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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: NYU Midnight Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: PEER, Boston Globe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: USDA Media Release

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

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

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

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

Relationships Among Priorities and Relationship to Environment

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

Climate Change

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

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

COVID-19

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

Racial Equity

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

Work with Other Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

Dear President-elect Biden

Congratulations on your election.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in agriculture and the environment. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. Support organic agriculture today by telling the Biden transition team to harness the power of organic to combat climate change.

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

Source: UCT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organic agriculture practices combat climate change by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source(s): Science Daily, UCSB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Science Daily, Greenbiz, Nature

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

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

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

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

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

There are plenty of possibilities from which to choose:

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

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

Letter to President-elect Biden’s Agriculture Transition Team

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

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

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

There are plenty of possibilities to choose from:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source(s): University of Milan/CVA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Vanderbilt University (press release), Scientific Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Science Advances, PhysOrg (press release)

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2020) Now that we have learned what a pandemic looks and feels like, with the astounding levels of infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, we must take serious steps to prevent another pandemic on the horizon—this one tied to bacterial resistance to antibiotics. An important article in The Lancet points to a “looming potential pandemic” resulting from a “rise in multidrug-resistant bacterial infections that are undetected, underdiagnosed, and increasingly untreatable, [which] threatens the health of people in the USA and globally.”

Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators it is urgent that the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria be initiated.

Two contributors to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) that are being highlighted are in agriculture and use of antibiotics in medicine when not warranted.

The misuse of antibiotics in agriculture includes antibiotics used to control certain bacterial diseases in plant agriculture (especially oxytetracycline and streptomycin). While crop uses are important contributors to breeding bacterial resistance, they are small compared to their uses in livestock production. Antibiotics are used largely as additives to animal feed to ward off any potential infections and to promote unnaturally rapid growth (the latter of which translates to higher profits), rather than being used to treat bacterial infections (although that does happen and products from treated animals can go to market with residues). Both of these objectives compensate for the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which scientists believe are contributing to the next pandemic. Use of antibiotics is prohibited in all certified organic production. Although the standards of the National Organic Program require that sick animals be treated, meat and other products from such animals cannot be sold with the imprimatur of the Certified Organic designation.

Another leading cause of AMR is the unnecessary use of antibiotics in human medicine. Antibiotics may be given prophylactically to prevent infection or during the course of a viral infection, which cannot be cured with antibiotics. A study from summer 2020 shows that a shocking 72% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics even when they were not clinically indicated. The authors note: “AMR might worsen under COVID-19 due to the overuse of antibiotics in humans, continuing misuse in agriculture, and the dearth of antimicrobials in the development pipeline.”

The co-authors of The Lancet articles also discuss how the AMR phenomenon that underlies this rise can exacerbate COVID-19 risks. They observe that, across five countries, COVID-19 diagnoses are associated with bacterial infections (with 3.5% diagnosed concurrently and 14.3% post-COVID-19). The prevalence is higher in patients who require intensive care. 

In 2015, the White House released a comprehensive action plan to curtail antibiotic misuse and accelerate new antimicrobials and vaccines—the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. Implementation has been uneven and, at times, contradictory. In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock, but the same year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rejected the World Health Organization’s  guidance to limit antibiotic use in livestock feed. There have been unprecedented nationwide budget cuts to hospital-based AMR programs. Ignoring the looming pandemic, in 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved an expansion of medically important antibiotics such as streptomycin and oxytetracycline as pesticides to increase crop yields, and the USDA removed federal oversight of meat inspection at pork processing plants.

Failing to confront AMR undermines decades of advances in medicine and public health. The COVID-19 pandemic should serve as a wake-up call that progress on the national action plan is critical for public health.

Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators it is urgent that the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria be initiated.

Letter to Congress

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

Two contributors to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) that are being highlighted are in agriculture and use of antibiotics in medicine when not warranted.

The misuse of antibiotics in agriculture includes antibiotics used to control certain bacterial diseases in plant agriculture (especially oxytetracycline and streptomycin). While crop uses are important contributors to breeding bacterial resistance, they are small compared to their uses in livestock production. Antibiotics are used largely as additives to animal feed to ward off any potential infections and to promote unnaturally rapid growth, rather than being used to treat bacterial infections (although that does happen and products from treated animals can go to market with residues). Both of these objectives compensate for the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which scientists believe are contributing to the next pandemic.

Another leading cause of AMR is the unnecessary use of antibiotics in human medicine. Antibiotics may be given prophylactically to prevent infection or during the course of a viral infection, which cannot be cured with antibiotics. A study from summer 2020 shows that a shocking 72% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics even when they were not clinically indicated. The authors note: “AMR might worsen under COVID-19 due to the overuse of antibiotics in humans, continuing misuse in agriculture, and the dearth of antimicrobials in the development pipeline.”

The co-authors of The Lancet articles also discuss how the AMR phenomenon that underlies this rise can exacerbate COVID-19 risks. They observe that, across five countries, COVID-19 diagnoses are associated with bacterial infections (with 3.5% diagnosed concurrently and 14.3% post-COVID-19). The prevalence is higher in patients who require intensive care.

In 2015, the White House released a comprehensive action plan to curtail antibiotic misuse and accelerate new antimicrobials and vaccines—the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. Implementation has been uneven and, at times, contradictory. In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration banned use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock, but the same year, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rejected WHO’s guidance to limit antibiotic use in livestock feed. There have been unprecedented nationwide budget cuts to hospital-based AMR programs. In 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved expansion of medically important antibiotics such as streptomycin and oxytetracycline as pesticides to increase crop yields, and the USDA removed federal oversight of meat inspection at pork processing plants.

Failing to confront AMR undermines decades of advances in medicine and public health. The COVID-19 pandemic should serve as a wake-up call that progress on the national action plan is critical for public health.

Please encourage federal agencies, including EPA, USDA, and FDA, to take urgent action to implement the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2020) Beyond Pesticides joined health and environmental groups suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) late last month over its decision to reapprove the endocrine disrupting herbicide atrazine with fewer protections for children’s health. Despite the chemical being banned across much of the world, EPA continues to make decisions that benefit chemical industry executives. “EPA’s failure to remove atrazine represents a dramatic failure of a federal agency charged with safeguarding the health of people, wildlife, and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “We seek to uphold the agency’s duty to act on the science, in the face of viable alternatives to this highly toxic weedkiller.”

It is not hyperbole, but in fact scientifically documented, that atrazine exposure “chemically castrates” frogs, impairs fish reproduction, and can result in birth defects and cancer in humans. EPA decision comes on the heels of a rash of industry-friendly decisions. Within the last month, the agency has finalized rules weakening farmworker buffer zone protections, reapproving dicamba use on genetically engineered crops, and reregistering some of the most toxic pesticides on the market.

The lawsuit, filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, contends that before reapproving atrazine, the EPA failed in its legal duty to ensure that the pesticide would not cause unreasonable harm to public health and the environment. The recent atrazine reapproval eliminated longstanding safeguards for children’s health, allowed 50% more atrazine to end up in U.S. waterways, and perpetuated dangerously high risks to farmworkers and their families.

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 authors  conclude, “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.” Numerous other countries, including the European Union as far back as 2004, have banned atrazine and eliminated use without any damage to the farming economy. Yet EPA’s allowance means atrazine is likely to continue being the second-most used pesticide in the United States, with roughly 70 million pounds used each year in agriculture.

“If EPA were actually doing its job, this chemical would have been off the market years ago,” said Kristin Schafer, executive director of Pesticide Action Network, which is also part of the lawsuit. “The science on atrazine’s harms is so clear that it’s been banned in Europe for more than a decade, yet here in this country EPA is now loosening use restrictions—once again putting corporate interests over public health or the environment.”

The lawsuit also challenges the EPA’s reapprovals of two other pesticides in the triazine class, propazine and simazine, which were part of the same review process as atrazine.

In allowing the continued use of atrazine, the EPA discarded safety precautions mandated under the Food Quality Protection Act that were put in place decades ago to limit young children’s exposure to the pesticide. In doing so, the agency ignored multiple independent epidemiological studies finding that developing embryos and young children are at high risk from atrazine. These findings are supported by animal studies, which likewise demonstrate adverse birth outcomes and reproductive effects.

In assessing atrazine, the EPA also reduced the protection factor it uses to convert toxicity levels observed in rat and mouse studies to levels considered safe for humans. The more permissive benchmark relies solely on a model developed by the primary manufacturer of atrazine, Syngenta.

Had the safety standards been based on independent science, atrazine uses on lawns and turf would likely have been cancelled due to unacceptable harms to children. The approval only mandated a modest reduction in the application rate for turf.

Additionally, the EPA dismissed extensive evidence showing that personal protection equipment intended to reduce farmworkers’ exposure to atrazine is ineffective and infeasible, thus putting the health of this highly exposed group at risk.

“Rather than doing its job of protecting human health and the environment, EPA heeded to political expediency and rushed to reapprove this toxic pesticide. We are in court to make sure EPA answers for its blatant disregard of the lives of our nation’s farmworkers and their children,” said Sylvia Wu, senior attorney at Center for Food Safety, who is representing the petitioners in the lawsuit.

Over 4,000 individuals signed on to Beyond Pesticides’ petition urging EPA to ban atrazine. While we take to the courts to correct the agency’s failure to protect the public, we encourage these advocates to keep up the pressure work to restrict use at the state and local level. But don’t limit your advocacy to one class of chemical – promote organic farming and land care, which eliminates toxic herbicides as well as all other hazardous pesticides that hurt out health.

For more information on the specific dangers of atrazine poses to our health and the environment, watch the keynote presentation from Tyrone Hayes, PhD, professor at University California, Berkeley, at the 33rd National Pesticide Forum in Irvine, CA. Dr. Hayes one of the world’s foremost experts on atrazine, has been the subject of incessant attacks by the chemical’s manufacturer, Syngenta-Chemchina.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety press release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 5, 2020) Research at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) finds that pesticide exposure increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD), regardless of whether disease onset is idiopathic (spontaneous) or genetic (GBA genetic risk variant). Although the exact etiology of PD remains unknown, epidemiological and toxicological research repeatedly identifies exposure to pesticides, as well as specific gene-pesticide interactions, as significant adverse risk factors that contribute to PD. Furthermore, this study, “Gene Variants May Affect PD Risk After Pesticide Exposure,” suggests that environmental triggers like occupational exposure to pesticides can prompt PD in individuals with or without the genetic precursor.

This research demonstrates the importance of assessing disease etiology concerning occupational pesticide exposure, especially if disease triggers are overwhelmingly non-hereditary. Since not all individuals genetically predisposed to the disease develop PD, with only 10 to 15 percent of PD cases being genetic, government officials need to consider alternate etiological pathways that include environmental risk factors. Study researchers note, “‘Environmental exposures may have differential effects in different genotypes’ and may predispose people with PD to different symptom burden.” 

Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, with at least one million Americans living with PD and about 50,000 new diagnoses each year. The disease affects 50% more men than women and people with PD have a variety of symptoms, including loss of muscle control and trembling, anxiety and depression, constipation and urinary difficulties, dementia, and sleep disturbances. Over time, symptoms intensify, but there is no current cure for this fatal disease. While only a small percentage of PD incidences are genetic and PD is quickly becoming “the world’s fastest-growing brain disease,” research like this is vital for examining other potential risk factors for developing Parkinson’s disease.

Researchers at UCSF, who presented this study at the Movement Disorder Society 23rd International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (Virtual) 2020,  assessed two groups of patients—those with and without a PD diagnosis. The authors analyzed individuals based on two cohort studies, the Parkinson’s Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI)–a longitudinal study of people with PD, including genetic subtypes—and Fox Insight (FI), where participants self-report PD symptoms online. PPMI assessments were in-person and thoroughly evaluated motor and nonmotor function, comparing patients who developed PD idiopathically with healthy individuals. The study further compared patients with PD who are carriers of the two most common gene-specific mutations (i.e., LRRK2 G2019S mutation, GBA mutations) with carriers of each mutation who did not have PD. Researchers collected responses from the FI report to assess the pesticide exposure frequency among PD-diagnosed and non-diagnosed participants, ages 57 to 66 years.

Lastly, researchers assessed individuals with and without PD in both the PPMI and FI cohort to determine a correlation between pesticide exposure and cognitive impairment. Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and research-based characterization of cognitive impairment, researchers investigated symptoms among individuals in the PPMI. Researchers further assessed functional and subjective cognitive impairment for the FI cohort using various measurements: Non-Motor Symptom Questionnaire (NMSQ), cognitive-medication intake, and the Penn Parkinson’s Daily Activity Questionnaire (PDAQ). 

Overall, the report finds that occupational pesticide exposure presents a significant risk for idiopathic and GBA mutation-mediated PD. For individuals in the PPMI cohort study, pesticide exposure increases the risk of idiopathic PD 3.9-fold, in comparison with a healthy individual. Likewise, pesticide exposure significantly increases the risk for PD among individuals with a GBA mutation 4.2-fold. Participants in the FI cohort study demonstrate a moderate association between pesticide exposure and risk for PD, with hazard increasing 1.5-fold. Although pesticide exposure has little to no effect on carriers of the LRRK2 G2019S mutation the development of PD, the authors suggest that the impact of the LLRK2 gene is strong enough that environmental exposures play less of a role in disease nutrition. Lastly, pesticide exposure impacts cognitive ability as both study cohorts demonstrate a mild cogitative impairment, with pesticide-exposed participants reporting more cognitive impairment symptoms and remediation use.

Parkinson’s Disease occurs when there is damage to the dopaminergic nerve cells (i.e., those activated by or sensitive to dopamine) in the brain responsible for dopamine production, one of the primary neurotransmitters mediating motor function. Although the cause of dopaminergic cell damage remains unknown, evidence suggests that pesticide exposure, especially chronic exposure, may be the culprit. Pesticide use is ubiquitous, especially in the rural U.S., where pesticide exposure is nearly unavoidable due to drift and runoff. Moreover, occupational exposure poses a unique risk, as pesticide exposure is direct via handling and application. A 2017 study finds that occupational use of pesticides (i.e., fungicides, herbicides, or insecticides) increases the risk for PD by 110 to 211 percent. Carbamate pesticides increase PD risk by 455 percent, with pesticide use for ten years or more doubling PD risk. Even more concerning is that some personal protection equipment (PPE) may not adequately protect workers from chemical exposure during application.

Nonoccupational (residential) pesticide exposure, such as proximity to pesticide-treated areas, presents a risk for PD development. A Louisiana State University study finds that residents living adjacent to a pesticide-treated pasture and forest from the agriculture and timber industry, respectively, have higher rates of PD incidence. Furthermore, pesticide residue in waterways and on produce present an alternate route for residential pesticide exposure to increase the risk for PD via ingestion. Pesticide contamination in waterways is historically commonplace and widespread in U.S. rivers and streams, with over almost 90 percent of water samples containing at least five or more different pesticides. These pesticides further contaminate groundwater and drinking water sources. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finds detectable levels of pesticide residue on 57.5 percent of product samples in the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) analysis. Although the residue levels are within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s tolerances, the assertion that any level of pesticide within EPA tolerances in the U.S. food supply does not pose safety concerns has been challenged by numerous independent scientific studies. Pesticide exposure can cause severe health problems even at low residue levels, including endocrine disruption, cancers, reproductive dysfunction, respiratory problems (e.g., asthma, bronchitis), neurological impacts (e.g., developmental effects and Parkinson’s), among others. Nevertheless, both direct occupational and indirect nonoccupational exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of PD. 

Several studies identify various pesticides as involved in the pathology of PD, including the insecticides rotenone and chlorpyrifos, and herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, and paraquat. A Washington State University study determined that residents living near areas treated with glyphosate—the most widely used herbicides in the U.S.—are one-third more likely to die prematurely from Parkinson’s disease. In the Louisiana State University study, exposure to 2,4-D, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat from pasture land, forestry, or woodland operations, as prominent risk factors for PD, with the highest risk in areas where chemicals quickly percolate into drinking water sources. Overall, research finds exposure to pesticides increases the risk of developing PD from 33 percent to 80 percent, with some pesticides prompting a higher risk than others.

One of the most notorious pesticides associated with PD development are rotenone and paraquat, as PD pathology indicates the involvement of these two chemicals. Scientific literature comprehensively documents the neurotoxicant properties of paraquat and rotenone as laboratory experiments reproduce features of Parkinson’s in the brain of animals. Another study finds a 2.5-fold increase in PD risk among users of each chemical in comparison to non-users. Acute and chronic exposure to rotenone can inhibit the mitochondrial brain function responsible for cell regeneration and induce oxidative stress. Paraquat exposure can increase the production of specific proteins in the brain that damage cells producing dopamine, causing motor problems and muscle tremors. Although many countries, including Europe and Canada, ban the use of both chemicals due to concerns about links to Parkinson’s, the U.S. merely restricts use. In the U.S., although EPA permits the use of rotenone to kill invasive fish species, the agency only restricts paraquat application to certified applicators, allowing chemical-use to rise over the decade, with 2018 seeing a 100 percent increase in paraquat use in wildlife refuges. Considering research demonstrates that a multitude of pesticides presenting a risk of developing PD belong to various pesticide classes and have a differing mode of action, advocates say that government officials must evaluate all health effects related to chemical exposure equally regardless of chemical composition.

Parkinson’s disease has a multitude of epidemiologic research demonstrating several risk factors, including specific genetic mutations and external/environmental triggers (i.e., pesticide use, pollutant exposure, etc.). This research adds to the many that associate pesticide exposure with PD. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that PD can develop regardless of whether an individual is a carrier of GBA gene mutation or not.

This study is not the first to demonstrate a relationship between pesticide exposure and gene variation as a 2010 study finds individuals with specific gene variants (i.e., GBA mutation) are three and a half times more likely to develop Parkinson’s than those with the more common version of the gene. Furthermore, a 2013 study reveals that individuals with a PD-associated genetic mutation are more likely to develop the neurodegenerative disease upon exposure to pesticides. Ray Dorsey, M.D., professor of neurology at the University of Rochester, supports these UCSF finding, noting that the proposed risk of dying from PD is about 1 in 15 in comparison to the risk of dying in a car accident, about 1 in 100. Dr. Dorsey questions, “What are we doing to prevent ourselves from developing Parkinson’s disease? …[Scientists have] been telling us for decades that certain pesticides are linked and are contributing to Parkinson’s disease. We should listen.” Dr. Dorsey suggests using safer alternatives like organic practices. 

Although occupational and environmental factors, like pesticides, adversely affect human health—disproportionately affecting vulnerable population groups—there are several limitations in defining real-world poisoning as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. The adverse health effects of pesticides, exposure, and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for more extensive research on occupational and nonoccupational pesticide exposure, especially in agriculture. Parkinson’s Disease may have no cure, but proper prevention practices like organics can eliminate exposure to toxic PD-inducing pesticides. Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate the use of toxic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace regenerative, organic practices. A compliment to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do. Those impacted by pesticide drift can refer to Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on What to Do in a Pesticide Emergency and contact the organization for additional information. Furthermore, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parkinson’s Disease article from the Spring 2008 issue of Pesticides and You.

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

Source: Medscape/UCSF

(Beyond Pesticides, November 4, 2020) Despite a recent court ruling voiding the registration of drift-prone dicamba herbicides on genetically engineered (GE) cotton and soybeans, EPA has renewed  the registration of these chemicals. The court’s ruling stated that EPA, “substantially understated risks that it acknowledged and failed entirely to acknowledge other risks,” in regards to the herbicides XtendiMax and Eugenia (dicamba), produced by agrichemical corporations Bayer and BASF for their genetically engineered (GE) crops. In announcing the decision, Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency made its decision “[a]fter reviewing substantial amounts of new information, conducting scientific assessments based on the best available science, and carefully considering input from stakeholders.” Yet, it is evident that the most important stakeholders for EPA continues to be chemical corporations.

The history of dicamba’s use in GE agriculture reveal this to be the case. In the mid-2010s, Bayer’s Monsanto developed new dicamba-tolerant seeds and received approval to sell them from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. EPA had not yet approved its corresponding herbicide, but nonetheless, Bayer’s Monsanto urged farmers to plant its seed, claiming they would increase yields. The results of this were predictable: farmers began to use older, unapproved dicamba formulations on their new GE seeds, and reports of drift damage began to spring up throughout the US.  Dicamba has a strong propensity to drift off-site and can defoliate other crops at very low levels. Rather than take regulatory action to stop illegal use, EPA and USDA sat on their hands while the chemicals pitted farmer against farmer, neighbor against neighbor, in communities throughout the U.S.

In 2016, EPA approved agrichemical companies’ new “low volatility” dicamba herbicide formulations under a two year conditional registration. But by the end of 2017, according to court records and reporting from Reuters, state agriculture departments, primarily in the US Midwest, had been called for over 2,600 incident reports, and scientists indicated over 3.6 million acres of non-GE soybean crops had been damaged by dicamba drift – likely an underestimate according to EPA’s own staff.

EPA tried to tweak the label of the herbicide to lessen the impact, while Bayer persisted in blaming farmers for using older dicamba formulations. The agency let Bayer write it’s own rules on drift procedures, undermining the independent scientist who worked closely with the company at the last second. This led to the agency reapproving the highly drift-prone herbicide for another two year stint.

Advocates sued. The case worked its way through the courts, eventually resulting in a rare rebuke of EPA under the nation’s federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The written court ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit noted how EPA made its label language so difficult to understand as to make it “difficult if not impossible to follow for even conscientious users.” The agency also failed to consider the “anti-competitive economic effects” on non-GE markets – a knock against the agency’s propensity to favor chemical industry executives. And perhaps most egregiously, the judge ruled that EPA failed to account for how “dicamba use would tear the social fabric of farming communities.” The evidence was there, yet EPA sided with moneyed interests over the well-being of average Americans in farming communities.

Now, EPA is not only ignoring its statutory duties, but rejecting them and helping to perpetuate the chemical industry’s bad behavior. Its reapproved dicamba formulations come with i) new “important control measures” requiring a buffering agent (of questionably efficacy) be used; ii) a larger buffer (one roughly the size recommended by the independent scientists EPA allowed Bayer to overrule); iii) restrictions that prohibit use after July 30 (meaningless since that is roughly the end of the growing season) and; iv) an amorphous commitment to “simplifying the label and use directions” of dicamba products.  

“EPA believes that these new analyses address the concerns expressed in regard to EPA’s 2018 dicamba registrations in the June 2020 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,” the agency’s press release states.  Health and environmental advocates have already announced they will go back to court to challenge the decision.

Reworking EPA into an effective agency that lives up to its namesake will take time, effort, and significant involvement by all Americans. It is critically important to put pressure on elected officials hold government agencies accountable to the people, not the profits and compensation packages of agrichemical industry executives. Join Beyond Pesticides and help us fight for a more just regulatory system. For more information on the hazards of dicamba and GE agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides webpage.

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

Source: EPA

Application Exclusion Zones (AEZs) are buffer zones where individuals are not permitted to enter during a pesticide application, as doing so would put one at risk of dangerous exposure. EPA proposed, and has now finalized, a number of changes to the way AEZs work. The agency is: i) removing responsibility for chemical-intensive farms to keep bystanders out of off-site spray areas; ii) allowing pesticide applications to stop and start when individuals enter and exit AEZs (rather than establish set safety requirements); iii) exempting on-farm families from AEZ protections, allowing dangerous pesticide applications to take place near buildings and other shelters where family members reside within an AEZ (“rather than compelling them to leave even when they feel safe remaining inside,” the agency notes in a disturbingly unscientific fashion), and; iv) “simplifies” or weakens criteria around determining the appropriate buffer size for an AEZ.

Industry began pushing rollbacks to farmworker protections early in the current administration, starting with the 2017 announcement under former Administrator Pruitt that EPA would revise Worker Protection Standards initially agreed upon under the Obama Administration.  Not all of these efforts were successful, however, as 28 Senators pushed back in a 2018 letter opposing the agency’s revisions. “These rules were revised to prevent farmworker poisonings and in the aftermath of pesticide misuse that led to serious harm for hundreds of homeowners and their families, and resulted in the tragic deaths of children,” the Senators wrote.

While certain provisions were maintained under a 2019 deal cut between the Senate and EPA, AEZs fell by the wayside. “EPA does not account for workers or bystanders being sprayed with pesticides when it conducts risk assessments or registration divisions because it ‘assumes’ these exposures do not happen,” the 28 Senators wrote. “Yet it is taking steps to undo one of the most meaningful safeguards against such exposures.”

There is no indication from EPA as to whether the agency will now consider worker or bystander exposures in pesticide registrations, given the rollback to AEZ requirements. While the agency claims its changes will “reduce regulatory burdens for farmers” it is evident that the rule is not about protecting farmers, but instead providing greater leeway to use products produced by the agrichemical industry.

Farmworkers deserve greater protections, determined by science, not political compromise. The average life expectancy for a farmworker is just 49 years, while the average American can be expected to live until 78. Is it morally repugnant that America continues to perpetuate a system that relegates a resident population to the living conditions of the 1850s.

Take a stand this election day. Vote for the candidate that will protect worker health, public health, wildlife, and the wider environment from hazardous chemicals. And don’t forget to research and weigh in down-ballot races – it takes a movement of allies to make the changes we so desperately need for the future of our health and the planet. The next EPA could reinstate worker protections, and your Congressmember could be the one that makes it happen– let them know that is a priority for you by sending a message today.

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

Source: EPA