered species and 40% of their critical habitats.

EPA has long known about triazine’s threats to wildlife, including its ability to chemically castrate male frogs. However, the agency has consistently defended the chemical, and                         sat by while independent researchers like Tyrone Hayes, PhD, who conducted seminal research on atrazine’s endocrine disrupting properties, are pilloried by chemical industry propaganda. In a Critical Perspectives piece published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry last month, Jason Rohr, PhD, provides an in-depth investigation of the atrazine controversy.

“I argue that the atrazine controversy must be more than just a true story of cover-ups, bias, and vengeance,” he writes in the piece. “It must be used as an example of how manufacturing uncertainty and bending science can be exploited to delay undesired regulatory decisions and how greed and conflicts of interest—situations where personal or organizational considerations have compromised or biased professional judgment and objectivity—can affect environmental and public health and erode trust in the discipline of toxicology, science in general, and the honorable functioning of societies.”

The triazine class of chemicals also pose significant threats to human health and are particularly concerning in the context of the range of chemicals one may be exposed to in today’s world. As Dr. Hayes noted a recent presentation at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum, “Children in utero may be exposed to over 300 synthetic chemicals before they leave the womb… I would argue that a human fetus trapped in contaminated amniotic fluid is no different than one of my tadpoles trapped in a contaminated pond.”

Atrazine has been linked to a range of adverse birth outcomes, including smaller body sizes, slower growth rates, and certain deformities like choanal atresia (where nasal passages are blocked at birth), and hypospadias (where the opening of a male’s urethra is not located at the tip of the penis).

While industry consistently lines up local Congressmembers, former EPA officials, and agrichemical lobbyists to pressure EPA to keep triazines in the market, there is no evidence that the herbicides benefit the farmers these officials claim to represent. According to research published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, banning atrazine would provide an economic benefit to farmers. “The winners,” the research concludes, “in an atrazine free future would include farm workers, farmers and their families, and others who are exposed to atrazine either directly from field uses or indirectly from contaminated tap water along with natural ecosystem that are currently damaged by atrazine.”

During the Obama Administration, health and environmental advocates were on the defensive with propazine. After glyphosate-resistant crops predictably invaded genetically engineered cotton fields in Texas, growers requested propazine use on over 3 million acres of farm fields. Although EPA determined Texan farmers met the criteria for an emergency, a decision Beyond Pesticides disagreed with, the agency did find that groundwater risks from the proposed propazine use would be too risky. 

For more information on the dangers of atrazine and its chemical cousins, read Beyond Pesticides comments to EPA, and watch Dr. Tyrone Hayes presentations from former National Pesticide Forum events on Youtube.

Tell EPA to finish the job by banning all triazines.

Letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan

I am pleased to hear that EPA has cancelled the registration of propazine herbicides. However, the proposed interim decisions (PIDs) on reregistration of atrazine and simazine demonstrate similar risks. These triazines are highly mobile and persistent in the environment and have been linked to numerous adverse health and environmental effects that have motivated many public interest campaigns to ban their use in the U.S. as well as in Europe. The Draft Ecological Risk Assessments for the Registration Review of Atrazine, Simazine, and Propazine dated October 5, 2016 found high risks that were supported by EPA’s assessments.

EPA’s Proposed Interim Decisions present data demonstrating unreasonable adverse effects. These hazards are unacceptable, especially in light of the availability of nontoxic alternatives. The hazards include:

* The technical mechanism of toxicity is perturbation of the neuroendocrine system by disrupting hypothalamic regulation of the pituitary, leading primarily to a disturbance in the ovulatory surge of luteinizing hormone (LH), which results in both reproductive and developmental alterations. Of the numerous adverse effects associated with this disruption, the two that appear to be the most sensitive and occur after the shortest duration (4 days) of exposure are the disruption of the ovarian cycles and the delays in puberty onset.

* Despite these endocrine disrupting effects, the PIDs propose reducing the margin of safety and underestimate exposure to children.

* EPA states, “Based on the results from hundreds of toxicity studies on the effects of atrazine on plants and animals, over 20 years of surface water monitoring data, and higher tier aquatic exposure models, this risk assessment concludes that aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is potential chronic risk to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates in these same locations.”

* In spite of these findings, EPA will increase the level of atrazine allowed in waterways.

Please adhere to the statutory mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and suspend the registration of these pesticides that pose unreasonable adverse health and environmental effects.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2021) A consequential report from the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) sets out important and comprehensive recommendations that, if enacted, would put environmental justice on the front burner of national policy. The report spells out a multitude of challenges, and recommendations for addressing them, in service of advancing environmental justice (EJ) across federal agencies. Notably, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is called out for, among other things, poor protection of farmworkers and their families, who tend to be people of color, from pesticide risks. The report arises from President Biden’s late January 2021 Executive Orders (covered by Beyond Pesticides here) on: (1) tackling the climate crisis with a “whole of government” approach, with an explicit focus on EJ, and (2) recalibrating the functions of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to “forward health, racial equity, and environmental stewardship.”

That early 2021 Executive Order (EO) on climate established the WHEJAC and the Justice40 Initiative, the latter of which aims to direct 40% of some categories of federal investment to historically under-served communities. Those investments, as reported by AgriPulse, would promote “clean energy and energy efficiency; clean transit; affordable and sustainable housing; training and workforce development; the remediation and reduction of legacy pollution; and the development of critical clean water infrastructure.”

The Executive Order on the OMB charged the agency’s director with providing to the administration “concrete suggestions on how the regulatory review process can promote public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations. The recommendations should also include proposals that would ensure that regulatory review serves as a tool to affirmatively promote regulations that advance these values.”

Of particular note is language, throughout the report, that acknowledges the role of historic and current systemic racism as it has manifested in “disproportionate harm from environmental contaminants and . . . disproportionate risks from climate change” for disadvantaged communities. It says plainly (in Section 101), “Historically, the Federal Government has taken actions that have perpetuated, institutionalized, or defended injustices that resulted in inequality in exposure to hazardous substances and unequal access to clean water, clean air, healthy food, safe housing, transportation, and other environmental benefits.”

The document also addresses stakeholder involvement, going straight to the point of the adage, “If you are not at the table, you are probably on the menu.” For example, in Part II “meaningful participation” is described: “potentially affected populations have an opportunity to participate in decisions that will affect their health or environment, that the population’s contributions can influence the agency’s decisions, that the viewpoints of all participants involved will be considered in the decision-making process, and that the agency will seek out and facilitate the involvement of the population potentially affected.” The contrast with written products of the prior administration is head-spinning.

The 91-page report tackles WHEJAC’s “wheelhouse” of concerns: climate; toxics, pesticides, and pollution reduction in overburdened communities; equitable conservation and use of public lands; tribal/indigenous issues; a clean energy transition; sustainable infrastructure (water, built environment, transportation); civil rights; and increasing federal efforts to address current and historic EJ transgressions.

The report integrates many recommendations of the Justice40 Initiative, including specifics on, among others:

• extending clean energy infrastructure and the multiple benefits of a clean energy transition equitably — pointedly, by getting them successfully to disadvantaged communities, including low-income and indigenous regions and communities, and communities of color
• relocating housing from toxic sites (e.g., contaminated brownfields), and providing compensation to homeowners whose homes were built on toxic sites with federal funds
• overhauling rural water infrastructure, and cleaning up drinking water in marginalized communities
• funding cities and towns to address major infrastructure and environmental protection deficits in EJ communities
• establishing workforce training and apprenticeship programs for displaced workers in the transition to a clean energy economy
• developing of a youth climate corps that draws from Black, Hispanic, Tribal, and Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities and resources

The WHEJAC report also takes up problems and concerns specific to farmworkers, their families, and their communities on several fronts, including many related to pesticide risks. Recommendations include:

• addressing increasing heat stress on workers, both generally and in relation to pesticide-related PPE (Personal Protective Equipment)
• ensuring adequate field sanitation and handwashing facilities
• finalizing the 2015 proposed rule revoking all food tolerances for chlorpyrifos
• improving cost-benefit evaluation outcomes by considering the availability of safer alternatives early in EPA analyses, and include the social costs of pesticide use; in addition, creating protocols for gathering actual farmworker exposure data, rather than relying on industry-generated data
• restoring Obama-era pesticide Application Exclusion Zones (revised by the Trump administration so as to put workers at increased risk)
• requiring EPA to consult with farmworkers and farmworker organizations on agency decisions about pesticide mitigation measures
• requiring EPA to protect pesticide applicators, farmworkers, agricultural communities, and consumers from pesticide exposure and drift prior to completion of a pesticide registration review process (including while revocation and/or cancellation proceedings are in progress for certain pesticides)
• ensuring that EPA accounts, in the registration review process, for cumulative exposures to organophosphate pesticides
• requiring full and nationwide reporting of pesticide use in agriculture, and in schools and daycare facilities and their surrounds;
• mandating that EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention account for the differential risks faced by fenceline/EJ communities from chemical pollution, including cumulative exposures, and document these separately from data on the general population
• requiring EPA to reverse its current approach to occupational hygiene by comporting with OSHA’s (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) hierarchy of protocols: first, eliminate the hazardous agent or substitute a less hazardous one; second, implement engineering controls; and last, require personal protective equipment; EPA currently deploys these in the opposite order, and rarely implements the elimination/substitution practice

Response to the report has been positive in the advocate community. EarthJustice reported a statement from the co-authors of the Equitable and Just National Climate Platform: “The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council has made an important and historic contribution to advancing environmental justice and protecting overburdened communities from dangerous pollution and harm from climate change. Its recommendations provide a roadmap for President Biden to make progress on environmental, racial, and economic justice and to ensure that at least 40% of federal climate and clean energy investments reach frontline communities. White House officials and federal agencies should immediately incorporate these recommendations to guide the implementation of Justice40 and the President’s other environmental justice commitments to address the disproportionate levels of pollution, chronic disinvestment, and lack of access to capital and economic opportunities in Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and low-income communities burdened by systemic racism and discriminatory federal policies.”

“The report and recommendations recognize disproportionate risk from toxic chemicals to people of color communities and the failure of statutory and regulatory policy to incorporate these elevated risk factors into allowable use patterns of pesticides and other toxic chemicals,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

At least one agricultural organization has taken some umbrage at the report’s commentary on farmworker health and safety recommendations. As reported by AgriPulse, Michael Marsh, CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, commented that some recommendations, such as “access to field sanitation and hand-washing facilities, training in use of and provision of protective equipment for pesticide application, (and) heat stress prevention plans,” have already been implemented by farmers and ranchers for years. “Farmers take the health and safety of their workforce very seriously and it is in the farmer’s self-interest to do so,” he added.

Another industry trade group is displeased with the report, given its relative cold shoulder regarding biofuels. AgriPulse reported the comment of Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper: It is “surprising and disappointing that the advisory committee overlooked the benefits of renewable fuels. . . . Ethanol reduces the harmful tailpipe pollution that disproportionately affects low-income and disadvantaged communities, and it slashes the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change. In addition, the increased use of ethanol reduces demand for petroleum fuels, which are often manufactured at large industrial refining complexes adjacent to, or in the middle of, urban and suburban neighborhoods.”

Advocate Michele Roberts, Environmental Justice Health Alliance and WHEJAC member, had this to say: “The voices of the communities that have suffered for too long from legacies of pollution and inequality are finally being heard. Through the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, we finally have the seat at the table that we deserve. We know how to remedy the problems that have been placed in our communities, and our recommendations should form the foundation from which the Biden-Harris administration builds its policies to correct environmental, economic, and climate injustice.” 

Moving recommendations from words on paper to concrete actions is where the rubber hits the road. Senior Fellow for Energy and Environment at the Center for American Progress, Cathleen Kelly, said, “There’s going to have to be a lot of focus on strengthening federal investment programs across all of the agencies to make sure that they can actually deliver real and direct benefits to disadvantaged communities.” To that end, AgriPulse adds, Brenda Mallory (chair of the Council on Environmental Quality), Gina McCarthy (National Climate Adviser), and Shalanda Young (Acting Director of OMB) are expected to publish recommendations on the nitty-gritty of how to get that 40% of federal investment to target communities.

Beyond Pesticides, which has long advocated on behalf of farmworkers, welcomes the report’s attention to farmworker, pesticide, and equity issues in particular, as well as the plethora of recommendations that would begin to put EPA on a more protective track. A significant part of addressing the toxic chemicals, climate, and equity crises will be the transition — which cannot happen quickly enough — from currently dominant petrochemical-dependent agricultural and land management practices to organic, regenerative ones that build in agricultural and environmental justice protections.

Such systems would end the poisoning of farmworkers, their families, and landscape workers; protect public health, the environment, and biodiversity; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sequestering far more carbon than conventional agriculture can. The shift from a petroleum-based economy, including the agricultural economy, to a much-less-toxic “green” economy would provide myriad benefits across many sectors, including for fenceline communities that have borne the overwhelming brunt of inequities. Environmental justice is an inextricable part of environmental advocacy. Please join Beyond Pesticides in this work.

Sources: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-05/documents/whejac_interim_final_recommendations_0.pdf and https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/16005-environmental-justice-report-targets-farmworkers-pesticides

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2021) This Pollinator Week 2021, U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Jim McGovern (D-MA) are reintroducing the Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA) in an effort to reverse ongoing declines in wild and managed pollinators. SAPA uses the latest scientific research and perspectives to ensure that pollinators are protected. The bill suspends the use of neonicotinoids and other pesticides harmful to bees and other pollinators until an independent board of experts determine that they are safe to use, based on strong scientific assessment.

“Without our world’s pollinators, the world would be a very different place. These bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, and other creatures are essential elements of our food system. Losing them means we risk losing the very food we put on our table,” said Rep. Blumenauer. “We must use every tool at our disposal to provide pollinators with much-needed relief from bee-toxic pesticides and monitor their populations to ensure their health and survival.” 

Neonicotinoids are systemic pesticides; once applied to a seed or sprayed on a plant they make their way into the pollen, nectar and dew droplets that plants produce and pollinators feed upon. Exposure impairs pollinator navigation, foraging, and learning behavior, and also suppresses their immune system, making them more susceptible to disease and pathogens like the varroa mite.  

The last decade saw American beekeepers lose over 30% of their hives annually. And wild pollinators are experiencing declines that threaten their extinction. The iconic American Bumblebee has lost 89% of its population over the last 20 years. Populations of eastern monarchs have declined by 80% since the 1990s. This past year, citizens scientists participating in the western monarch count found a scant 2,000 butterflies. This is down from roughly 1.2 million monarchs in the 1990s, 300,000 in 2016, and 30,000 in 2019. All of these impacts have been associated with the use of toxic pesticides in peer-reviewed scientific studies.

The harmful effects of neonicotinoids and other pollinator-toxic pesticides are not siloed in the environment, however. Declines in pollinator populations work their way up and down the food chain, from the plants that depend upon pollination, to the people that rely on healthy, nutrient dense food pollination provides. Pollination services are valued at $125 billion globally, and pollinators are responsible for one in three bites of food, including nuts, fruits, and vegetables. Past research has found that the loss of pollination services would have a devastating impact on global nutritional health, with women and children most affected. Already in the United States, many communities lack access to healthy fruits and vegetables –allowing the pollinator crisis to continue unabated is likely to exacerbate these problems by increasing prices on important staples.

Neonicotinoids also harm people directly. In public parks and playing fields, these are often the chemicals of choice to manage grub problems on turf, despite the availability of alternative methods.  The latest research links neonicotinoids to nervous system toxicity, reproductive damage, and birth defects. In particular, reviews have found links to birth defects of the heart and brain, and the development of finger tremors. Neonicotinoids appear to disproportionately affect the male reproductive system, and animal studies have found cause for concern – from decreased testosterone levels to abnormal and low sperm count (see NRDC for more on the harms of neonics to human health). As reported by the Black Institute, pesticides like glyphosate are disproportionately sprayed in black and brown communities, where public parks are often the only green space available for family picnics and outings.

The Saving America’s Pollinators Act is not limited in its ability to save America’s pollinators. SAPA would help people, who depend on pollination services for healthy food. SAPA would help underserved communities by eliminating unnecessary exposure to pesticides in public green spaces. SAPA would stop the poisoning of farmworkers who work on the farms that grow the plants that bees and insects pollinate. SAPA would also protect the broader web of life that is being devastated by the use of systemic insecticides. According to the Task Force on Systemic Insecticides, a group consisting of 242 scientists from across the world, “the balance of evidence strongly suggests that these chemicals [neonicotinoids] are harming beneficial insects and contributing to the current massive loss of global biodiversity.”

Beneficial soil dwelling insects, benthic aquatic insects, and grain-eating vertebrates like songbirds are in danger from neonicotinoid use. Neonicotinoid concentrations detected in aquatic environments present hazards to aquatic invertebrates and the ecosystems they support. Neonics adversely affects shrimp and oyster health, decreasing their nutritional value.

There is also evidence of adverse effects harming bird populations. A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid is toxic enough to kill a songbird. Studies conducted in the wild find songbirds that feed on neonicotinoid-contaminated seeds during their migration route display reduced weigh delayed travel, and low rates of survival. The author of that study, ecotoxicologist Chrissy Morrisey, PhD, told Environmental Health News, “Our study shows that this is bigger than the bees — birds can also be harmed by modern neonicotinoid pesticides which should worry us all.” Data from the Netherlands has shown that the most severe bird population declines occurred in those areas where neonicotinoid pollution was highest. These data are alarming in the context of reports finding three billion birds (30% total) lost since 1970 in part due to pesticide use.

“Passing SAPA would reorient pesticide regulation towards the protection of pollinators and ecosystem health – an approach that the U,S. Environmental Protection Agency has long failed to adequately consider,” says Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides.

Specifically, the Saving America’s Pollinators Act:

• Establishes a Pollinator Protection Board (PPB), consisting of scientists, beekeepers, farmers, and conservationists that have no direct or indirect ties to pesticide companies, in order to evaluate pesticides for their toxicity to pollinators and pollinator habitat;
• Cracks down on insecticides that are toxic to pollinators by canceling the registration of neonicotinoid pesticides or pesticides containing imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, acetamiprid, sulfoxaflor, flupyradifurone, or fipronil until they are properly reviewed by the Pollinator Protection Board; and
• Implements a state-of-the-art monitoring network for native bees, ensuring that experts and the general public have up-to-date information on the status of native bee populations.

The newest bill language also updates the standard to which the PPB regulates toxic pesticides, making determinations on whether the pesticide presents an unacceptable hazard, based upon the potential to cause harm, including injury, illness, or damage to honey bees, and other pollinators, or pollinator habitat. This language would set pesticide regulation more in line with the precautionary approach taken by the European Union and other international bodies.

Advocates remain hopeful that the 2021 Congress will take long-awaited action on SAPA. Reach out to your federal elected officials today – call the Capital switchboard (202-224-3121) and request your Representative’s office, reach out to their office directly, or tweet or post to their social media accounts.

Help Beyond Pesticides keep up the pressure on all federal elected officials. In addition to Congressional Representatives, take action by urging the Biden Administration to establish a comprehensive strategy in the executive branch to protect pollinators. See here for additional actions you can take during Pollinator Week 2021, and stay tuned for more you can do to help institute long overdue protections for our nation’s imperiled pollinators.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2021) Small streams are prone to excessively high levels of pesticide contamination that are even more hazardous than once thought, according to a pilot study generated by a team of German researchers. The results indicate significant risks for the health of aquatic ecosystems and should be used as evidence for establishing greater protections from toxic pesticide use, researchers say. With many aquatic benchmarks set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lower than those established in Germany and the European Union, and evidence of widespread pesticide contamination in America’s waterways, the study could have even greater weight for for U.S. regulatory agencies’ deficiencies.

Scientists established monitoring sites at more than 100 streams throughout Germany over the course of two years. Most sites were established near farm fields, where chemical farmers will use highly toxic pesticides than often make their way into local waterways. Streams were monitored for pesticide concentrations, with particular eye to whether they met the country’s regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC value) in a given water body. The RAC value is intended to be the highest level at which there will be no adverse effects on aquatic life, however these regulatory levels often do not correspond with real world conditions.

The results are significantly worse than researchers anticipated. “We have detected a significantly higher pesticide load in small water bodies than we originally expected,” said Matthias Liess, PhD ecotoxicologist and coordinator of the water monitoring project. RAC values are exceeded in 81% of streams tested. For nearly 1 in 5 streams, RAC values are exceeded for over 10 different pesticide compounds. Certain pesticides are astronomically higher than their RAC value. The neonicotinoid thiacloprid is found in three streams at 100x higher than its RAC value. Twenty-seven streams exceed RAC value between 10 and 100x for the following pesticides: clothianidin, methiocarb, and fipronil, terbuthylazine, nicosulfuron, and lenacil.

Moreover, the data collected allowed scientists to further determine whether RAC values themselves are adequately protective. For the most sensitive aquatic species, such as caddisflies and dragonflies, researchers say that these species require 1,000x lower threshold values than less sensitive animals like snails and worms. “For sensitive insect species, the pesticide concentration in the small lowland streams is the most relevant factor that determines their survival. In contrast, other environmental problems such as watercourse expansion, oxygen deficiency, and excessive nutrient content are less important. For the first time this study allows a ranking of environmental problems,” said Dr. Liess.

Dr. Liess indicates that the results show that the current process for evaluating sensitive aquatic species – using laboratory studies, artificial ecosystems, and simulations, do not adequately account for real world stressors. “In addition to pesticides, many other stressors act on organisms in the ecosystem. These make them much more sensitive to pesticides. Natural stressors such as predation pressure or competition between species are not sufficiently taken into account in the risk assessment. But these obvious problems often go unnoticed because the degree of pesticide contamination and the effect of this have not been validated in the field – neither in Germany nor in other countries,” he notes.

Scientists say that testing protocols may also be missing the mark. Testing conducted after a rain event, rather than regular testing at any given time, resulted in detections of pesticides 10x higher than regular testing. “The event sample provides much more realistic results because the pesticides enter the water bodies as a result of the increased surface run-off from the field, especially during rain”, Dr Liess said. “In order to realistically depict the water pollution, samples must therefore be taken after rainfall events. That’s why we need an official regular environmental monitoring to be able to assess the amount and the effects of pesticides.”

Dr. Liess indicates that his team’s findings should immediately be incorporated into the process that regulatory agency’s use to determine pesticide safety. “We are still using pesticides that were approved many years ago based on an outdated risk assessment,” he said. “This must therefore change as soon as possible. Only in this way can we preserve the biodiversity in our waters and with it the services that these biotic communities provide for our ecosystems.”

While streams in Germany may be worse than researchers expected, U.S. streams are likely more contaminated due to higher RAC values (called aquatic benchmarks by EPA) with less regulatory oversight and testing. The data that is available from the U.S. Geological Survey shows that nearly 90% of water samples in US rivers and streams contain at least five or more different pesticides.

To stem the tide of pesticide contamination in waterways, embrace a farming system that eschews the use of toxic chemical pesticides by purchasing organic whenever possible. Any pesticide approved for organic use undergoes and independent assessment by a board of experts, and must meet higher standards of safety for human health and ecological systems. Read here why organic is the right choice, and see Beyond Pesticides Contaminated Waters webpage for more information on the dangers these chemicals pose to American waterways.

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

Source: EurekAlert! press release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2021) Glyphosate herbicide use in forested areas persists in the environment for years and can prompt morphological changes in perennial flowers that reduce their fertility and may make them less attractive to pollinators. These findings were published this month in the journal Frontiers in Plant Science by researchers at the University of British Columbia, who hope that their work will inform safer approaches to forest management. “The more we learn the better, and research can always be used to better inform management,” said lead author Lisa Wood, PhD. “Herbicide practices may change, if the research shows that this is in the public’s best interest.”

Glyphosate herbicides like Roundup and Visionmax (a Canada-registered glyphosate product produced by Bayer/Monsanto) are often applied aerially via helicopter on wide swaths of forest land known as cutblocks. Cutblocks, designated areas where coniferous trees are grown for harvest and processing, are doused with glyphosate in order to manage understory trees and shrubs that would compete with the conifers. Researchers set out to understand the nontarget impacts of this practice on the surrounding forest ecosystem.

Wild prickly rose (Rosa acicularis) plants were collected from three different cutblocks, each sprayed with Visionmax according to label directions. A set of untreated plants were gathered outside of the cutblock to function as a control. Researchers also tested the impact of glyphosate on wild rose plants in a more controlled setting by establishing them in a greenhouse. Half of these potted plants were sprayed with glyphosate, while the rest acted as a control. A range of measurements were taken on the flowers and pollen.

The scientists found that wild prickly rose plants sprayed with glyphosate had the viability of their pollen reduced by 66% when compared to the control group. The anthers on the rose, which together with the filament comprise the male portion of a flower that produces pollen, failed to open in 30% of glyphosate treated plants. The results were similar in the greenhouse experiment, where 51% of pollen from treated plants were less viable than the control, and 25% of anthers failed to open.

While some morphological changes are expected given exposure to a highly toxic herbicide, what concerns scientists the most is how long the chemical’s effects persisted in the environment. In contrast to claims by agrichemical corporations that glyphosate breaks down quickly in the environment, wild prickly roses contained traces of the herbicide two years after initial exposure. “The changes to plants have been documented in the past, in agricultural plants, so it is not surprising to find them in forests,” said Dr. Wood. “What is important is the timeline. To continue to find these effects one to two years after herbicide applications, in new parts of growing plants, is noteworthy.”

Rose flowers experienced a range of other alterations that could impact their chance of being pollinated. While most R. acicularis flowers are heart-shaped, just over 1 in 10 that were sprayed with glyphosate were heart-shaped. Likewise, most rose flowers are medium or dark pink, but in both the greenhouse and in the wild, those sprayed with glyphosate were more likely to be either white or brown. Researchers indicate that this phenomenon could change the interaction between pollinators and their propensity to pollinate malformed or discolored flowers.

As a result of current findings, the next round of investigation Dr. Wood will take on concerns how herbicide-induced changes within these plants could impact pollinators. Her team will be testing for residues in the feces of insects and hummingbirds. “This will tell us if pollinators are taking up residues from the plants they feed on,” she explained. “We will also research other plants to see if the changes we observed in the wild rose are also found in other flowers.”

Wild prickly rose is found growing primarily in boreal forests in North America. It has an extensive history of use within indigenous societies, as many parts of the plant are used for medicine and food. Dr. Wood’s research over the last decade has focused on the interaction between industrial forestry operations and the impact on indigenous natural resources. This effort was based on input and requests from Canadian indigenous First Nations communities. Back in 2013, shrubs foraged by traditional berry-pickers in northeastern British Columbia were sampled and found to contain glyphosate residues, leading to the need for a broader investigation. Her prior work found that glyphosate use in forestry operations drifts onto wild edible nontarget plants like raspberries and blueberries, which can then remain contaminated with the chemical for more than a year, after a single application.

Glyphosate’s use places public health and ecosystem stability at grave risk. It’s systemic properties, long touted by industry its ability to kill roots, appears to be limited to tender annuals. Woodier, perennial plants with deep root systems appear to translocate the chemical into their root system, where it can continuously contaminate the pollen, flowers, and fruit of the plant. Despite acknowledgement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that glyphosate use threatens the environment and nearly all endangered species, glyphosate use continues unabated in forestry, agriculture, and neighborhoods throughout America.  

Make this week – Pollinator Week 2021– the week you begin to shift the tide in favor of environmental health and well-being. Beyond Pesticides has three major actions we’re asking supporters to take:

1. Create an organic habitat on your own property or a space in your community.
2. Work toward organic management on all your community’s public spaces
3. Tell President Biden and your state’s governor to ban all pesticides and treated seeds that harm pollinators.

Stemming the tide of pesticide contamination, and protecting pollinators and public health takes both individual and collective actions. For more information on what you can do to stop toxic glyphosate use and help pollinator populations recover see Beyond Pesticides Tools for Change and Bee Protective webpages.

Source: Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Alter the Reproductive Morphology of Rosa acicularis (Prickly Rose)

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2021) Pollinator Week reminds us that change is critical to the survival of the planet and that we can take action, both in our households and communities and in the state and federal policy arena. 

Here’s how YOU can take action…

1. Create an organic habitat on your own property or a space in the community—such as the library grounds, medians, and rights-of-way. Given that plant starts in many garden centers across the country are grown from seeds coated with bee-toxic neonicotinoid pesticides, or drenched with them, Beyond Pesticides has compiled a comprehensive directory of companies and organizations that sell organic seeds and plants to the general public. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs, as well as living plants and seedlings. [We are always updating the directory, so send us names of companies that should be added and we will.]
2. Go organic in the management of all your town’s public spaces—parks, playing fields, school grounds, and open space. Check out the information on talking with your neighbors, local organizations, and elected officials about advancing our model local policy. Then you can see what other communities are doing across the country. Also, see the cost comparison between organic and chemical-intensive land management.
3. Tell President Biden and your governor to ban all pesticides and treated seeds that harm pollinators—from neonicotinoids, fipronil, synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphate insecticides to the herbicide glyphosate—and assist land managers, from farmers to landscapers, to transition to organic practices that prohibit the use of these deadly chemicals. Tell the Biden administration to reestablish a national strategy to work across agencies to eliminate our reliance on toxic pesticides and assist in the transition to organic land management—in the interest of protecting ecosystems against the ongoing dramatic destruction of biodiversity and the insect apocalypse. Tell your governor to do the same at the state level.

Tell President Joe Biden and your governor to get serious about protecting pollinators with a comprehensive strategy.

Letter to President Biden

During this Pollinator Week, it time to act to get serious about protecting pollinators and in so doing eliminate toxic pesticides that are contributing to dramatic declines in biodiversity. As The New York Times wrote in November 2018, “The Insect Apocalypse is Here.” Scientists and researchers have identified three broad contributors to the crisis: pesticide use, habitat destruction, and climate change. With your leadership, we can shift to alternative products and practices, improve biodiversity, and begin to repair the damage done by chemical-intensive land management practices.

To ensure a serious and meaningful effort to address the threat to pollinators, we need to remove from the market pesticides and treated seeds that have been shown, through independent peer-reviewed scientific review, to harm pollinators. This requires comprehensive action against neonicotinoids and related compounds, fipronil, synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphate insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate. At the same time, it is critical that you bring the resources of government to assist land managers, from farmers to landscapers, to transition to organic practices that prohibit the use of these and other deadly chemicals.

We urge you to reestablish a national strategy to work cross-agency to eliminate our reliance on toxic pesticides that harm pollinators and assist in the transition to organic land management in the interest of protecting ecosystems and dramatic destruction of biodiversity, identified by researchers as the insect apocalypse.

In a systematic review of insect declines by researchers Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, PhD and Kris A.G. Wyckhuys, PhD, pesticide use was identified as a critical component in addressing the crisis at large. “A rethinking of current agricultural practices, in particular a serious reduction in pesticide usage and its substitution with more sustainable, ecologically-based practices, is urgently needed to slow or reverse current trends, allow the recovery of declining insect populations and safeguard the vital ecosystem services they provide,” they write.

Without your leadership to elevate the response to the threat to pollinators, our future is threatened. As renowned UK ecologist and coauthor of the study “More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas,” David Goulson, PhD, has said, “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”

I look forward to learning that you are moving forward with this recommendation to save our future.

Thank you.

Letter to Your Governor

During this Pollinator Week, it time to get serious about protecting pollinators and in so doing eliminate toxic pesticides that are contributing to dramatic declines in biodiversity. As The New York Times wrote in November 2018, “The Insect Apocalypse is Here.” Scientists and researchers have identified three broad contributors to the crisis: pesticide use, habitat destruction, and climate change. With your leadership, we can shift to alternative products and practices, improve biodiversity, and begin to repair the damage done by chemical-intensive land management practices.

To ensure a serious and meaningful effort to address the threat to pollinators, we need to remove from the market pesticides and treated seeds that have been shown, through independent peer-reviewed scientific review, to harm pollinators. This requires comprehensive action against neonicotinoids and related compounds, fipronil, synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphate insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate. At the same time, it is critical that you bring the resources of government to assist land managers, from farmers to landscapers, to transition to organic practices that prohibit the use of these and other deadly chemicals.

We urge you to establish a state strategy to work across agencies to eliminate our reliance on toxic pesticides that harm pollinators and assist in the transition to organic land management in the interest of protecting ecosystems and dramatic destruction of biodiversity, identified by researchers as the insect apocalypse.

In a systematic review of insect declines by researchers Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, PhD and Kris A.G. Wyckhuys, PhD, pesticide use was identified as a critical component in addressing the crisis at large. “A rethinking of current agricultural practices, in particular a serious reduction in pesticide usage and its substitution with more sustainable, ecologically-based practices, is urgently needed to slow or reverse current trends, allow the recovery of declining insect populations and safeguard the vital ecosystem services they provide,” they write.

Without your leadership to elevate the response to threat to pollinators, our future is threatened. As renowned UK ecologist and coauthor of the study “More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas,” David Goulson, PhD, has said, “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”

I look forward to learning that you are moving forward with this recommendation to save our future.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2021) As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to drag its feet on protective regulation of neonicotinoid pesticides, states continue to step up to restrict their use. In April, the Maine legislature passed, and Governor Janet Mills has now signed, a new law that will prohibit use of neonicotinoid pesticides with the “active ingredient[s] dinotefuran, clothianidin, imidacloprid or thiamethoxam used for application in outdoor residential landscapes such as on lawn, turf or ornamental vegetation” [links by Beyond Pesticides]. Though short of an outright ban, this law is a solid step forward for Maine in reining in use of these compounds, which are neurotoxicants widely implicated in pollinator (and other insect, bird, and mammal) harms or declines. Until a federal ban happens, Beyond Pesticides offers guidance on avoiding use of neonicotinoid pesticides through its fact sheet, Managing Pests Safely Without Neonicotinoids, and its Bee Protective web pages.

This new Maine law does, however, include exemptions for wood preservation, indoor pest control, use on pets, treatment of structure foundations, and controlling invasive insect pests, such as the Asian long-horned beetle, emerald ash borer, and hemlock wooly adelgid. The statute leaves other large loopholes that will permit continued use of neonicotinoids (neonics) as seed coatings, as well as the sale of nursery stock that has been treated with neonic insecticides.

Neonics are used widely as seed coatings, particularly for corn, soybeans, and other commodity crops. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that nearly all corn seed in the U.S. and as much as 50% of soybean seeds are coated with a neonicotinoid — thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, or clothianidin; it also notes that all three of these are banned in Europe for outdoor use.

As plants from such treated seeds germinate and grow, the neonic compound(s) travel through the vascular systems of the plants, and are then expressed in pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets (drops of xylem sap on the leaf edges of some plants). The insecticides can then migrate to the surrounding soil and nearby waterways, contaminating both, and of course, the plants themselves are vectors of poisoning to foraging pollinators, insects, and birds.

Plants treated with neonics and sold by nurseries represent another vector that threatens these organisms (and soil and water). The same contamination dynamic as described above is at work when people purchase and plant such nursery stock in their yards and gardens. As development of various kinds continues to chew up habitat across the country, some pollinator and insect species are relying less on wild lands for foraging, and more heavily on people’s urban and suburban gardens and yards for food sources.

Neonic contaminated nursery stock in those locations amplifies the risks because of this increased dependence. State Director for Environment Maine Anya Fetcher commented, “Bees are more and more relying on urban gardens and green spaces for healthy and nutritious habitat. . . . That’s why we need to make sure that our backyards and our lawns and gardens are safe spaces for them.” (Indeed, there has been a significant movement in the U.S. to encourage installation of pollinator friendly plants in people’s gardens and yards.)

Some nurseries have transitioned away from the use of neonics in their cultivation of commercial plants; likewise, some retailers are eliminating neonic-treated plants from their inventories and supply lines. In 2015, Beyond Pesticides chronicled some of those developments. A shining example of leadership is a small Maine enterprise, Eldredge Lumber & Hardware, which some years ago eliminated from its shelves all synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and began to carry organic-compatible products. It also sells organic seeds and plants not treated with neonics. Retail operations in Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, California, and Colorado, among others, have discontinued (or never used) neonicotinoid pesticides in their nursery operations.

Neonics, because of their systemic action, are highly toxic to bees and other pollinators. Yet, despite its own acknowledgment of that fact, EPA has done little to curb their use. Indeed, in 2019, the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported on the agency’s failure, saying that: “EPA has no means to evaluate the national impact of MP3s [state Managed Pollinator Protection Plans]; the agency has not developed a strategy to use data from a planned fall 2019 survey . . . to evaluate either the national impact of MP3s or the agency’s support of state MP3 implementation efforts; [and] EPA focuses primarily on acute risks (those that occur during a single exposure to a specific pesticide), and gives insufficient attention to chronic exposures to pesticides and to native pollinator protection activities.”

Maine has made previous attempts on the neonic front. In 2017, the legislature failed to pass — it actually died in committee — a bill that would have required that “any seed, plant material, nursery stock, annual plant, bedding plant or other plant sold at retail in the State that has been treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide bear a label, or be placed in close proximity to a sign, that notifies the consumer that the product has been treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide and that such pesticides have been found to harm nontarget organisms, including bees and other pollinators.” It would also have prohibited the retail sale of neonics by any entity that did not also sell any restricted-use pesticide, and any use of a neonic except by certified applicators, farmers, and licensed veterinarians.

In 2020, the Maine Legislature considered a bill that would have required the state’s Board of Pesticides Control to “prohibit the use of any product containing neonicotinoids for landscape gardening by certified applicators or limit the use of any product containing neonicotinoids if the board determines that use is necessary to protect the State.” It also would have required the board “to adopt rules establishing restrictions for the use of products containing neonicotinoids.” This bill failed at the end of that legislative session.

Most recently, a bill that would have banned all uses of synthetic pesticides made it out of the Maine Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry Committee, but ultimately failed. Beyond Pesticides supported that legislation and submitted comments to the committee that suggested two amendments to the bill. One clarified the definition of “synthetic,” and the other suggested language to ensure that Maine municipalities could, subsequent to the passage of the subject legislation, also pass laws pertaining to pesticide storage, distribution, or use.

Ms. Fetcher noted that neonic use on plants impairs pollinator brain function, making it more challenging for them to navigate their way back to their hives, collect food, and produce new queens. She also asserted that Maine’s new statute is now the strongest statewide restriction on neonic use in the U.S., saying that although states such as Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maryland “have removed neonics from the shelves . . . licensed applicators such as landscapers and gardeners can still use them in those states.”

The current neonic story in Minnesota is another matter. Back in March, Beyond Pesticides reported on endemic levels of neonic contamination in the state’s deer population. The organization wrote then, “Neonics harm a range of wildlife, including bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, and other pollinators, songbirds, aquatic species and mammals, including humans. . . . [The] widespread contamination of ecosystems [by neonics and other pesticides] ultimately impacts the services that humans depend upon, including nutrient cycling, food production, biological pest control, and pollinator services.”

The data on Minnesota deer contamination with neonics emerged in the context of a larger neonic concern in the Midwest — the environmental contamination risk (and reality) from the use of discarded, neonic-treated seeds as feedstock in the creation of the biofuel, ethanol. As in other industries, toxic contaminants created as waste or byproducts of a primary production process are often problematic, and are rarely dealt with in ways that protect the environment, people, wildlife, etc. A high-profile example is a Nebraska ethanol plant (AltEn) near Omaha that harbors leaking lagoons of toxic wastewater and 84,000 tons of contaminated grain seed. In February 2021, a burst pipe caused four million gallons of manure and pesticide-contaminated wastewater to escape the plant and contaminate surrounding waterways and lands.

Although industry spokespeople in Minnesota played down the risks, Pesticide Action Network’s local lobbyist Chris Cowen called AltEn “an ecological disaster that Minnesota should do everything to avoid. . . . Why Minnesota would hesitate for a minute in making treated seed feedstock illegal, begs the question: How bad does it have to be?” Though spent, treated-seed containers are labeled with a tag that says, “Do not use for feed, food or oil purposes,” advocates and some legislators consider this inadequate to the threat. Minnesota Department of Agriculture spokeswoman Margaret Hart said that, although the department ensures the presence of these labels, it has no role in enforcement of the instructions on them. She indicated that the agency does not regulate treated seed, and does support a proposed ban on making ethanol with treated seed in the state (see below).

In early April, the Star Tribune reported that a rash of bills on pesticides was marinating in the Minnesota Legislature, opining that, “Now Minnesota stands on the cusp of passing some of the most enlightened legislation in the nation to protect human and ecosystem health. With a handful of bills slated to be heard in the Legislature, we may have reached a critical mass of scientific documentation, legislative smarts and public understanding that could result in a state that is cleaner, safer and healthier for people, pets and vital pollinators. The pending bills give communities local control over pesticides (HF 718), set rules for pesticide-coated corn and soy seed to avoid contamination (HF 766), prohibit neonicotinoid systemic pesticides (aka ‘neonics’) and chlorpyrifos (insecticide) in protected wildlife areas (HF 1210), impose a statewide ban on chlorpyrifos (HF 670) and increase pollinator-lethal insecticide fees with revenue allocated to pollinator research (HF 408).”

The Nebraska AltEn contamination episode had prompted multiple bills, including one that would ban the use of discarded neonic-treated seed for food, feed, oil to make ethanol; the legislative effort failed under opposition from Senate Republicans. The enthusiasm in that Star Tribune article was dampened one day later by a piece in Bluestem Prairie, which noted that most of those bills had already fallen by the wayside in the legislature.

Advocates say that the increasingly systemic contamination of ecosystems, wildlife, water, soil, and human bodies with multiple pesticides, including neonics, is an unfolding disaster. EPA’s record (especially recently) of advantaging agrichemical interests over those of the public and the environment is a dangerous trajectory. Although Beyond Pesticides encourages states, localities, and individuals to continue robust advocacy against the use of neonicotinoids, it also asserts that it is way past time for EPA to act protectively on this class of insecticides. EPA deregistration of neonics would, in addition to advancing the agency’s mission, be a strong signal that EPA has righted itself and is no longer operating in the interests of the agrochemical industry.

Neonicotinoids and other systemic bee-toxic pesticides pose unacceptable threats to pollinators (and other organisms) that require elimination of their use. Not only are these chemicals ultimately ineffective at managing pests, but also, organic and sustainable farming practices can replace these toxic compounds and actually foster greater resiliency to pests. Learn more with Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet, Managing Pests Safely Without Neonicotinoids, and its Bee Protective web pages.

Sources: https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2021-06-15/endangered-species-and-wildlife/law-bans-pesticides-seen-as-harmful-to-bees-in-residential-landscapes/a74625-1 and https://www.startribune.com/contaminated-ethanol-plant-using-pesticide-covered-seed-prods-change-in-minnesota/600068455/?refresh=true

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2021) Lead arsenate pesticides continue to contaminate Central Washington residential areas that were once tree fruit orchards. Although these toxic legacy pesticides have not been in use for almost 70 years, the Washington State Department of Ecology report finds lead and arsenic soil concentrations above the Washington State cleanup levels. It is well-known that traces of legacy (past-use) pesticides, like organochlorines, remain in the environment for decades—possibly centuries, post-final application. However, these chemicals have profound adverse impacts on human health, with links to cancer, reproductive and endocrine (hormone) disruption, and birth/developmental abnormalities. Current-use pesticides also contaminate the ecosystem via drift, runoff, and leaching. Therefore the impact of both current and past use of pesticides on human, animal, and environmental health, especially in combination, is critical to any safety analysis.

The researchers note, “Historical application of lead arsenate (LA) pesticides on tree fruit orchards has resulted in the accumulation of lead and arsenic in shallow soil at concentrations above Washington State cleanup levels. These are levels that may be harmful to human health when properties are used for activities other than agricultural or industrial land uses. This report outlines a recommended approach for managing and mitigating LA pesticide soil contamination, as well as educating impacted people and communities about the issue.”

The Washington State Department of Ecology examined lead arsenate pesticide contamination in areas of Central Washington from historical tree fruit orchard practices. There are increasing concerns over health risks to residents living in areas of past pesticide use, especially for those unaware of possible contamination. Hence, the department established the Legacy Pesticide Working Group (LPWG) in 2019 to include stakeholders throughout Central Washington state “to address the complex issues surrounding lead and arsenic contamination on former orchard lands.”

For a year, the LPWG identified residential and commercial areas that were once tree fruit orchards. The group devised recommendations to help landowners, land developers, and communities combat contamination using the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) as a guide. The final recommendations include the following objectives:

• “Creating a process for evaluation of all properties.
• Notifying buyers and current homeowners concerning the specifics of LA pesticide contamination on their properties.
• Identifying actions that meet Ecology’s cleanup regulations.
• Creating a broad-based strategy for educating the public about managing the risk from [lead arsenate] pesticide contamination.”

The report finds approximately 115,000 acres of Central Washington has possible lead arsenate contamination from historical orchards, including existing and developing residential (i.e., single-family homes, apartment buildings) and commercial (i.e., malls, schools, parks) areas. From this data, the LPWG set up a “Dirty Alert” map highlighting historic orchards and possible lead arsenate contamination. Property owners can use the map to assess whether they reside in an area of contamination based on previous orchard locations.

The issue of environmental pesticide contamination is not a new phenomenon, especially for legacy pesticides. Pesticides are pervasive in all ecosystems, soils, water (solid and liquid), and air, frequently at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Many legacy pesticides are on the Stockholm Convention annex lists (i.e., organochlorine compounds) and are no longer manufactured or utilized. However, 90 percent of Americans still have at least one pesticide biomarker (includes parent compound and breakdown products) in their body, including legacy compounds. The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse human health effects (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth abnormalities, neurotoxicity) and effects on wildlife and biodiversity. Therefore, it is essential to address pesticide contamination using proper prevention practices, risk assessments, and clean-up methods to safeguard human, animal, and ecosystem health and services.

The study demonstrates most of the contamination in Central Washington is in the soil that can experience biological changes in the presence of synthetic chemical pollutants like pesticides. Past misconceptions assuming stable, banned chemicals like legacy pesticides would bind to soil and remain immobile are worrisome. However, studies find some current-use pesticides can induce changes in soil properties that re-release soil-bound, legacy chemicals into the ecosystem, contributing to contamination. A 2020 study finds glyphosate use stimulates soil erosion responsible for soil-based chemical emergence. Continuous pesticide use leaves the dirt bare and more susceptible to decay from lack of organic material, altering the storage compartments of soil sediments from pesticide sinks to sources. Furthermore, soil pesticide contamination impacts organisms, including beneficial insects and microbes that provide essential ecosystem services by aerating the soil, cycling nutrients, and increasing microbial activity.

This report is a valuable tool that serves as a model for pesticide contamination evaluation and recommendations globally. Although lead and arsenic are naturally occurring, these chemicals impact the endocrine system, kidneys, liver, heart, and brain. Exposure can prompt ailments like diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and various cancers. Similar to current-use pesticides, the severity of poisoning depends upon the amount of chemical exposure, the length of exposure, and pre-established sensitivity to chemical exposure. Not only do reports like these protect future human health, but also human well-being. The current housing crisis demonstrates the need to transform idle landscapes into residential areas for housing development. However, similar to Central Washington, much of this idle land includes abandoned or barren agricultural pasture containing pesticide contamination from past use. In addition to agricultural land, the conversion of golf courses—known for using copious amounts of pesticides—into housing also poses similar health and environmental exposure risks. The researchers suggest decontaminating existing and developing residential areas, requiring property owners to investigate and clean up toxicants from land.

The researchers conclude, “The current confusion about the LA pesticide contamination issue has created a demand for significant education and outreach efforts geared toward reaching a wide variety of stakeholders. Areas of concern include ensuring all who may be affected (e.g., residents, local governments, developers) are aware of the issue; understanding who may be liable for historic LA pesticide contamination and required cleanup activities; creating consistent messaging and guidance related to compliance with MTCA; and making sure updated, accurate data is used to create easy to find mapping resources identifying areas that may be affected by historic LA pesticide applications.”

Legacy pesticide poisoning in the environment has extensive documentation, despite being banned for decades. Chronic, low-level exposure to pesticide residues in habitats weakens ecosystem health and productivity for all species, including humans. Organic production standards must adequately address problems associated with soil contaminants to protect soil health and productivity. The National Organic Standards Board must bring greater attention to the damage that contamination from widespread pesticide use causes, going beyond the focus on residues in the finished food commodities.

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticides in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, from rural to urban, can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. For more information on why organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: Yakima Herald (Press Release); Yakima Herald (Report)

(Beyond Pesticides, June 16, 2021) Uncultivated field margins contain almost twice as many beneficial insects as cropped areas around farm fields, according to research published this week in the Journal of Insect Science. The study finds that these predators and parasitoids overwinter in diverse vegetation, and can provide farmers an important jump start on spring pest problems. “A benefit of understanding overwintering is that those arthropods that emerge in the spring may be more inclined to feed on pests when pest populations are low,” said Scott Clem, PhD, coauthor of the study. “And so, they may be more likely to nip pest populations in the bud before the pest problem becomes a big deal.”

The study focused on five organic farms, as conventional chemically sprayed fields are not conducive to a thriving overwintering insect population. The farms, all located in the Midwest, each had 10 emergence tents set up both in the middle of the field and around field edges. Emergence tents capture insects that have spent their winter in soil and prevent predatory insects from escaping scientific analysis. After the tents were set up in mid-March 2018, samples were taken in late March, mid-April, and at the end of April.

In total, researchers collected 4,226 insects they considered beneficial, accounting for 95 species of parasitoids and pest predators.  Arthropods collected along field boarders contained two times the diversity and abundance as emergence tents placed within crop fields. The divide between cultivated and uncultivated areas held for four of the farms. On one farm, the field boarder contained mostly grasses with few broadleaf plants and flowers and had been mowed short the previous fall. These field margins were much less diverse than those where farmers had planted wildflower seeds along the edges.  “We were able to determine that these field edges are important for maintaining natural enemies of pest species in the landscape,” said Dr. Clem. “And the quality of the field border is likely to benefit the arthropod communities that live there and enhance the services they provide.”

Previous studies have found myriad benefits from the decision to dedicate a portion of one’s cropland to habitat for pest predators and parasitoids. In addition to their ability to help control pests, there is also evidence that non-crop areas like hedgerows can be an effective barrier against spray drift, reduce soil erosion, and act as habitat corridors for forest plants in agricultural landscapes. However, the ability  for these areas to manage pest populations is dependent upon maintaining favorable conditions for predators to thrive. A 2016 study published in Environment International finds that systemic pesticides like the neonicotinoids can run off from farm fields and make their way into wildflowers along field margins. In this context, these areas become a source sink, as pest predators are drawn to this area but then killed off due to local contamination. In fact, there is evidence that foraging bumblebees would rather dodge traffic than agricultural chemicals.  A 2015 study published in the Journal of Insect Conservation finds two times more pollinators on plants in field margins facing roadways than those facing agricultural fields.

But even conventional chemical farms can begin to shift when land is dedicated to biodiversity. Two studies published in November 2020 bear this out. One study, published in Science Advances, finds that conserving plant diversity around one’s farm can result in much lower rates of pest pressure on plants. Similarly, a study from researchers at University California, Santa Barbara, finds that more diverse landscapes lower insecticide use, while less diverse cropping areas lead to much more intensive pesticide applications.

As co-author Alexandra Harmon-Threatt, PhD, of the present study notes, “This research supports the idea that these uncropped areas — whether you want to call them field borders, field margins or even ditches — are really beneficial for insects and other arthropods. Preserving some land that is not cultivated and not mowing your field edges might make a big difference for insect conservation, but it’s probably also making a difference in controlling pests in farm areas, which is also super-important for meeting our other goals of feeding a growing population.”

For more information on the benefits of field margins and how you can plant more diverse areas around your home in garden (and subsequently reduce your need for pest management!), see Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind and Hedgerows for Biodiversity: Habitat is needed to protect pollinators, other beneficial organisms, and healthy ecosystems.  You can also visit the  BEE Protective Habitat Guide and Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity  for more ways in which you can foster pest resilience in your backyard and community.

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

Source: University of Illinois, Journal of Insect Conservation

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2021) The endocrine disrupting herbicide propazine (in the triazine family of frog-deforming endocrine disruptors) is set for cancellation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to a Federal Register notice published last week. The move would eliminate use of the hazardous herbicide by the end of 2022. While health and environmental advocates are pleased with the agency’s move, they say it is critical that all pesticides in the triazine class, including atrazine and simazine, also be eliminated from use.

In November 2020, Beyond Pesticides and allied environmental groups launched a lawsuit against EPA for its intent to reregister the triazine family of chemicals. The agency’s interim approval of the herbicides, conducted under the Trump administration, eliminates important safeguards for children’s health and a monitoring programs intended to protect groundwater from contamination. As is typical with EPA, the agency merely proposed minor label changes in attempts to avert risks identified in its registration review. According to a release from EPA, it made the decision not out of concerns relating to human health and environmental protection, but in order to provide “regulatory certainty” for farmers and local officials.

In March 2021, the Biden administration requested a stay on the atrazine lawsuit brought by environmental groups, as it indicated it would review the Trump administration’s actions on the chemicals. “It is possible that, in response to this review, EPA may undertake actions that could resolve some or all of the issues in this case,” EPA said in its motion to stay, Progressive Farmer reports.

If propazine’s cancellation is the extent of the Biden administration’s corrective actions after the Trump administration’s complete abdication of responsibility to human health and environmental protection, then it is not enough, say advocates. With greenhouse uses already in the process of cancellation, propazine’s remaining use is on sorghum. Although a hefty 200,000 lbs. of propazine are used each year, focused mainly in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, this amount pales in comparison to the over 70 million lbs. of atrazine used throughout the United States.

Under an Endangered Species Act review, initiated by EPA only after a lawsuit from health and environmental groups, the triazine chemicals were found adversely effect a range of species. Propazine was found to harm 64 endangered species, while simazine and atrazine were both likely to harm over 50% of all endangered species an 40% of their critical habitats.

EPA has long known about triazine’s threats to wildlife, including its ability to chemically castrate male frogs. However, the agency has consistently defended the chemical, and sat by while independent researchers like Tyrone Hayes, PhD, who conducted seminal research on atrazine’s endocrine disrupting properties, are pilloried by chemical industry propaganda. In a Critical Perspectives piece published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry last month, Jason Rohr, PhD, provides an in-depth investigation of the atrazine controversy.

“I argue that the atrazine controversy must be more than just a true story of cover-ups, bias, and vengeance,” he writes in the piece. “It must be used as an example of how manufacturing uncertainty and bending science can be exploited to delay undesired regulatory decisions and how greed and conflicts of interest—situations where personal or organizational considerations have compromised or biased professional judgment and objectivity—can affect environmental and public health and erode trust in the discipline of toxicology, science in general, and the honorable functioning of societies.”

The triazine class of chemicals also pose significant threats to human health, and are particularly concerning in the context of the range of chemicals one may be exposed to in today’s world. As Dr. Hayes noted a recent presentation at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum, “Children in utero may be exposed to over 300 synthetic chemicals before they leave the womb… I would argue that a human fetus trapped in contaminated amniotic fluid is no different than one of my tadpoles trapped in a contaminated pond.”  

Atrazine has been linked to a range of adverse birth outcomes, including smaller body sizes, slower growth rates, and certain deformities like choanal atresia (where nasal passages are blocked at birth), and hypospadias (where the opening of a male’s urethra is not located at the tip of the penis).

While industry consistently lines up local Congressmembers, former EPA officials, and agrichemical lobbyists to pressure EPA to keep triazines in the market, there is no evidence that the herbicides benefit the farmers these officials claim to represent. According to research published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, banning atrazine would provide an economic benefit to farmers. “The winners,” the research concludes, “in an atrazine free future would include farm worker, farmers and their families, and others who are exposed to atrazine either directly from field uses or indirectly from contaminated tap water along with natural ecosystem that are currently damaged by atrazine.” 

During the Obama Administration, health and environmental advocates were on the defensive with propazine. After glyphosate-resistant crops predictably invaded genetically engineered cotton fields in Texas, growers requested propazine use on over 3 million acres of farm fields. Although EPA determined Texan farmers met the criteria for an emergency, a decision Beyond Pesticides disagreed with, the agency did find that groundwater risks from the proposed propazine use would be too risky.

Thus, while advocates remain hopeful and determined to pressure the Biden administration to cancel all triazines chemicals, eliminating propazine is a step in the right direction.

Watch for a Beyond Pesticides “Action of the Week” in the coming week requesting that the Biden administration fulfill its statutory duty and stop use of the triazine family of chemicals, including atrazine, as European nations have done since 2004. For more information on the dangers of atrazine and its chemical cousins, read Beyond Pesticides comments to EPA, and watch Dr. Tyrone Hayes presentations from former National Pesticide Forum events on Youtube. Attend the fourth and concluding day of the 38th National Pesticide Forum, Cultivating Community Health, and learn from advocates in local communities. Register now for the June 15 session.

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

Source: EPA, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Center for Biological Diversity, Progressive Farmer DTN

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2021) Beyond Pesticides reports regularly on new science showing how pesticides harm human health and ecosystems. This science is not factored into EPA decisions.

Tell EPA that cutting-edge science must be considered.

More than 50 pesticide active ingredients have been identified as endocrine disruptors that mimic the action of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; block hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones; or affect the synthesis, transport, metabolism and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. Endocrine disruptors have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, early puberty, infertility and other reproductive disorders, childhood and adult cancers, and other metabolic disorders. Similar effects are found in other species. In spite of legal requirements and the flood of research, EPA issues Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) on pesticide registrations making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the potential for endocrine disruption, or identifying additional data needs to satisfy Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program requirements in the PIDs. EPA cannot make findings of no unreasonable adverse effects without findings concerning endocrine disruption. EPA continues to register pesticides posing unreasonable health effects.

There is much research on the impacts of pesticides on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates and plants, including overwhelming evidence of an on-going insect apocalypse and collapse of bird populations. EPA ignores this science and continues to register pesticides that contribute to the problem. 

EPA ignores science on dangers to pollinators, the human gut microbiome, soil organisms, and effects of breakdown products and combinations of ingredients. This cutting edge science is not  factored into EPA’s static pesticide evaluation program, given its structure. What is needed is a precautionary approach that removes chemicals from the market when science raises reasonable doubts as to their safety. Not to do so is to put economic value to pesticide manufacturers above the health of human beings and the planet.

Tell EPA that cutting-edge science must be considered.

Learn more about science and policy by tuning in to Day 4 of the virtual National Pesticide Forum on June 15. REGISTER NOW. 

EPA Must Consider Cutting Edge Science

Scientific journals report regularly on new science showing how pesticides harm human health and ecosystems. This science is not factored into EPA decisions.

More than 50 pesticide active ingredients have been identified as endocrine disruptors that mimic the action of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; block hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones; or affect the synthesis, transport, metabolism and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. Endocrine disruptors have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, early puberty, infertility and other reproductive disorders, childhood and adult cancers, and other metabolic disorders. Similar effects are found in other species. In spite of legal requirements and the flood of research, EPA issues Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) on pesticide registrations making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the potential for endocrine disruption, or identifying additional data needs to satisfy Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program requirements in the PIDs. EPA cannot make findings of no unreasonable adverse effects without findings concerning endocrine disruption. EPA continues to register pesticides posing unreasonable health effects.

There is much research on the impacts of pesticides on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates and plants, including overwhelming evidence of an on-going insect apocalypse and collapse of bird populations. EPA ignores this science and continues to register pesticides that contribute to the problem.

EPA ignores science on dangers to pollinators, the human gut microbiome, soil organisms, and effects of breakdown products and combinations of ingredients. This cutting-edge science cannot be factored into EPA’s static pesticide evaluation program. It requires a precautionary approach that removes chemicals from the market when science raises reasonable doubts as to their safety. Not to do so is to put economic value to pesticide manufacturers above the health of human beings and the planet.

Please revise pesticide registration reviews to incorporate precaution.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2021) On Sunday, June 13, Switzerland will hold a national vote on two landmark initiatives related to pesticide use (as well as several referenda). The vote on one initiative, dubbed by advocates “For a Switzerland Free of Synthetic Pesticides” (FSFSP), will determine whether or not the country will ban synthetic pesticides. If it does, it will become the first European nation to do so. The other initiative, which aims to eliminate direct subsidies of farmers who use synthetic pesticides or antibiotics for livestock, is focused on improving the quality of Switzerland’s drinking water and food supply. Beyond Pesticides covered the grassroots origin of the Swiss “no synthetic pesticides” initiative in 2018 and sees potential passage of both it and the water quality initiative as a watershed moment in the protection of health and the environment. These measures would go a long way to protecting and improving the health of humans and ecosystems, and the food supply, as well as protecting biodiversity in Switzerland. It could also — as advocates hope — encourage other European countries to follow suit.

This vote has been scheduled, in part, as an outcome of a 2018 petition by the advocacy group, Future3, which collected more than 100,000 signatures for the FSFSP initiative. That qualified it to be considered by the Swiss federal cabinet (the Federal Council), which then gave its recommendation to Parliament to schedule the upcoming vote. The measure would ban all uses of synthetic pesticides by farmers and industry, as well as ban imported foodstuffs produced with synthetic pesticides (so as not to disadvantage Swiss farmers). The initiative provides a 10-year period during which farmers could make the transition off of synthetic pesticides.

The clean water initiative, in addition to proscribing the use of pesticides, and of antibiotics for livestock, would prevent farmers from using imported animal feed (which could easily contain pesticide residues). In addition, it would limit the numbers of cows, pigs, and chickens being raised in the country in order to reduce all the problems associated with their manure, including contaminated drinking water. Pascal Scheiwiller, an endorser of the clean water initiative — which estimates that a million Swiss residents drink contaminated water — commented, “People have been sold a romantic image of farming in Switzerland, which is far removed from reality.”

Some opponents of the initiatives appear to have a different take on the “reality of farming” in the country, calling the initiatives “extreme,” and claiming that they are based on a misunderstanding of the realities of Swiss agriculture, and would cause enormous damage to farmers. The Swiss Farmers Union opposes the measures, saying that many members feel that their way of life is “under siege.” Such identification of pesticide use with a valued “way of life” may reveal, at least in part, a different misunderstanding — of both the toll of pesticide use on health and the environment, and of the potential and benefits of non-chemical agriculture.

Switzerland is home to Syngenta, the largest pesticide manufacturer in the world. The company has opposed and derided these measures since they were brought forward three years ago, warning that passage would reduce agricultural yields by up to 40%. This scare mongering flies in the face of evidence that non-chemical-intensive, organic practices can generate yields on par with, and sometimes greater than, chemical production, and can improve profit margins. A well-kept “secret” about pesticides is that they do not actually work as well as most farmers believe they do. Should the FSFSP initiative pass, the government would likely need to create technical and economic support programs for farmers navigating the transition from intensive pesticide use to effective and practicable non-chemical and organic approaches.

Swiss organic farmer and winemaker Roland Lenz — whose vineyards are surrounded by farmers who oppose these agricultural initiatives — favors them, saying that to continue pesticide use would be “sheer lunacy,” particularly given that there are ready methods of growing successfully without them. He commented, “With a ‘Yes’ vote on both initiatives, we will finally move from the chemical age back to the organic age,” and added that passage of these measures “would allow Switzerland to become a pioneer in organic food as well as an example to the rest of the world.”

Early on in the campaign for the FSFSP initiative, Professor Edward Mitchell of the University of Neuchâtel said, “I am convinced that other countries may follow suit. Switzerland with its direct democracy system is somewhat different from other countries, making such a change perhaps more likely in the short term. This puts us in a privileged position to act proactively rather than in response to government actions, and with this goes a responsibility to do so.”

Reuters reports that the Swiss vote on these agriculture-related measures is expected to be close, following what the outlet calls “an unusually bitter debate over the initiatives. . . . A recent Tamedia [Zurich-based media company] poll showed 48% of voters favoured the drinking water initiative and 49% supported the pesticide ban.”

The use of synthetic pesticides has been a contested issue across many European countries, and the European Union (EU), in recent years. Recent developments have included a 2018 EU ban on outdoor uses of a number of commonly applied neonicotinoid pesticides; the European Parliament’s special PEST Committee’s 2019 recommendation of greatly strengthened pesticide regulation; and the EU 2020 adoption of a new strategy to evaluate synergistic impacts of multiple pesticide exposures. To date, only Bhutan has banned synthetic pesticides altogether and adopted organic farming practices.

Beyond Pesticides has spent decades laying out the risks and impacts of synthetic pesticide use — for human and ecosystem health, for organism health and biodiversity, for climate, for water and air and soil quality, for food system integrity — and the multiple solutions that lie in a wholesale transition to organic agriculture and land management. Many of these topics can be explored on the website through the “Programs” drop-down menu. A consistent focus in Beyond Pesticides coverage of pesticide issues has been impacts on human health; that universe of information can be navigated through the Daily News Blog and the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

An on-the-ground chronicle of the kinds of health impacts that pesticide use can have arrived to us recently from someone who lives in Switzerland. Karen Cortesi contacted Beyond Pesticides earlier this year in search of help for a very challenging experience she and her family are having as a result of a neighbor’s use of pesticides that drift onto her family’s property. Ms. Cortesi provided a detailed accounting of the health impacts experienced by her, her partner Simone Roncoroni, their son, and their rabbit and chickens over the course of the past four years. (Beyond Pesticides is unable to fact check all aspects of Ms. Cortesi’s account, which were communicated to us via email; nevertheless, we present highlights of it because it offers a “real life” look at what havoc pesticide use and misuse can wreak.)

The family lives in Novaggio, near the border with Italy, in an area that is designated as both an agricultural zone and a water protection zone. The parents are both homeopaths, and the family grows and sells, at a small scale, organic eggs, fruits, and vegetables. As Ms. Cortesi recounts, pesticide use in her area is permitted for “professional” use (which we interpret to mean for commercial use by trained applicators). The family’s neighbor has been applying to his property, since April of 2020, pesticides that she says are illegal for private use, and in concentrations from three to 20 times what is legally allowed.

Initially, they did not know what pesticide products he was using; Ms. Cortesi reports that they did once spot an applicator tank hand labeled with “Karate 0.08%.” The active ingredient in this product — Karate with Zeon Technology (“Zeon Technology” meaning that it uses nanoparticles) — made by Syngenta, is lambda-cyhalothrin, which Beyond Pesticides’ database notes is a synthetic pyrethroid that is an endocrine disruptor, a skin and mucosal irritant, and a neurotoxicant; it is also toxic to at least bees and aquatic organisms. For humans exposed, it can have acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity (at high exposure levels, potentially resulting in coma or death from respiratory depression). The label on this product indicates that no one should enter a treated area for 24–48 hours after application.

Once authorities finally visited the neighbor’s property, the products (some names of which are in Italian) discovered included: Karate, Switch (fludioxonil, ciprodinil); Pergado (mandipropamid); Radico (1-naftil-acetico, which we believe is 1-naphthaleneacetic acid); Rame 30 (ossicloruro di rame); Flint (trifloxystrobin, tebuconazole); Tega (trifloxystrobin); Ridomil vino (metalaxyl); Topas vino (penconazole); and Rondo (dithianon, difenoconazole). (Most of these are fungicide compounds.) Ms. Cortesi also reported that the neighbor regularly washed pesticide application equipment in an outdoor sink that discharges directly into a river that contributes to the water supply for the village of Pura.

Ms. Cortesi recounted what family members, and their animals, have experienced since the pesticide use started in 2017:

• My rabbit lost her hair, and her skin was bright red, and as she lives with a male and never gave birth, we think that she has become sterile. 
  • My rooster had a red eye, no voice, and collapsed on the ground for hours. 
  • My hen couldn’t breathe well, and completely stopped laying eggs. 
  • For us [humans], the symptoms grew slowly from burning eyes, throat, and nose, to headaches, collapse*, and great difficulty breathing; then, neurological symptoms, such as tremors, motor weakness, and hallucinations. In April of 2020, we feared we might die because of the extreme respiratory distress. Simone has had testicular pain; recently, after [the neighbor] used some substance again, I had severe organ pain and vomiting. Another time, I had an asthma-like attack, and was on the floor for 30 minutes gasping for breath and coughing, though I have never had any respiratory issues in my life prior to this.

[* By “collapse,” Ms. Cortesi reports that she meant that Mr. Roncoroni first got a “headache, then his eyes rolled backward and he started to have hallucinations and spasms, and couldn’t speak.” Her theory about the neurological symptoms is that because Karate uses nanoparticles, some compound(s) may be crossing the blood–brain barrier.”]

Ms. Cortesi wrote about their utter frustration and cited to Beyond Pesticides their numerous attempts to get authorities to recognize what was happening to them, find out what the neighbor was spraying, and compel him to stop, as well as to get medical help with figuring out what was poisoning them. At most every turn, Ms. Cortesi says, their attempts have been met with anemic action, some level of indifference, and subtle implications that they are somehow “crazy.”

The family does not dare sell its eggs as “organic” after the hens’ exposure to the pesticides. Their health continues to be affected by this neighbor’s pesticide use, so they have decided they must move. Sunday’s vote on whether to ban synthetic pesticides, even if successful, will not be a remedy for this family. Out of their own experience, and with the hope that it might inform people prior to the June 13 vote, the couple has made a video describing what they have endured. Beyond Pesticides hopes that the two pesticide initiatives are approved in the June 13 vote so that, in time, experiences like this will become, at worst, exceedingly rare.

Beyond Pesticides reminds readers that the best ways to avoid harmful pesticides are to purchase organic food, support organic practices in landscapes and agriculture, and help educate local communities about the dangers of pesticides and the potential for organic systems. Please contact us for guidance on how to advocate for a pesticide-free world.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/china/swiss-vote-become-first-european-nation-ban-synthetic-pesticides-2021-06-07/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2021) Exposure to toxic chemicals decreases egg count and increases infertility risk among women, according to a study published in Environment International. Since 2014, U.S. fertility rates have been decreasing, with many attributing the decline to older age pregnancies. However, several findings demonstrate that exposure to environmental pollutants, like persistent organic pollutants (POPs) from the industrial and agriculture industry, contributes to a decline in fertility rates. Scientists and health officials already associate exposure to POPs, like pesticides, with adverse impacts on male fertility, including reduced sperm count, quality, and abnormal sperm development. Therefore, it is essential to understand how exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment affects reproductive success, especially among women who can transfer contaminants to the fetus via the umbilical cord. The researchers note that these findings should urge government and health officials to reexamine chemical safety concerning reproductive health, and “strongly encourage [them] to study mechanisms behind POP-associated infertility in women in more detail.”

Researchers examined ovarian egg reserve size in pregnant women directly by examining the density of follicles and immature eggs in ovarian tissue and indirectly via serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Using AMH serum samples, researchers assessed concentration levels of 31 POPs: nine organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), ten polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), three polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs), and nine perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The study results find women of all reproductive ages with higher levels of POPs in serum samples also have fewer immature eggs remaining in the ovaries. At least 14 mixtures of POPs are present in all women in the study. Mixtures of lipophilic or fat-loving POPs, including PCBs, PBDEs (flame retardants), and p,p’-DDE (DDT breakdown product), significantly reduce ovarian follicle numbers. Additionally, exposure to OCPs, like trans-nonachlor (an ingredient in chlordane) and hexachlorobenzene (HCB), also affect healthy ovarian follicle concentrations. Lastly, researchers found that HCB, p,p’-DDE and various OCP mixtures increase infertility risk, including longer time-to-pregnancy (TTP) and earlier reproductive dysfunction.

The 2001 Stockholm Convention treaty bans persistent organic pollutants (POPs), like well-known organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). POPs are primary pollutants of concern (UNEP, 2009), as their persistence and toxicity adversely affect environmental and biological health. These pollutants have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. The U.S. was a signatory to the treaty, but U.S. Senate never ratified it, relegating U.S. officials to observer status. While various POPs on the Stockholm Convention annex lists (i.e., organochlorine compounds) are no longer manufactured or utilized, many of these chemical compounds remain in soils, water (solid and liquid), and the surrounding air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Furthermore, some OCPs like lindane, although banned, remain active as pharmaceutical treatments for lice and scabies. Therefore, individuals can still encounter various POPs at varying concentrations.

The ubiquity of pesticides in the environment and food supply is concerning as current measures safeguarding against pesticide use and exposure do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants. For instance, 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide biomarker (includes parent compound and breakdown products) in their body. Additionally, pregnant women already have over 100 chemicals detectable in blood and umbilical cord samples, including banned POPs. However, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are from unidentified sources, lack adequate information, or were not previously detectable in humans. The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. The scientific literature demonstrates pesticides’ long history of severe adverse human health effects (i.e., endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive/birth problems, neurotoxicity, loss of biodiversity, etc.) and effects on wildlife and biodiversity. Most concerning is exposure to both POPs and current-use pesticides, as these chemicals display endocrine-disrupting effects. Endocrine disruption can lead to several health problems, including hormone-related cancer development (i.e., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity.

This study highlights concerns over prenatal exposure to chemicals from consumer and industrial products and sources. There is a growing consensus that exposure to environmental toxicants before pregnancy can impair fertility, pregnancy, and fetal development. These adverse effects can continue into childhood and adulthood and may have multigenerational consequences. Therefore, researchers stress that future studies must evaluate chemical exposure and fertility among non-pregnant women or women experiencing fertility issues. Although the women in this study are fertile enough to conceive, this may differ for the general population or in regions of high chemical exposure. Moreover, researchers advocate for enhanced chemical residue regulations for contaminated food. Numerous studies, including this one, indicate chemical exposure mainly stems from dietary exposure, like food and drinking water. Considering rates of preterm births, miscarriages/stillbirths, and birth malformations are increasing, it is necessary to assess the impact that chemical exposure has on fertility to safeguard future generations’ health.

Doctors and pediatricians strongly agree that pregnant mothers should avoid pesticide exposure during critical development periods. Wildlife, laboratory, and epidemiologic studies show exposure to low-level environmental contaminants, such as pesticides and other chemicals, subtly undermines the ability to reproduce. Furthermore, studies regarding endocrine disruption reveal mechanisms that show how specific chemical toxicants can alter fertility. Therefore, advocates urge that policies stengthen pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on Sexual and Reproductive Dysfunction, Birth/Fetal Effects, Endocrine Disruption, Cancer, Body Burdens, and other diseases.

One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is to buy, grow, and support organic. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticides in urine significantly drop when switching to an all-organic diet. Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, from rural to urban, can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment, especially among chemically vulnerable individuals or those with health conditions. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Collaborate with Beyond Pesticides to educate and build the movement that will bring long-needed protection to humans, animals, and the entire environment by attending the National Pesticide Forum on June 15. Cultivating Healthy Communities brings together expert scientists, farmers, policymakers, and activists to discuss strategies to eliminate harms from toxic chemical use in favor of non-toxic organic solutions. The conference began with a pre-conference on May 24, launched on May 25, and continues every Tuesday until June 15, 2021. Registration is open today and available through the webpage on this link. It starts with us. With registration, you will be able to view talks from the entire conference.

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

Source: Environment International, The Conversation

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2021) Earlier this week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia blocked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from approving use of the hazardous insecticide aldicarb on citrus crops in Florida. The decision comes shortly after Nikki Fried, Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner, denied a state-level registration for aldicarb, which was cancelled in the United States over a decade ago due to risks to children and water contamination. Health, conservation, and farmworker advocates that brought the suit are praising the court’s decision.

“We applaud this decision by the court whose ruling confirms what we already knew — that there is no place for a toxic pesticide like aldicarb to be used on crops in Florida where our workers and our water would be at grave risk,” said Jeannie Economos, coordinator of the Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project at Farmworker Association of Florida in a press release. “Farmworkers can breathe a bit easier knowing that this neurotoxin will not be used on the citrus crops they harvest. We are grateful to Florida commissioner of agriculture Nikki Fried for refusing to allow this toxin to poison our communities, our food and our environment. This decision sends a message to EPA — protecting people and the environment must be their top priority.”

Shortly before the end of the last administration, former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler provided one last handout to the agrichemical industry by approving aldicarb for use on Florida’s citrus groves. The move came after a meeting between Mr. Wheeler, regional EPA staff, and the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association in October 2020, where the industry group urged EPA to reregister the banned chemical. Although the chemical was approved quickly, advocacy groups responded in kind by placing pressure on EPA, and filing a legal challenge to the decision.

By April, Commissioner Fried had heard from both sides, and the Florida’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services rejected state-level approval of the hazardous insecticide. “While there are promising new horizons for fighting citrus greening, like recent breakthroughs at UF/IFAS on genetic resistance, aldicarb poses an unacceptable risk to human, animal, and environmental health in Florida, is one of the world’s most toxic pesticides, and is banned in more than 100 countries,” said Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried. “The registrant’s application does not meet the requirements of state law, and we must therefore deny the registration of aldicarb for use in the State of Florida.”

In rejecting EPA’s approval of aldicarb, the court cited the state’s denial, and found that EPA did not comply with Endangered Species Act requirements prior to registration. “We’re thrilled the court has rejected use of one of the most dangerous pesticides in history on Florida oranges and grapefruit,” said Nathan Donley, PhD, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This important decision is a sharp rebuke of the EPA’s pesticide office, which even under the Biden administration chose to dismiss science and the law to protect profits at the expense of farmworkers, children and endangered species.”

While the Biden administration has made important, hopeful statements about certain pesticides and taken some minor steps towards improving protections, it has continued to defend heinous decisions by the previous administration, like the allowance of aldicarb and reregistration of the bee-toxic insecticide sulfoxaflor, in the courts. It is becoming increasingly evident that it will take persistent public pressure to move the Biden EPA to make decisions that are in the interest of public health and the environment.

Aldicarb should never have been considered for use on citrus crops, and should be completely eliminated from use in the United States and around the world. The chemical is banned in over 100 countries under the international Rotterdam Convention, which the U.S. has signed but not ratified.

Aldicarb is a poster child for why pesticide product stewardship is an oxymoron, say advocates. Its downstream effects result in the poisoning of farmworkers, contamination of drinking water, and residues on food can put children at increased risk of serious health problems. EPA findings at the time of aldicarb’s 2010 cancellation showed that use on citrus crops represented the highest risks to children. Upstream effects of aldicarb are also devastating. It is primary feedstock, methyl isocyanate, is the same chemical that caused the Bhopal, India disaster, one of the worst environmental crimes in history where over 25,000 men, women, and children died or were permanently disabled after a leak occurred at a plant owned by Union Carbide (a company later purchased by DowDuPont/Corteva). Every step of aldicarb’s supply chain leaves a trail of pain and suffering for those involved, while industry executives removed from the day to day of the chemical’s use continue to profit.

Despite the federal court’s decision, it is possible EPA may appeal or take further administrative action in favor of industry, as was done after dicamba’s registration was vacated by the courts. New staff at EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention have acknowledged political interference in that decision and committed to scientific integrity moving forward. Aldicarb should be a simple test for such an approach, advocates note. Join us in telling EPA to reverse its approval of highly toxic aldicarb now.

And for more information on the hazards of pesticides and their alternatives, and to hear from experts working on cutting edge legal, advocacy, and scientific approaches, sign up for Beyond Pesticides first ever virtual National Pesticide Forum. June 15 is the last week of the forum, but signing up will also get you access to the full range of speakers and presentations!

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity