(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2021) Having raised the alarm for many years (and most recently in November 2020) on the dangers of the burgeoning antibiotic resistance crisis, Beyond Pesticides has joined a coalition of public interest groups in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its approval of use of the medically important antibiotic streptomycin on citrus trees. Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman comments: “It is past time to take urgent action to transition away from practices in agriculture that are dependent on antibiotics, advance organic farm management, and avoid new deadly pandemics. This lawsuit is an important action to reverse the previous administration’s decision to ignore the science and allow expanded use of an antibiotic in agriculture.”

According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the suit charges that EPA “failed to ensure that the approved uses of streptomycin as a pesticide would not cause unreasonable harm to human health or the environment and failed to adequately assess impacts to endangered species.” The coalition of plaintiffs includes Beyond Pesticides, NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Farmworker Association of Florida, Farmworker Justice, Migrant Clinicians Network, and U.S. PIRG. The coalition is represented in the suit by Earthjustice and in-house counsel.

In a related action, Beyond Pesticides has also sued Sargento Foods, Inc. for its misleading claims of “no antibiotics” in its products. The lawsuit alleges that the company’s cheese products are made with milk from cows administered antibiotics, and that those antibiotic compounds are detectable in some of the company’s products.

Broadly speaking, all pesticides are “antibiotics” in the sense that they kill biological organisms. But some, such as the commonly used herbicides glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D (as well as some of the “inert” ingredients in their formulations) are demonstrably driving antibiotic resistance in some human pathogenic bacteria, per research Beyond Pesticides covered in 2017. To wit: exposure to these herbicides generally negatively alters bacterial response to antibiotics such as tetracycline, ampicillin, and ciprofloxacin, all of which are used medically to treat a range of serious diseases.

The antibiotic resistance (also referred to as anti-microbial, or AMR resistance) crisis is one of human bacterial infections becoming increasingly resistant to the antibiotics most commonly prescribed by healthcare professionals to resolve such infections. This causes infections to be much harder to treat, to last longer, to require increased medical intervention (incurring the costs that go with that), and sometimes, a complete inability to treat life-threatening infections. This crisis is caused, inevitably, by antibiotics’ very use (and too often, overuse) because they exert strong selection pressure for bacterial strains that exhibit antibiotic resistance. Bacteria can mutate quickly and take rapid advantage of mutations that make them more resistant to antibiotics; thus, resistance develops and spreads as these resistant bacteria reproduce and “thrive.”

Two primary reasons for the rise of AMR — including multi-drug resistance — are the intensive use of antibiotics in agriculture, for both livestock and crops, and unnecessary medical uses. Research reported on by Beyond Pesticides in February 2021 showed that exposure of bacteria (in agricultural soils) to herbicides triggers evolutionary pressures on bacteria similar to those exposed to antibiotics. That Daily News article noted that, “Salmonella and E.coli exposed to the herbicides glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D, triggered a non-specific defense mechanism which, while building resistance to the toxic effects of the herbicides, also resulted in resistance to commonly used antibiotics.” (Learn more about the history of resistance and antibiotics by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Antimicrobials and Antibacterials website page.)

Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2019, “The contribution of antibiotic use in fruit trees to resistance in human pathogens may not be nearly as important as the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock and farmed fish, but it does have an impact on the pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. . . . The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely ‘vertical,’ that is, from parent to progeny, but can be “horizontal”— from one bacterial species to another. So, a pool of resistant soil bacteria can provide the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens.”

Streptomycin, the antibiotic at issue in this lawsuit, is used medically to treat multiple diseases, including endocarditis, tularemia, and plague, but especially, multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. The pharmaceutical belongs to a class of antibiotics considered critically important by the World Health Organization for such uses. NRDC notes that, “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have expressed concerns about the use of medically important antibiotics as pesticides and have spoken out publicly against it.”

Streptomycin has been banned for agricultural use on crops in many countries, but in the U.S., use of it and oxytetracycline in fruit and vegetable production has been permitted. Recently, the Trump administration EPA issued an emergency use authorization, in 2017, to expand use of these antibiotics to Florida citrus crops to control the bacterial “citrus greening disease,” also known as Huanglongbing. That emergency authorization was to have run out in 2019, but in January of that year, EPA moved to make the authorization permanent. The decision greenlighted the use of more than 650,000 pounds of streptomycin on citrus crops in Florida and California alone, and followed an approval two years prior of oxytetracycline for use on the same citrus crops.

Beyond Pesticides issued an action alert at the time, encouraging the public to comment on EPA’s move, and calling for an end to antibiotic use in citrus production, citing the antibiotic resistance crisis. Beyond Pesticides wrote: “Antibiotic resistance is a real and urgent public health threat and represents an existential threat to modern civilization. Antibiotic resistance kills over 23,000 people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition . . . the World Health Organization has cited this escalating problem as among the biggest public health challenges of our time.”

Use of antibiotics is currently proscribed in all U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic production, but this was not always the case. When Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman was a member of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), he was instrumental in the effort to remove antibiotics from organic apple and pear production, which at the time were the last remaining agricultural uses permitted in organic production.

NOSB is now considering a petition to allow use of yet another antibiotic (kasugamycin) for organic apple and pear production. NOSB should reject the petition for this use for the same reasons that streptomycin and tetracycline should be disallowed for crop production. Use of antibiotics in agriculture “feeds the beast” of the antibiotic resistance crisis. Beyond Pesticides offers guidance on speaking out on this issue in the lead-up to the April 2021 NOSB annual meeting.

Uses of antibiotics on crops represent a smaller, but still significant, contributor to the AMR crisis, compared with uses on livestock — largely as additives to animal feed, both to prevent infection and cause unnaturally rapid growth in the animals. Scientists have warned that industrial agriculture’s use of CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) are acting as large-scale petri dishes that will develop increasing amounts of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and potentially contribute to whatever the next pandemic may be.

As humanity is grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, health advocates say such warnings should be heeded. The current pandemic is a viral one, but bacterial pandemics are also a threat; think of tuberculosis or bacterial meningitis, and historically, leprosy or the plague. In September 2020, the esteemed medical journal The Lancet published commentary on AMR, noting: “The rise in multidrug-resistant bacterial infections that are undetected, undiagnosed, and increasingly untreatable threatens the health of people in the USA and globally. In 2020 and beyond, we cannot afford to ignore antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Bacterial infections unsuccessfully treated due to AMR claim at least 700,000 lives per year worldwide and are projected to be associated with the deaths of 10 million people per year by 2050, at a cost of US$100 trillion to the global economy through loss of productivity. In the USA, more than 2.8 million multidrug-resistant bacterial infections occur annually, causing at least 35,000 deaths and $20 billion in health-care expenditures.”

The World Health Organization has declared that, “AMR is one of the ten top global public health threats facing humanity.” The use of antibiotics in agriculture is contributing to the potential for such pandemics. Among The Lancet article’s recommendations is this: that the U.S. ban the use of medically important antibiotics in agribusiness.

In its recent special issue of Pesticides and You, Beyond Pesticides made a compelling case for the urgent need to mount a cross-federal-agency strategy for addressing the antibiotic resistance/AMR crisis before it escalates to a full-blown pandemic of one bacterial disease or another. The article notes that the Obama administration released, in 2015, a comprehensive action plan for reducing antibiotic misuse and ramping up progress on new antimicrobials and vaccines. This was called the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (NAPCARB); its enactment was less than optimal.

What then ensued during the Trump administration is described: “In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock, but [in] the same year . . . 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, [EPA] approved expansion of medically important antibiotics such as streptomycin and oxytetracycline as pesticides to increase crop yields, and USDA removed federal oversight of meat inspection at pork processing plants.” Taken together, these actions likely advanced the AMR crisis.

Allison Johnson, Sustainable Food Policy Advocate with NRDC, one of the plaintiffs in the subject lawsuit against EPA, sums up the central argument and the spirit of the case: “Allowing life-saving antibiotics to be used as pesticides is an unnecessary and dangerous practice that fuels a growing public health epidemic: antibiotic resistance. The EPA should be championing agricultural practices that protect farm workers and their communities, public health, and the environment — like building healthy soil and diversified farming — not increasing the use of dangerous pesticides.” Beyond Pesticides perennially notes the urgent need for the transition to organic, regenerative agricultural systems. These practices would not only obviate farming’s contribution to the AMR crisis, but also, build healthy soils, support biodiversity, and eliminate toxic inputs and their downstream environmental and health sequelae.

Now, with a new administration in place, Beyond Pesticides reminds federal agencies and the public that continued failure to deal with AMR would “undermine decades of advances in medicine and public health.” COVID-19 ought to be a loud alarm bell for the need to pick up and move forward on NAPCARB through a coordinated and collaborative effort of the agencies whose work is intimately related: EPA, USDA, and FDA. The Biden administration must tackle this, and other, public health and environmental threats with robust systemic change.

Source: https://www.nrdc.org/media/2021/210325

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2021) A legacy of toxic pesticide use in agriculture is showing up as residues on organic farms, emphasizing the threat of a history of weak regulatory standards that has left farmland poisoned and the urgent need to transition to organic. A study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, documents the findings of pesticide residues on organic farmland and shows a decrease in residues after transition, with lingering effects for decades.  Some banned pesticides like organochlorines (e.g., DDT and chlordecone) are stable as research demonstrates these chemicals can bind to and linger in the dirt for years to decades. However, other current-use pesticides also pose a soil contamination risk due to drift, runoff, and leaching. 

Widespread, increasing pesticide use in genetically engineered crops has implications for contamination of natural resources, including soils. Since pesticide residues can kill off beneficial soil life, impacting soil health and function, agricultural production may decline. Past studies examining pesticide residues rarely investigate residue’s presence in the soil where the chemical has never been used, like organic systems. Therefore, studies like these highlight the need to examine the effect potential pesticide contamination has on soil health, especially in organic where reliance on biological soil processes is integral to the natural cycling of nutrients for crops. The researchers note, “…[T]he ubiquitous contamination of agricultural soils with a variety of pesticides can have long-term negative effects on soil life. We demonstrate that organically managed sites experience a legacy effect of past conventional management. Moreover, our data indicate that the persistence of both banned and currently used pesticides is underestimated. Even though low concentrations were detected in soils of organically managed fields, the potential effect of this long-term contamination is especially critical, as fields under organic management rely much more on biological soil processes and beneficial soil life such as [arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi] AMF.”

Conventional pesticide use in agriculture and landscaping contaminates soil and their respective compartments. Using synthetic chemicals and fertilizers to sustain crop output and productivity has a detrimental effect on ecosystem health. Although organic agriculture strategies avoid synthetic chemical use, some organic farms manage land with a history of past pesticide use. Therefore, this study aims to compare pesticide quantities and their influence on soil health in conventional and organic farming practices, including land transitioned into organic.

Researchers gathered soil samples from 100 fields in 60 conventionally managed with chemical-intensive practices and 40 organically managed agricultural sites throughout Switzerland. Using the Swiss Soil Monitoring Network, researchers selected 46 modern pesticides to analyze (16 herbicides, eight herbicide transformation products, 17 fungicides, seven insecticides). Researchers measured soil physicochemical properties including, organic carbon, texture, pH, and soil nutrients (nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus) using the Swiss Federal Agricultural Research Station.

The study finds pesticide residues are present in soils on both conventional and organic agricultural sites. Traditional, chemical-intensive sites have twice as many pesticide residues, and pesticide concentrations are nine times as high as organic sites. Although the amount of synthetic chemical residues decreases significantly with the duration of organic management practices, residues remain in organic soils for decades after the last application. In fields with high levels of pesticides, researchers witness a reduction in microbial abundance and beneficial microorganism concentrations that can have implications for soil health.

Pesticides are pervasive in the environment, affecting all ecosystems, including air, water, soil. Just as clean air and water, healthy soils are integral to ecosystem function, interacting between Earth’s four main spheres (i.e., hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere) to support life. However, soil biology can change due to the presence of synthetic chemical pollutants like pesticides. Studies find some current-use pesticides can induce changes in soil properties that re-release soil-bound chemicals into the ecosystem, contributing to contamination. Past misconceptions assuming stable, banned chemicals like organochlorines, including DDT and chlordecone, would bind to soil and remain immobile are worrisome. A 2020 study finds glyphosate use stimulates soil erosion responsible for soil-based chemical emergence. Continuous pesticide use leaves the dirt bare and more susceptible to decay from lack of organic material, altering the storage compartments of soil sediments from pesticide sinks to sources.

One of the most concerning consequences of soil pesticide contamination is the impact on organisms, including beneficial insects and microbes. Conventional farming technologies promote the use of pesticides that directly and indirectly affect soil organisms.

Many insects are the victims of the global insect apocalypse or population decline. Much research attributes the recent decline to several factors, including pesticide exposure. Broad-spectrum pesticides indiscriminately kill pests and nontarget organisms alike, as their ubiquitous use contaminates soils, even in untreated areas. A University of Bern, Switzerland study finds that long-term exposure to sublethal (low-level) concentrations of the neonicotinoid (neonics) insecticides in soil negatively affects the health and behavioral development of black garden ants (Lasius niger) colonies. Furthermore, other studies find pesticides also adversely affect the health of earthworms that provide essential ecosystem services by aerating the soil, cycling nutrients, and increasing microbial activity.

In addition to insects, soil microbiotas are essential for the proper functionality of the soil ecosystem. Microbiotas are ecological communities of pathogenic microorganisms living and working together. Toxic chemicals damage the soil microbiota by decreasing and altering biomass and microbiome composition (diversity). Pesticide use contaminates soil and results in a bacteria-dominant ecosystem as these chemicals cause “vacant ecological niches, so organisms that were rare become abundant and vice versa.”  The bacteria outcompete beneficial fungi, which improves soil productivity and increases carbon sequestration capacity. The resulting soil ecosystem is unhealthy and imbalanced, reducing the natural cycling of nutrients and resilience. Thus, plants grown in such conditions are more vulnerable to parasites and pathogens. The implications of climate change only exacerbate threats to soil health as studies show a link between global climate change and a high loss of microbial organisms in the soil ecosystem.

The unintentional presence of synthetic chemicals in organic agriculture is an all too ever-present phenomenon plaguing organic farmers and gardeners globally. Pesticide runoff, drift, and leaching from nearby conventional agricultural fields can readily contaminate these organic systems. Although implementing trees and shrubbery around organic farms can act as a buffer for pesticide drift, some organic-approved products (e.g., manure and compost) can contain traces of synthetic chemicals. In 2010, organic farmers and gardeners in Washington state experienced severe crop losses throughout the region. Farmers and gardeners suspected that herbicide-contaminated manure and compost from non-organic farms and dairies were responsible. Soil tests and tissue samples from a local dairy manure mixture sent to organic farms found small amounts of aminopyralid, a potent and persistent herbicide. This revelation raised questions about the adequacy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide registration process. Moreover, contamination from pesticide runoff and leaching can be more difficult to contain as there are various factors to consider, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture: “intrinsic potential of soils to leach or runoff pesticides, the chemical properties of the pesticides, annual rainfall and its relationship to leaching and runoff, and changes in cropping patterns.”

This study reveals that pesticide residues are present in all agricultural fields regardless of management practices. Previous pesticide use accounts for contamination on some organically managed sites. However, study researchers infer other contamination sources can come from pesticides traveling through the air, water, or soil from nearby conventional fields. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that microorganism biomass and concentrations decrease with increasing soil pesticide residues, especially the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), a widespread group of beneficial plant symbionts. Therefore, pesticides, in addition to abiotic factors such as pH, negatively impact overall soil health. Researchers suggest future studies examine the synergistic effects pesticide residues and other environmental pollutant sources have on soil health.

Study researchers conclude, “Our work indicates that future studies should not only focus on single pesticides but also consider a wide range of pesticide combinations (e.g., cocktails) and further investigate to what extent these pesticide residues affect soil organisms and consequently soil processes and functions. Additionally, studies should also investigate interactions of pesticide residues with other global change factors such as drought, antibiotics, or microplastic since these abiotic and anthropogenic stressors can synergistically or antagonistically affect soil microbiota and reduce soil functioning.”

Healthy soils are essential in maintaining normal ecosystem function and interaction, even outside of the soil environment. Chronic, low-level exposure to pesticide residue in soil habitats weakens soil health and productivity and has implications for soil-dwelling organisms. Organic production standards must be strengthened in addressing problems associated with soil contaminants in order to protect soil health and productivity. By protecting soil health from contamination, you keep agriculture safe for food commodities and safeguarding human, animal, and environmental health. The National Organic Standards Board must bring greater attention to the damage that contaminants associated with widespread pesticide use adversely affect the overall soil health for future generations as well as off-target movement of chemicals that degrade soil on an ongoing basis. This necessarily goes beyond the current focus on residues in the finished food commodities.

Solutions like buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management eliminates the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. Furthermore, regenerative organic agriculture nurtures soil health through organic carbon sequestration while preventing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. Moreover, supporting the use of alternative practices such as polyculture rather than monoculture, mulching around the base of the plant, animal integration, and other organic practices can assist in eliminating the need for pesticides and the likelihood of pesticide drift. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic products reduces pesticide exposure.

For more information about organic food production, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keep Organic Strong webpage.

For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Sources: Environmental Science & Technology, EurekAlert! Science News

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2021) Pesticide breakdown products are just as ubiquitous as their parent compounds in urban streams throughout the United States, according to research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and published in Environmental Science and Technology. The first of its kind findings place an important spotlight on the long-term impacts of pesticide use on health and the environment. As new analytical methods provide evidence of dangers that were until now unable to be recorded, the data point to the need for a wholescale rethinking of the way pesticide products are approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and community-based measures to protect local waterways.  

USGS researchers subdivided the U.S. into five regions (Pacific NW, Coastal California, Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast) and took 76 to 100 water samples in small streams for each region over the course of five years. Samples were tested for 108 pesticide active ingredients, and 116 transformation products (also known as breakdown products or metabolites) that arise as active ingredients degrade after a pesticide application.  

Of the active ingredients sampled, at least one pesticide was detected in 418 of 442 total stream samples conducted, representing a 95% detection rate. Breakdown products were just as widespread, with 396 out of 442 – 90% of streams sites showing detects. According to the study, 102 breakdown products were detected at least once, and nearly 30 were detected in over 20% of samples.

Researchers specifically point out the danger of detecting transformation products in small, headwater streams throughout the country. “The presence of pesticides and TPs [transformation products] in headwater streams is of particular interest because such streams comprise the majority of river network length and have a higher proportion of biodiversity than larger water bodies,” the study reads. Moreover, the scientists found that the primary source of metabolite pollution came from groundwater intrusion into streams, rather than surface runoff, indicating a long-term, chronic, and persistent source of toxicity for life that depends upon freshwater streams.  

Herbicide metabolites were detected more frequently than insecticides and fungicides, but one problematic insecticide metabolite alone, fipronil sulfone (breakdown of the active ingredient fipronil), has the potential to significantly increase the toxicity of a steam to aquatic organisms. With fipronil sulfone detected in 20% of sampled streams – more frequently than its parent compound—there are significant implications for the health of U.S. waterways.

There is little data available on the toxicity of most of the breakdown products tested. While some are less toxic than their full active ingredient, some are also more toxic. Running a scenario where the breakdown products were equally as hazardous as the full active ingredient, researchers found risks nearly double those currently established for aquatic life in streams by EPA. The scientists take pains in their research to note that even their worst-case estimates may be too conservative due to lack of data and other issues. “We have new pesticides that are being introduced to the market every year, and each of those active ingredients has transformation products,” said study coauthor Barbara Mahler, PhD, to Chemical and Engineering News. “It’s a challenge to keep up.”

In addition to new pesticides, current use active ingredients and their breakdown products, are concerns related to synergy and mixtures. Another recent report from USGS, published in September 2020, likewise found 90% of U.S. rivers and streams to contain at least five or more different pesticides. Metabolites were not considered in the study, but represent another complexity not adequately accounted for by current regulations.

Next time you take a walk by a freshwater stream in your community, consider the range of products- pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cleaners, and the myriad of other household and industrial products that could make their way into that waterway. As Rachael Carson wrote in Silent Spring, “Water must be thought of in terms of the chains of life it supports…” The life in those streams is the basis for many urban ecosystems—where beavers and otters make their home, mosquito-eating dragonflies lay their eggs, and birds often find an easy meal. Consider that you also rely on that stream—possibly for your own drinking water, as many streams ultimately run into reservoirs, but also as a source of peaceful reprieve.

The concept of a Silent Spring is not one that exists outside our reality—it is an ever-present threat, and one that we continue to move towards with current practices. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Forgoing toxic pesticide use for cosmetic purposes on lawns and landscapes is one of the easiest ways to stop polluting local waterways. You can make change by eliminating pesticides on your own property, and working towards the passage of organic land care policies in your community. To get started, see Beyond Pesticides Tools for Change webpage, and reach out to [email protected] for additional assistance. By acting collectively, we can create a world where we don’t need to worry about the safety of the waterways we rely on.

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

Source: Chemical and Engineering News, Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2021) Florida manatees are experiencing chronic glyphosate exposure that is likely to impact their immune system and make them more susceptible to other environmental stressors such as red tide and cold stress, according to a study published recently in Environment International by a Florida-based team of researchers, led by University of Florida PhD candidate Maite De Maria. Florida manatees, a subpopulation of the West Indian manatee, are listed as threatened under the endangered species act, as populations are under constant threat from human activity in the freshwater ecosystems they rely on. The findings are a call for Florida regulators and lawmakers, particularly communities along the coast, to implement changes in land care practices that eliminate reliance on toxic pesticides like glyphosate.

Researchers collect plasma samples from Florida manatees over the course of a decade, from 2009 to 2019, looking at populations from both sides of the state’s coast. In addition, eight water bodies in Florida were sampled for the presence of glyphosate three times per year in both 2019 and 2020.

Results found glyphosate in the bodies of 55.8% of Florida manatee samples. Most concerning, the amount of pesticide increased in a straight line over the course of the study. One population, however—manatees located closer to the coast of Georgia, did see glyphosate concentrations decline between 2017 and 2019. Scientists found no correlation between the size or sex of the manatee and its glyphosate body burden. The results are unsurprising, given that every test conducted on the water bodies that manatees reside in detected glyphosate contamination. 

Authors of the study indicate that it is appropriate to consider glyphosate a “pseudo-persistent” pollutant, “in which new applications of the herbicide replace the molecules that are being removed,” the study reads. Researchers likewise note that manatees have a number of disadvantages that could increase their exposure. They are alone among marine mammals in that they rely on and drink freshwater, which is more likely to be contaminated. They are also herbivorous, and digest grasses through a process known as hindgut fermentation, whereby microbes help breakdown food in their stomach. This corresponds with a slower digestive process that could result in glyphosate breakdown within the manatee’s stomach, according to researchers.

While manatees may be at particular risk, the ongoing, chronic use of pesticides like glyphosate pose significant threats to all marine mammals. A study published in 2018 found that the genetics of ocean mammals make them more vulnerable to deleterious effects from pesticide exposure. A 2020 study found that dolphins and whales found stranded along the eastern seaboard of the United States are regularly contaminated not only with toxic pesticides, but also plastics, disinfectants, and heavy metals.

The study findings underscore the need to limit the use of glyphosate in farming and landscaping throughout Florida. While sugarcane fields provided an influx of glyphosate loading, it is evident that non-crop uses are also a significant factor in water contamination. In fact, the decline in manatee contamination that researchers observed near the Georgia state line in 2017 likely corresponded with measures put in place by state agencies that placed a hiatus on glyphosate use during the red tide crisis. The study notes that St. Johns River was sprayed with nearly 500 lbs. of glyphosate in 2017, but a mere 11 lbs. in 2018, and in 2019 did not have any applied.

More and more Florida communities are passing restrictions on glyphosate and other toxic pesticides. Key West, Stuart, and Miami have eliminated glyphosate by public agencies. Sarasota and North Miami follow integrated pest management approaches, while South Miami has passed Florida’s first and only organic ordinance, eliminating all toxic pesticide use on public properties. Communities like Oakland Park and Wilton Manors may be close behind, as they pilot organic land care sites. It is possible to manage problematic weeds without resorting to the use of chemicals that harm iconic, endangered species like the Florida Manatee. While the science and alternative practices are available, it will take continued political pressure to move state agencies and elected leaders toward safer approaches. Residents in Florida and throughout the U.S. are encouraged to work with local officials in adopting organic land care policies and practices. For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to wildlife and what you can do to help, see Beyond Pesticides Wildlife program page. 

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

Source: Environment International, Fort Meyers News-Press 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2021) New data on the hazards of neonicotinoid insecticides calls for urgent regulatory action. The same pesticides that are linked to the worldwide decline of insect pollinators also present significant risks to their avian counterparts, hummingbirds. Widely known for their nectar-fueled hovering flight powered by wings beating up to 80 times per second, hummingbirds display unique reactions to toxic pesticides. Research by scientists at the University of Toronto finds that hummingbirds exposed to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides for even a short period of time can disrupt the high-powered metabolism of this important and charismatic animal.

Tell EPA and Congress to save the hummingbirds by suspending use of neonicotinoid insecticides and supporting the transition to organic practices.

While hovering, a hummingbird consumes calories faster than any other bird or mammal. That’s why the finding that exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid slows metabolism up to 25% is so disturbing. Systemic pesticides like imidacloprid and other neonics are transported throughout the plant, including nectar.

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

Of the 338 species of hummingbirds—all found in the Western hemisphere—34 are already endangered. We need to remove this threat to these amazing little birds by replacing chemical-intensive agriculture and horticulture with organic practices.

To help hummingbirds:

• Tell the Biden administration and Congress to halt all new pesticide registrations until science is restored to its rightful place in EPA decision-making.
• Plant an organic garden with nectar-producing flowers.

Tell EPA and Congress to save the hummingbirds.

Letter to Michael Regan, Administrator, EPA

New data on the hazards of neonicotinoid insecticides calls for urgent regulatory action. The same pesticides that are linked to the worldwide decline of insect pollinators also present significant risks to their avian counterparts, hummingbirds. Widely known for their nectar-fueled hovering flight powered by wings beating up to 80 times per second, hummingbirds display unique reactions to toxic pesticides. Research by scientists at the University of Toronto finds that hummingbirds exposed to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides for even a short period of time can disrupt the high-powered metabolism of this important and charismatic animal.

While hovering, a hummingbird consumes calories faster than any other bird or mammal. That’s why the finding that exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid slows metabolism up to 25% is so disturbing. Systemic pesticides like imidacloprid and other neonics are transported throughout the plant, including nectar.

The failure of EPA to act on Independent scientific findings on the danger that neonicotinoids pose to hummingbirds is indicative of clearly inadequate protection of ecosystems critical to our future. Overwhelming data has already been established on the threat neonicotinoids pose to the health of ecosystems worldwide. The list of animals found to be adversely affected by neonicotinoids is extensive, ranging from humans and other mammals, to insect pollinators, songbirds, amphibians, and other aquatic species.

Of the 338 species of hummingbirds—all found in the Western hemisphere—34 are already endangered. We need to remove this threat to these amazing little birds by supporting and incentivizing the transition from chemical-intensive agriculture and horticulture to organic practices.

Please address these threats to hummingbirds by suspending neonicotinoid insecticides. Eliminate pesticides that endanger pollinators and their habitat.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Congress

New data on neonicotinoid insecticides calls for urgent regulatory action. The same pesticides that are linked to the worldwide decline of insect pollinators also present significant risks to their avian counterparts, hummingbirds. Widely known for their nectar-fueled hovering flight powered by wings beating up to 80 times per second, hummingbirds display unique reactions to toxic pesticides. Research by scientists at the University of Toronto finds that hummingbirds exposed to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides for even a short period of time can disrupt the high-powered metabolism of this important and charismatic animal.

While hovering, a hummingbird consumes calories faster than any other bird or mammal. That’s why the finding that exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid slows metabolism up to 25% is so disturbing. Systemic pesticides like imidacloprid and other neonics are transported throughout the plant, including nectar.

The failure of EPA to act on Independent scientific findings on the danger that neonicotinoids pose to hummingbirds is indicative of clearly inadequate protection of ecosystems critical to our future. Overwhelming data has already been established on the threat neonicotinoids pose to the health of ecosystems worldwide. The list of animals found to be adversely affected by neonicotinoids is extensive, ranging from humans and other mammals, to insect pollinators, songbirds, amphibians, and other aquatic species.

Of the 338 species of hummingbirds—all found in the Western hemisphere—34 are already endangered. We need to remove this threat to these amazing little birds by supporting and incentivizing the transition from chemical-intensive agriculture and horticulture to organic practices.

Please ask EPA to address these threats to hummingbirds by suspending neonicotinoid insecticides. Eliminate pesticides that endanger pollinators and their habitat.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2021) Certified organic, soil-based growers were dealt a blow on March 22 when a U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that soil-less hydroponic growing operations can continue to be eligible for USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) organic certification within the National Organic Program (NOP). According to the Center for Food Safety, the judge ruled that USDA’s exemption of hydroponics from the “soil fertility requirement mandatory for all soil-based crop producers was permissible because the Organic Foods Production Act did not specifically prohibit hydroponic operations.” The litigation was brought by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and eight organic producers, and asked that the court to prevent USDA from allowing hydroponically grown crops to be sold under the USDA certified organic label. Beyond Pesticides has advocated against allowing soil-less crop production to be certified as organic under the NOP because doing so “undermines the authenticity of organic farming, and creates unequal competition, market instability, and consumer distrust in organic certification.”

The coalition of plaintiffs in the suit included some long-standing U.S. organic farms, such as Swanton Berry Farm, Full Belly Farm, Durst Organic Growers, Terra Firma Farm, Jacobs Farm del Cabo, and Long Wind Farm, in addition to organic stakeholder organizations, such as organic certifier OneCert and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.

Basic definitions are in order: USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal program that develops and enforces standards for organically produced agricultural products. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a committee appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, is tasked with helping develop standards for what can and cannot be used in organic production, and to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The National Organic Standards (NOS) are those developed by NOSB to regulate certified organic production practices. OFPA is the statute that authorizes both the NOP and NOSB. Also: hydroponic “farming” systems grow plants in water-based nutrients rather than in soil. Aquaponic systems combine hydroponics and aquaculture (fish/shellfish farming) in a symbiotic system in which plants are fed, in part, the aquatic animals’ waste.

The District Court’s ruling by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg means that USDA can continue its permitting of organic certification of hydroponically produced crops. The question of hydroponic and aquaponic eligibility for organic certification has been very controversial, and centers on the very definition of organic production, which recognizes the foundational role of regenerative practices that improve soil health and promote ecological balance. Advocates for soil-based organic agriculture decry soil-less farming as violative of not only the dictates of the National Organic Standards, but also, the long-acknowledged principles of the organic movement.

The CFS suit arose from the organization’s 2019 petition to USDA to prohibit organic certification for hydroponic enterprises that neither use nor build soil. USDA denied the petition, after which CFS filed suit to challenge USDA’s ongoing greenlighting of organic certification for hydroponic operations. The suit maintained that such operations violate the soil-based standards of organic certification set out in Part 205, Subpart C of the NOP — Organic Production and Handling Requirements — which include these:

1. The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion.
2. The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through rotations, cover crops, and the application of plant and animal materials.
3. The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances. 

In addition, OFPA is clear that required [organic] systems plans are focused on the soil; 7 USC 6513, Organic Plan states: “An organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.”

NOSB has for many years discussed “the overriding question of whether soil-less systems are compatible with organic production,” and has trod back and forth on the matter. For example, in 1995 it made a recommendation that said, “Hydroponic production in soil-less media to be labeled organically produced shall be allowed if all provisions of the OFPA have been met.” But in 2001, in proposing regulations for greenhouse production, the board rejected hydroponic production as not meeting all the basic organic production principles. Again in 2010, its recommended greenhouse standards concluded that hydroponic and aeroponic systems ought to be prohibited from organic certification.

Forward to 2017, when the board voted against banning hydroponic and aquaponic crops from eligibility for organic certification. (At the same time, NOSB did proscribe the eligibility of aeroponically grown crops — those grown by suspending plants in the air, with roots exposed, and supplying nutrients through misting of those roots.) Advocates for soil-based organic approaches have repeatedly voiced their opposition to organic certification for hydroponics.

Amidst the clamor, during the Trump administration, USDA issued in 2018 a bulletin that said that “hydroponic, aquaponic, and aeroponic operations have always been eligible for organic certification.” CFS noted in early 2020: “Since coming into office, the Trump administration has made its intent to gut organic standards clear. Allowing hydroponics to be certified organic is another attempt to weaken the integrity of the Organic label, and has resulted in market confusion and inconsistent organic certifications.” 

CFS also wrote in 2020, “The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the expert body assigned by Congress to advise USDA on organic matters, has repeatedly called on USDA to prohibit organic certification of hydroponics, but USDA has ignored that recommendation.” As a result of USDA’s failure to do so, CFS filed the subject lawsuit. CFS continues, “The lawsuit filed today states that USDA’s rationale for denying the 2019 petition is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to our federal organic law. . . . This is not the first time USDA has bent to the will of ‘corporate Organics’ in diluting organic standards. In 2016, CFS won a groundbreaking lawsuit closing a loophole that was permitting some organic operations to use compost contaminated with pesticides. CFS is currently leading a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s rollback of vital organic rules that set standards for organic livestock care, such as adequate space and outdoor access. The challenged loophole for hydroponic operations would eliminate any need for organic farming to involve working with nature.”

This recent decision will have a variety of impacts on certified organic growers, including putting them at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis hydroponic growers because there are a significant number of requirements related to soil management that soil-based organic production must meet — and from which hydroponic operations are automatically exempted. In addition, costs of growing in large-scale greenhouses (as hydroponic production often does) are lower than costs to operate soil-based farms.

Further, hydroponic operations do not need to undergo the three-year transition period that is required of any soil-based producer who seeks initial organic certification, thus significantly delaying return on investment for soil-based farmers. Last, because there is currently no labeling requirement to distinguish between soil-based and soil-less production, consumers cannot know how the certified organic lettuce they purchase was grown. These realities create a distinctly non-level playing field.

The decision, and the controversy in which it was made, are furthering tension and division in the broad community of producers who produce organically. Mother Earth Gardener writes about a “drift” in understanding of organic agriculture: “Conceptualized in the mid-20th century, the organic movement originally idealized a ‘closed-loop’ farm system, or a property that produced almost everything it needed on site. Based on the notion that a well-managed farm would rely foremost on natural processes, organic farming was fundamentally about maintaining and improving soil health. Today, organic certification has drifted away from this original premise. The requirements for certification focus less on a natural farming philosophy and more on what isn’t allowed — namely, synthetic chemical inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides. This creates a considerable gray area for farming practices that technically follow organic certification requirements but ethically and/or technologically may fall short of their original intent. While hydroponics don’t pollute the soil with toxic chemicals, they also don’t improve it.’

Those who support continued certification of hydroponic production have previously pointed to the “irresponsibility” of banning such producers from organic certification and labeling, claiming that it would confuse consumers, and “put hundreds of growers out of business, take valuable supply away from organic consumers, and squelch innovation in our movement,” according to Melody Meyer, vice president of policy and industry relations for United Natural Foods, a huge distributor of organic products to retailers.

On the other side of the divide, a long-time Vermont organic tomato grower, owner of plaintiff Long Wind Farm, founder of the Real Organic Project, and one of the plaintiffs in the subject suit, Dave Chapman, had plenty to say about the decision: “The Federal court decision rejecting the hydroponic lawsuit was a sad note in the song of our democracy. The Federal government’s ongoing redefinition of organic is an example of corporate influence drowning out citizens’ voices. We all know that soil-less growing cannot be called organic. But the organic movement will continue with or without the USDA, as the National Organic Program moves further and further away from the people it was meant to serve and protect.”

Co-owner of California’s Full Belly Farm, and plaintiff, Paul Muller, opined: “Soil fertility has always been the fundamental building block of any organic farming system. That’s why at Full Belly, we work hard to build soil fertility through active soil management and amendment, diversified crop planting, cover cropping, and other farming practices that promote soil health and biodiversity. But after the court’s ruling, in-the-ground certified organic farms like Full Belly will have to continue to compete in the same marketplace with hydroponic producers who do not need to lift a finger to build soil. While hydroponic systems may have their own benefits, the connection between soil health, human health, and planetary stewardship is missing in these soil-less systems. They simply should not be called ‘Organic.’”

Food Safety News reports the reaction of Sylvia Wu, senior CFS attorney and counsel for the plaintiffs, to the court’s decision: “Under the Court’s ruling, hydroponic producers can sell their crops as organic without building soil fertility, yet organic farmers growing food in soil have to meet various soil-building requirements to be certified organic. This double standard violates the very purpose of the organic label and is contrary to the federal organic act. We are analyzing all our legal options and will continue to work hard to defend the meaning of the organic label.”

Beyond Pesticides stands with those who advocate that certified organic crops ought to have been grown in soil, and that producers who earn USDA certification need to comport in their practices with all the requirements of the NOS. Beyond Pesticides has written, “When there is increasing awareness of the need to advance production systems that regenerate the earth, sequester carbon, and protect and enhance biodiversity, allowing hydroponics — which meets none of these critical needs — to be marketed as organic, and without full disclosure, undermines the basic principles, values, and legal standards that govern the commercial use of the word ‘organic.’”

Organic agriculture that embraces the principles developed by pioneers in the organics movement, and codified by the organic statute and regulations based on its authority, is a long-term solution to myriad problems. The climate emergency, human and ecosystem health, biodiversity, impacts of toxic pesticide use, and food system vitality and capacity are all improved by the adoption of systems that focus on proactive regeneration and stewardship of our soils. Soil health is the foundation for many solutions to these crises. Certified organic status and labeling should be granted only to enterprises that meet NOS requirements, and thereby contribute to that health.

Sources: https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/03/court-ruling-clears-way-for-hydroponics-to-join-national-organic-program/ and https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6314/court-rules-usda-authorized-to-certify-soil-less-hydroponic-operations-as-organic

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2021) A new University of California San Francisco (UCSF) study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, finds over 100 chemicals present in U.S. pregnant women’s blood and umbilical cord samples. This discovery ignites concerns over prenatal exposure to chemicals from consumer and industrial products and sources. Furthermore, 89 percent of these chemical contaminants are unknown sources and uses, lacking adequate information, or are not previously detectable in humans. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) finds U.S. pregnant women experience frequent exposure to environmental pollutants that pose serious health risks to both mother and newborn. Many known environmental pollutants (i.e., heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyl, and pesticides) are chemicals that can move from the mother to the developing fetus at higher exposure rates. Hence, prenatal exposure to these chemicals may increase the prevalence of birth-related health consequences like natal abnormalities and learning/developmental disabilities. 

Current chemical biomonitoring methods only analyze a targeted few hundred chemicals—a small portion of the over 8000 chemicals the U.S. manufactures and imports. However, this study employs new technology that identifies a more comprehensive range of industrial chemicals. Therefore, research like this is essential for future technological development that can identify likely omnipresent chemical exposures for future health risks. UCSF scientists note, “Our study is an important methodological approach for future studies that will aim at characterizing the presence and toxicity of newly detected chemical compounds in the human body and assess the fate of these compounds in various human tissues, particularly between the mother and the fetus. Understanding these exposures and how they may contribute to adverse health outcomes is crucial in characterizing the human exposome and eventually preventing the development of disease.”

This research represents a new proof-of-concept study that develops a suspect screening technique to characterize chemicals. The method combines non-target data from high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) with target data from an industrial chemical database of approximately 3500 high-production volume chemicals. Researchers assessed maternal and umbilical cord blood samples for differences in chemical presence and enrichment. Lastly, chemical identification compared the structure of chemicals found in blood samples to those within the industrial chemical database.

The study detects 109 chemicals within blood samples of mothers and newborns, including pesticides, plasticizers, compounds in cosmetics and consumer products, pharmaceuticals, flame retardants, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds. Of the 109 chemicals, 55 lack preceding reports on their presence in humans, and 42 chemical compounds have little to no information regarding chemical classification, use, and source of contamination.

Environmental contaminants like pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment, with 90 percent of Americans having at least one pesticide compound in their body. The presence of pesticides in the body has implications for human health, especially during vulnerable life stages like childhood, puberty, pregnancy, and old age. Pesticide exposure during pregnancy is of specific concern as health effects for all life stages can be long-lasting. Just as nutrients are transferable between mother and fetus, so are chemical contaminants. Studies find pesticide compounds present in the mother’s blood can transfer to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Therefore, pesticide exposure during pregnancy has implications for both mother and child’s health. Many studies indicate prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxins increases susceptibility to disease. A 2020 study finds the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which prenatal exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of the rare fetal disorder holoprosencephaly. This disorder prevents the embryonic forebrain from developing into two separate hemispheres. Moreover, women living near agricultural areas experience higher exposure rates that increase the risk of birthing a baby with abnormalities. Some of these birth abnormalities include acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Even regular household pesticide use during pregnancy can increase nephroblastoma (kidney cancer) and brain tumor risk in children.

Pesticide exposure not only poses a risk to mothers and their offspring but also to future generations. Studies find that although glyphosate (herbicide) exposure has a negligible impact on pregnant rats’ health, incidents of prostate, ovarian, and kidney cancer increase in the two subsequent generations. However, chemical exposure encompasses more than just current-use, toxic pesticides, like glyphosate. Many long-banned pesticides their metabolites still impart adverse effects on human health, indirectly. Researchers at Drexel University report that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds, like DDT, during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID). Many organochlorine compounds have long been banned in the U.S., underscoring how pervasive and persistent these chemicals are and their continued impact on human health. Not only are these compounds readily present in soil and water samples, but also arctic ice. Therefore, the accompanying glacial melt from the climate crisis will only increase chemical bioavailability in the environment. The increasing ubiquity of pesticides is concerning as current measures safeguarding against pesticide use do not adequately detect and assess total environmental chemical contaminants.

This UCSF study highlights the first successful evaluation of human blood samples using a comprehensive database, screening for industrial chemicals rather than chemicals commonly identified in human samples. Furthermore, the transfer of chemicals from mother to newborn may disrupt epigenetic mechanisms responsible for normal cell function and development. The effects of epigenetic dysfunction can impact individuals for multiple generations. Although the study detects the presents of new chemicals in the body, researchers mention these chemicals may have already been present. Researchers suggest differences in requirements for disclosing chemical uses can explain the detection of chemicals with unknown applications and sources. Furthermore, previous chemical screening research demonstrates only 30.5 percent of chemicals in consumer/industrial products appear on lists of classifiable chemical uses. Co-lead author Dimitri Panagopoulos Abrahamsson, Ph.D., states, “These new technologies are promising in enabling us to identify more chemicals in people, but our study findings also make clear that chemical manufacturers need to provide analytical standards so that we can confirm the presence of chemicals and evaluate their toxicity.”

The study results indicate these newly detectable chemicals lack adequate chemical classification and assessment from environmental health scientists and regulators. Therefore, global leaders need to investigate potential technologies which can help identify unknown or previously undetectable chemical contaminants to safeguard human health from exposure effects. Study co-author, UCSF professor Tracey J. Woodruff, Ph.D., concludes, “It’s very concerning that we are unable to identify the uses or sources of so many of these chemicals.[…]EPA must do a better job of requiring the chemical industry to standardize its reporting of chemical compounds and uses. And they need to use their authority to ensure that we have adequate information to evaluate potential health harms and remove chemicals from the market that pose a risk.” 

There a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during critical development periods. Therefore, policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Birth/Fetal Effects, Learning/Developmental Disorders, Endocrine Disruption, Cancer, Body Burdens, and other diseases. To learn more about how the lack of adequate pesticide regulations can adversely affect human and environmental health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

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

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

Source: Environmental Science & Technology, SciTechDaily – UCSF

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2021) The worst predictions of scientists and advocates are playing out in the fields of eastern Kenya, as chemical-intensive farming there threatens the future of food production. According to Radio France Internationale (RFI), Kenyan farmers have resorted to pollinating their crops by hand after pesticide use killed off most of the pollinators they rely on. “We are mostly affected by pesticides because they have killed most pollinators which pollinate our crops—this has affected our food production compared to previous years,” said Joseph Mbithi, a farmer in Mbakoni village, Makueni County, Kenya to RFI.

Crop yields in the region have tapered off over the last two years, and farmers like Mr. Mbithi are pointing to pesticide use as the cause, citing past reliance on the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) and the organophosphate insecticide malathion. “Pollinators such as bees and butterflies are not around due to chemicals which we spray in our farms,” he told RFI.  

As a result, farmers are using toothbrushes and sponges as a substitute for the buzzing work of local pollinators. And it’s more complicated than one may think. ‘’The flowers are different in shape and are different in sizes. The male one is bigger than the female. When I am doing hand pollination, I normally pick pollen from the male first and then I apply to the female,” said Mr. Mbithi to RFI. “If there is no pollination most of them normally dry up,” he added.

Better late than never, farmers are now doing what they can to sustain the remaining pollinator populations. Samuel Nderitu, a farmer in Kiambu County, Kenya, told RFI that, with the help of trainees, he is able to pollinate roughly one hundred crops a day using brushes. But he is also planting flowers, and creating new pollinator habitat. ‘’We encourage crop diversity by growing different types of crops that will create a habitat for the pests and insects that will do pollination work,” said Mr. Nderitu, who told RFI it is vital to avoid using chemicals. “We feed the insects. You can also feed the birds and you know birds also do good work in pollination.”

This is sadly not the first place in the world to experience the local extirpation of pollinator populations. In the 2010s, many across the globe were shocked to see images of Chinese farmers in trees with jars of pollen and long brushes hand pollinating apple and pear blossoms. The cause was the same: as with the farmers in east Kenya, rampant pesticide use killed off native pollinators, leaving humans to perform the work. At first, labor costs were cheaper than importing pollinators, but over the years fruit yields have continued to decline while the price of labor increases—indicating that the practice is likely to be merely temporary fix, at best.  

The answer to this issue is not a better pesticide the agrichemical industry claims is “safer”—or a new robot-bee technology, but an embrace of the natural world and the systems and processes that foster ecological health and stability. When agriculture works with nature, hazardous short-term solutions are rejected in favor of long term sustainability. Instead of employing toxic pesticides, a focus is placed on cultivating healthy soil to increase plant resiliency to pest and weed pressure. Diverse native species are planted in hedgerows and other non-crop areas help attract beneficial species that provide significant pest management.

If eastern Kenya provides a glimpse into the worst timeline, the natural beauty and grandeur of diverse organic farms provides a look into our best hope for a better future. Embrace organic at every level—in your backyard, the food you purchase, and in the advocacy you take to your elected officials. But even organic is threatened by the same unsustainable short-term thinking—necessitating constant vigilance. In order to keep organic as the better future we strive for, the standards themselves must be continuously improved upon. Help Beyond Pesticides stand up for organic integrity by providing public comment to the National Organic Standards Board by April 5.  And for more information on how to protect pollinators where you live, see Beyond Pesticides Bee Protective webpage.

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

Source: Radio France Internationale

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2021) Earlier this month, the Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB) voted to loosen regulations curtailing use of the highly drift-prone herbicide dicamba. With an 8-7 vote, ASPB eliminated measures advanced in 2016 that protect growers from dicamba drifting off of genetically engineered (GE) soybean fields. Farmer, health, and environmental advocates are encouraging groups and individuals to submit testimony in opposition to the changes should the state’s Governor continue the proposal to a 30-day comment period.

Dicamba has been the subject of intense debate and scrutiny over the last several years—most prominently in Southern and Midwestern states where extensive cotton and soybean monocultures are grown. Due to rampant weed resistance to glyphosate herbicides in GE crop fields, Bayer/Monsanto developed new seeds capable of growing into plants that can withstand repeated sprayings of both glyphosate and dicamba. The company released these new seeds in the mid-2010s without waiting for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve a corresponding herbicide formulation Bayer/Monsanto claimed would reduce drift problems. Farmers began using older, unapproved dicamba formulations, but ultimately even after receiving approval, new formulations proved too drift-prone and problematic to be used without incident.

In response, ASPB instituted changes that cut off dicamba spraying early in the season, required a one-mile buffer between dicamba-applied fields and specialty and organic crops, and a half-mile buffer for use around non-GE soybean and cotton. The vote to impose these restrictions came after 29,000 individuals, including Beyond Pesticides members and supporters, provided input in support.

Dicamba use has eroded friendly bonds in farming communities, with farmers suing farmers, and neighbors experiencing threats and intimidation, or worse. A court ruling last year invalidated EPA’s registration of dicamba products used in GE cropping systems, but under Administrator Wheeler, the agency acted quickly to renew GE dicamba registrations. The reintroduced products included insufficient label changes that included requiring a buffering agent, increasing the buffer zone, restricting use after July 30, and committing to “simplify the label.” Every one of those changes fall short. The buffering agent has very questionable efficacy in terms of reducing drift, the increased buffer zone is still insufficient, July 30 is roughly the end of the growing season (and thus the need to spray), and simplifying the label is neigh impossible given the intrinsic drift hazard the herbicide presents.

However, after the 8-7 vote, these are the only protections that farmers in Arkansas will have. According to local reports, a crop consultant named Tyler Hyrick petitioned the ASPB to institute these changes, citing EPA’s new label and claiming that farmers needed to overcome a “learning curve” to use the product. Mr. Hydricks told ASPB that he believed dicamba has been unfairly targeted.  

Some ASPB members pushed back on these assertions, noting the danger of allowing dicamba use during hot summer months. A 2019 study found that the volatility of dicamba increased as temperatures increased. It was also noted that dicamba has been the subject of concern specifically because of public complaints – 1,000 complaints during the growing season led to the 2017 decision, and reports indicate that they have remained steady at 200 per year.

The close vote earlier this month is only the first step in the administrative process required before a rule change comes into effect. The motion is now moved to Governor Asa Hutchinson’s desk, who can decide to approve or disapprove the matter. If approved, the public will have 30 days to make the case against the reversal and argue for the best interest of the state’s farmers and residents. If the board receives more than 12 comments, a public hearing will be required. And lastly, the state legislature will need to provide the final sign off on any proposal.

Advocates are hoping that the process will provide the time necessary to educate newer members of the ASPB on the problems and history associated with GE dicamba. As it stands, the pesticide industry is attempting to change the composition of ASPB to include individuals with stronger ties to larger agrichemical corporations, at the expense of other, smaller industries.

Meanwhile, the new EPA under President Biden has acknowledged that politics has tainted many of the recent decisions by the agency, and specifically pointed to dicamba as a problematic incident. The acting administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention wrote in a staff-wide email earlier this month, “In 2018, OCSPP senior leadership directed career staff to: (1) rely on a limited data set of plant effects endpoints; (2) discount specific studies (some with more robust data) used in assessing potential risks and benefits; and (3) discount scientific information on negative impacts. This interference contributed to a court’s vacating registrations based on these and other deficiencies, which in turn impacted growers’ ability to use this product.”

With EPA indicating that it will follow the science on dicamba, it is critical that states committed to safeguarding their farming industry not backtrack on critical protections. Stay tuned to Beyond Pesticides Daily News blog and Action of the Week for ways you can engage when/if the ASPB public comment period opens. And for more information on the dangers of GE cropping systems, see Beyond Pesticides Genetic Engineering webpage.

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

Source: Arkansas Democrat Gazette

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2021) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through April 5. This precedes the upcoming public hearing on April 20 and 22—concerning how organic food is produced. Also, by April 5, sign up to speak (3 minutes) at the virtual NOSB hearing. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov.

As always, there are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Spring 2021 issues page.

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

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

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

Tell the NOSB to keep organic strong and keep antibiotics out of organic.

As always, the NOSB is considering many issues that affect the integrity of organic products. Other important issues are the use of ion exchange technology in processing organic food and the use of so-called “biodegradable biobased mulch film.”

Biodegradable Biobased Mulch Film (BBMF) was approved by the NOSB for use in organic production in October 2012, and the listing was finalized September 30, 2014 as “Biodegradable biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2. Must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived from excluded methods.” The definition required that BBMF meet specific requirements for compostability, biodegradation, and biobased content. Subsequently, the Organic Material Research Institute (OMRI) found that there are no products meeting all of the requirements set by the board. The NOSB is now considering a proposal to change the definition to allow BBMF that is not 100% biobased. BBMF is not removed from the field by the grower, but is tilled into the soil. The tillage process purposefully creates microplastics, with the intention that the action of soil organisms will degrade these small particles. However, as reported in OMRI’s 2016 Supplemental Technical Review, many growers report that fragments persist in the soil. OMRI reports research showing that the BBMFs do not completely degrade and may degrade more slowly when tilled under the surface, that they contain components that may be hazardous, and particles may adsorb persistent toxins. Microplastics may be incorporated into plant and animal tissues. Organic mulches have always been a central aspect of organic production, and reliance on synthetic mulches for functions that can be performed by organic mulch is not compatible with organic production. The NOSB should not redefine BBMF in a way that encourages microplastic contamination of the soil.

Ion exchange is a reaction in which an element from the treated substance is removed and replaced by a different element. Although the most familiar example of ion exchange is water softening, in which the “hard” minerals calcium and magnesium are replaced with sodium, the technology is widely used in food processing. Food processors run liquids, such as sugar cane juice, through a column of plastic beads charged with a substance that replaces an undesirable substance in the liquid with a different chemical. Ion exchange produces a chemical change in the food, which can subsequently only be regarded as synthetic under organic rules—and, therefore, be limited to less than 5% in food labeled “organic.” Products treated with ion exchange must be treated as synthetic substances. Resins and recharge chemicals must be on the product label.

Submit Comments Now.

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

Thank you for keeping organic strong!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2021) As reported by VTDigger, Vermont’s Endangered Species Committee recently took action to uphold the state’s endangered species law. The committee announced that a mosquito control program in the Champlain Valley, which uses the toxic pesticides malathion and permethrin, is threatening five species of endangered bats — all of which are on Vermont’s list of threatened and endangered species. The committee voted unanimously to recommend to the state Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources that the spraying program in the Brandon, Leicester, Salisbury, Goshen, Pittsford Insect Control District be allowed only via special permit. Learn about safer mosquito management and insect-borne diseases at Beyond Pesticides website pages.

The bats inhabit the Insect Control District’s five towns, which are host to important feeding habitat for these creatures, as well as maternal roosting colonies where baby bats are born and raised during the months when the pesticides are typically sprayed. In addition, the nighttime spraying of these compounds along 190 miles of road in these communities hangs in the air for hours, putting nocturnally active bats — who fly through the toxic mist or consume insects contaminated with the chemicals — at risk.

Mason Overstreet of Vermont Law School’s Environmental Advocacy Clinic asserts that the mosquito spraying violates the state’s Protection of Endangered Species Act, saying: “The Act prohibits activities that create a ‘risk of injury’ to wildlife. It also allows for a permitting process for economically important activities to continue — albeit with modifications to mitigate the risk to endangered species. The legal conclusion is that the district must apply for this ‘incidental take permit’ to continue spraying in order to minimize risk to wildlife.”

The committee benefitted from a report it received from a coalition of environmental organizations, including the Center for Biological Diversity and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). The report from experts concludes that the insect control district’s spraying of these chemical pesticides is extremely likely to result in exposures and injury to these vulnerable bat species. NWF Northeast Regional Center’s Zach Cockrum commented, to VTDigger, “The committee’s vote is not only an important step in upholding Vermont’s endangered species law. These pesticides are used throughout the country, often with the side effect of harming bats and other wildlife we cherish. Vermont could set a national example of strong leadership in wildlife protection.”

Pushback against the report and the committee’s recommendation has come from the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife, whose staff biologists and lawyers maintain that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the pesticides harm the bats. But one town has already taken action to opt itself out of the mosquito spraying this season: Salisbury voted at its recent Town Meeting to defund the BLSG Insect Control District.

The action by Vermont’s Endangered Species Committee is an encouraging example of proactive, state-level initiative to protect threatened floral and faunal species, and critical habitats (within its jurisdiction) beyond the dictates of the 1973 federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), which is carried out through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The FWS is responsible for listing specific threatened and endangered species across the entire nation, and for monitoring protection and species status over time.

To achieve the restoration and preservation goals of the ESA, FWS works with a huge variety of entities: states, private landowners, tribal entities, non-governmental organizations, and other federal agencies. The Endangered Species page of the FWS website asserts: “The ESA provides a broad and flexible framework to facilitate conservation with a variety of stakeholders. We have many tools to help our agency work with, leverage, and expand our existing network of conservation partnerships to produce effective conservation practices and conservation strategies on-the-ground.”

Elsewhere on the FWS site is this: “The Services recognize that, in the exercise of their general governmental powers, States possess broad trustee and police powers over fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within their borders. Unless preempted by Federal authority, States possess primary authority and responsibility for protection and management of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.”

As “on the ground” entities empowered by FWS, states have historically played a critical role as primary stewards of animals, plants, and habitats within their borders. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has noted that the “role of the states in endangered species protection was recognized from the outset, as the ESA authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with states that established ‘adequate and active’ programs of protection.”

State laws to protect species, and the agencies tasked with enacting them, vary from state to state — from simple prohibitions against “takings” of, or trafficking in, endangered species, to comprehensive regulations that involve listing species of concern, and actively managing and protecting such populations and their important habitats. An (outdated) chart from Michigan State University’s Animal Legal and Historical Center shows the variety of state agencies tasked with enforcing state endangered species laws nearly two decades ago. (A search for an analogous and updated version was unsuccessful.)

The role of the state, in many jurisdictions, has traditionally skewed toward protection and regulation of game animals, but increasingly, states are expanding focus to engage in more “non-game” management. Nearly all states have gone beyond specific federal ESA protections to list and protect rare, endangered, native, or other special categories of organisms, as well as habitats crucial to a species’ survival. “Listing” an organism is the first step and primary tool in state protective regulations; states can list species not included in the federal ESA listings, pursuant to the 1970 decision in Nettleton v. Diamond. In that case, a New York State Court of Appeals found that “because scientific uncertainty sometimes exists as to whether an animal should be classified at the federal level as threatened or endangered, states can step in and list species that the federal government decides not to list. Further, the court in Nettleton stated that this state authority applied not only to species indigenous to the state, but to nonindigenous species, as well.”

States have often lacked the legal and programmatic ability to carry out comprehensive protection programs, but advocates endorse such efforts. As CBD points out, “States not only can increase their ability to manage threatened and endangered species as an extra safety net but, more important, can fulfill their trust responsibility for all wildlife species in a way that supplements and complements irreplaceable federal protections.”

The federal government — through its Constitutional authorities — retains primary responsibility for and authority over the protection of national natural resources. Concurrently, states act as the primary “on the ground” enactors of federal protections. In this Vermont instance, the state’s authority is “layered” over the federal — via the authority of FWS to “delegate” functions to states, and via judicial actions permitting states to “enhance” federal pesticide regulations, for example. (See Mortier decision, below.) Ultimately, federal law is “supreme” and can supersede laws of “lower” levels of government.

That supremacy derives from a fundamental feature of the U.S. Constitution — the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2). The Congressional Research Service explains: The “Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is ‘the supreme Law of the Land” notwithstanding any state law to the contrary. This language is the foundation for the doctrine of federal preemption, according to which federal law supersedes conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court has identified two general ways in which federal law can preempt state law. First, federal law can expressly preempt state law when a federal statute or regulation contains explicit preemptive language. Second, federal law can impliedly preempt state law when Congress’s preemptive intent is implicit in the relevant federal law’s structure and purpose.”

The Supremacy Clause is the basis of federal ability to override, or pre-empt, state laws and regulations. The supremacy principle is also enacted at the state level, providing states the ability to quash attempts by counties or municipalities to establish local ordinances that may contravene state law or attempt to “overstep” local authority. In the pesticide universe, localities’ efforts to enact stronger protections against pesticides are frequently struck down by courts that cite pre-emption of state over local laws as the basis for the decision. Many states forbid local pesticide laws by state statute; the Mortier decision (see below) confirmed the authority to do so.

Often, such local regulations are challenged in court by the chemical industry and/or pesticide applicators, or by a state itself (often influenced by industry interests). A recent example from Oregon is illustrative. Read more about pre-emption in Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet, State Preemption Law: the Battle for Local Control of Democracy.

Nevertheless, there are bases for “lower” governments to be able to act protectively. The Vermont Endangered Species Committee’s action to protect these bat species is an example of two kinds of recognized authority of states: to protect its resident species, and to enact pesticide regulations that go beyond those of the federal government. Federal pesticide rules are derived, primarily by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court case, Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, established the rights of states and localities to enact laws that are stricter than those established by federal agencies under FIFRA.

Beyond Pesticides is not aware of significant instances of FWS exercising its preemptive authority over states that enact local protections of species and habitat. There is, however, considerable grousing and controversy, particularly in Western states, over impacts of the ESA on ranching, logging, tourism and recreation, and extractive and petrochemical activities, among others. Some consider federal enforcement of the ESA to be overreach and harmful to regional interests, and argue for an enhanced role for states.

Others believe that leaving too much to the states would be detrimental to the goals of the ESA. In 2018, for example, The Conversation wrote, “We concluded that relevant laws in most states are much weaker and less comprehensive than the federal Endangered Species Act. We also found that, in general, states contribute only a small fraction of total resources currently spent to implement the law. In sum, many states currently are poorly equipped to assume the diverse responsibilities that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . handle[s] today. In our view, therefore, devolving federal authority over endangered species management to the states will almost certainly weaken protections for those species and undermine conservation and recovery efforts.”

The Center for Biological Diversity has argued that states are “unready and ill equipped” to meet the task of recovering the nation’s endangered species and habitats. CBD conducted an evaluation of every state’s legal and regulatory authority to protect endangered plants, wildlife, and habitats. It compared state laws to the key criteria that have made the ESA successful, and found that “not a single state has a law in place that is as protective for imperiled wildlife and plants as the federal Endangered Species Act. More troublingly, only three states currently provide a reasonably high level of funding to ensure the conservation and recovery of these species. As a result, transferring management to states would put hundreds of threatened and endangered species at far greater risk of extinction.”

The last federal administration caused untold damage to the environment and its inhabitants. There is hope that the damage of that period will now be undone, and protections for endangered and threatened species and habits restored, but the public must remain vigilant to ensure this. Beyond Pesticides will do its part by covering impacts of pesticides on wildlife and ecosystems, and advocating for the reduction and elimination of the use of toxic pesticide compounds that threaten vulnerable plant and animal species and habitats.

Sources: https://vtdigger.org/press_release/vermont-endangered-species-committee-votes-to-protect-endangered-bats/  and https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/StateEndangeredSpeciesActs.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: University of Florida, Plant Disease

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Pulmonary Fibrosis News, Scientific Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to FDA Commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minneapolis Star Tribune

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Beyond Pesticides Wood Preservatives webpage. 

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

Source: EPA Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to EPA Administrator and Members of Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your urgent consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. Glyphosate is patented as an antibiotic by agrochemical company Bayer/Monsanto as exposure hinders enzymatic pathways in many bacteria and parasites, serving as an antimicrobial. However, studies find glyphosate exposure disrupts the microbial composition in both soil and animals—including humans—discerningly eliminating beneficial bacteria while preserving unhealthy microbes. For instance, glyphosate kills bacterial species beneficial to humans and incorporated in probiotics, such as Lactobacillus, Bifidobacteria, and Enterococcal species, yet allows harmful bacteria E.coli, Clostridium perfringens and botulinum (progressively present autistic patients), and Salmonella to persist, leading to resistance. Similarly, glyphosate-exposed soils contain a greater abundance of genes associated with antibiotic resistance, as well as a higher number of inter-species transferable genetic material. Therefore, the use of antibiotics like glyphosate allows residues of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria on agricultural lands to move through the environment, contaminate waterways, and ultimately reach consumers in food. Both human gut and contaminated waterways can promote antibiotic resistance, triggering longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, the need for more expensive or hazardous medications, and the inability to treat life-threatening illnesses.

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

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

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

Beyond Pesticides challenges the registration of chemicals like glyphosate in court due to their impacts on soil, air, water, and our health. While legal battles press on, the agricultural system should eliminate the use of toxic synthetic herbicides to avoid the myriad of problems they cause, especially regarding the re-release of soil-bound chemicals. Considering glyphosate levels in the human body reduce by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and resulting adverse health effects.

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

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

Source: Chemical & Engineering News, Environmental Science and Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: MassPIRG, NOFA-MA